Slashdot Mirror
The Assassination of Wi-Fi
justelite writes "John C. Dvorak from PC Magazine has up an article looking at the new strategy of American cell-phone-service companies. From article: 'There is mounting evidence that the cellular service companies are going to do whatever they can to kill Wi-Fi. After all, it is a huge long-term threat to them. We've seen that the route to success in America today is via public gullibility and general ignorance. And these cell-phone-service companies are no dummies.'"
I got "Nothing to see here. Move along".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"From article: 'There is mounting evidence that the cellular service companies are going to do whatever they can to kill Wi-Fi. After all, it is a huge long-term threat to them"
Poor security will kill Wi-Fi.
... how the purveyors of bottled water would like to see kitchen sinks banned.
If pretty much anyone else said this, I might take it seriously, however, it's coming from John C. Dvorak.
The range is ridiculous or requires big antennas, there is no handover mechanism that keeps connections, not even with hiccups, the total alotted bandwidth is a joke and in a band which is used by many other applications, including TV transmitters which use the whole available band. It's a completely different product.
By definition, PEOPLE alect muicipal governments. If they want wifi they can ask for it. If they're too dumb to ask for it, they're too dumb to deserve it. Same goes for sewers and drinkable water.
This is not a signature.
Various Telco Industry Association of America + *IAA.
= WiFi leads to copyright infringement and supports terrorism....
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Well, since research showed that 92% of Americans are religious, that confirms the gullibility part of the article, but Cellcos are not against Wifi. WiFi is a short range, spotty coverage service - Cellcos provide full coverage long range service. WiFi is no threat to them.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
wifi is teh good.
Do you mean gay pride, or the Pride fighting championship?
They might actually kill WiFi provided they can get their prices down to $49 worth of hardware and the cost of a land line, supply at least 2 computers and more bandwidth, enough for video, or at least as much as WiFi.
So when I can use 3 computers for $29/mo I am game... but forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting. Oh, and skip the roaming and by the minute charges. And can I share videos with the neighbors for free...without being monitored?
...Like GM killing the municipal trolley systems of the 50s. The idea that business can provide a "more efficient" delivery of some product is often total and complete BS.
I'm not convinced that the big, evil cell phone companys are really trying to kill WiFi. Nor do I think they will. But if the author does, where are the examples. Where is the smoking gun that some cell phone company or other has petitioned a municipality to kill the free WiFi in the community? An add that only shows that Sprint is trying to sell their product?
In all honesty, I think the author is having a slow news day and doesn't have anything else to whine (sorry, write) about. But then, I've not been a fan of his work for quite a while, and whining grates on my nerves.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Interesting....as soon as Rogers telecommunications here in toronto learned that the city announced they would be offering free wifi internet for a year and then paid.... Rogers retorted and announced their own wi-fi service... as if they had to pull it out of their ass
Ford wants Chevy to stop making trucks
I have this really funny quote that I like to put here. Unfortunately, there's this really annoying thing called a char
We've seen that the route to success in America today is via public gullibility and general ignorance.
How do we mark the summary as a troll?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but come on.
When you say "if they're too dumb to ask for it, they're too dumb to deserve it. Same goes for sewers and drinkable water" I have very mixed feelings.
h tml
Most western Europeans didn't ask for sewers and drinkable water; they had them foisted upon them at tax payer expense in the mid 19th century. That is certainly true of the first modern large scale sewer system which was built in London. "The transcript traces more than 250 years of human misery, due largely to ignorance of the hazards of poor sanitation. Citizens, physicians, politicians, inventors and police provided vivid horror stories of 'miasmas, plagues and sudden death" in the homes of London.'" http://swopnet.com/engr/londonsewers/londontext1.
Ignorance is deadly but curable. Ignorance about the importance of sewers and drinkable water may seem inconceivable to many of us, but such ignorance in rampant around the world.
When I watch documentaries about poor ghettos in latin America, inevitably there are toddlers playing in open cesspools and teenagers standing around unemployed, uneducated, and idle. I see that and wonder why the teenagers aren't put to work digging sewers or at least keeping toddlers out of them. For the price of the cigarettes the teenagers smoke, children could be fed and sewers built and clean water supplies maintained. I always think to myself that people who prioritize cigarettes over sewers get what they deserve just like people generally get the government they deserve.
But then I am more charitable and assume that people live in horrid conditions because of ignorance. Ignorance causes poverty and death.
There was a documentary (I think on 20/20) about hunger in the U.S.A. A father was being interviewed and he explained that toward the end of the month, there is no bread left and the children have to go hungry for days. During the interview, the father was standing in front of his satellite dish and smoking. For the price of one pack of cigarettes, the children could have eaten basic stables like bread, potatoes, and canned vegetables for several days. For the price of the satellite dish and its likely monthly subscription, the children could have been clothed and fed.
I couldn't help thinking that the father's priorities were a little skewed and sad.
they're late to the party. cat's out of the bag.
The same major investors in WiFi companies are the same major investors in Telcos are the same major investors in a majority portion of the stock market.
The only thing which is happening here is the creation of an illusion in order to exploit the American consumer's inability to keep up with the markets as well as the major investors.
In short: We're being milked.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
From the summary: "And these cell-phone-service companies are no dummies."
However, George Vaccaro proves otherwise.
Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
Is the public so stupid that if given the choice between that service and free municipal Wi-Fi, they'd want the slower expensive service over the free faster service?
no, the public isn't considering this service.. it's business users and they are willing to pay for QOS. What happens when they travel outside of san fran?
This editorial in Forbes entitled "Wireless Shootout: Suits vs. Cowboys" points out that cellular carriers and next-generation WiFi technology may be replaying the past competition between mainframes ("suits") and PCs ("cowboys"). The cellular carriers are inherently limited in their ability to adapt to modern wireless requirements because they operate under three fundamental constraints: a build-out mentality, vertical integration, and complicated pricing. The author points out that this same mindset ultimately caused mainframe suppliers to lose their dominance to the more nimble PCs in mainstream computing, and predicts that for the same reasons, more adaptable next-generation wireless technology such as WiMAX and ZigBee will ultimately prevail over cellular infrastructure in the future.
Nooface
In Search of the Post-PC Interface
Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung all have Wifi/GSM phones rolled out. Cellular operators (Tmobile, BT, Orange) have nothing but *benefit* by providing phones which use Wifi.
This article (which I didn't read based on the author) is *probably* uninformed.
Wi-Fi may be much faster but my Verizon BroadbandAccess Kyocera pcmcia cell card is more reliable. I can usually get a connection anywhere my regular cell phone can. Granted, it isn't much good for downloading the latest episode of my favorite tv show, but it really shines when I need to access a website at work that is blocked by our stupid websense proxy. Or I can take my laptop and sit in my car at lunch at surf the internet without having someone look over my shoulder. The real plus is for people that travel all day for work to different job sites and need reliable access. You can't always get a Wi-Fi connection and even if certain cities install it like they do here in Tempe, Arizona, it is only good within the city limits.
Muni WiFi sucks, and the reasons are many. Nonetheless, free calls are the direct enemy of the mobiles/cell companies.
The reason Muni WiFi sucks is that it's haphazardly implemented with the weakest of security, and no session management (802.11n/x) to cross boundaries. But the native 'possibly-free-if-slow' portion means that native VoIP can work well. Uh oh, easy to understand why fixed, not-very-mobile free calls has them worried.
But 3G and '4G' also uniformly suck-- yet have a decent build out, no lost sessions crossing cell boundaries, have an even implementation, and aren't very fast, although the cell companies want to sell you video on your cell phones-- a hilarious sort of thing at best.
Like him or not, he's dead-on.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I'm sorry, but this article says nothing more than it's title.
There are no:
1) Facts
2) Specific instances of any wireless company activity
3) Conspiracy theories about how they might be going about this...
While it may be true that widespread wi-fi may threaten a part of the cell phone provider business model, the article makes no mention of any company doing anything about it (save the introduction of a couple data access cards).
The article also does not address the common-sense fact that Wi-Fi (as it currently exists) can't replace the type of coverage that the cell phone company can give you.
It seems that Dvorak's editors have even lower standards than those of Slashdot!!
Is there a difference?
I didn't read the article, what with Dvorak being the author and all; but I found the timing interesting from a personal perspective. Our small little town (Puget Sound area, so small but not isolated) just in the last two weeks sent out a questionnaire to area residents, basically asking 1) do we want public wi-fi, and 2) if so, what needs would we want it to fill (e.g. in our homes, in the city core, etc.). I'm wondering if this is just our local government waking up, or if there's some behind-the-scenes money pushing this.
Being up here, the first thing I usually think is "Microsoft may be up to something" - so in the comments I tried to explain why any proprietary, single-platform solution would be bad. There was nothing in the questionnaire that indicated anything of that sort; but when government is involved I have pretty low expectations. It would only take one MSCE to get the ear of a naive but ambitious city councilman who wanted to appear smart, to really screw something like this up.
#DeleteChrome
When I'm in a coffee shop, do I trust that the coffee shop login is really the coffee shop login?
If I do trust it's legit, do I trust the people running it to not make critical mistakes that could compromise my data?
If the answer is "no" or "I don't know" then I may be looking for alternatives.
If I pay a company whose business it is to do telecommunications, I'm more likely to trust them to get it right. If they screw up the PR could be a nightmare. If the coffee shop screws up, well, they can just go back to making coffee and survive as a business.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The commonly-available "LINKSYS" Wi-Fi service won't be going away any time soon.
Go here
http://www.fon.com/en/
get a damn wifi router, stick it on your cable/dsl (they give them away sometimes, too, but a few $ is worth it), now, you can get wifi from everyone else who is sharing their 'net.
I can walk a few blocks in most cities and get online. Help us (and yourself) out, m'kay?
The latest Slashdot meme.
...same as when they killed CB radio. My response then is the same now - 300 watts of cold steel Palomar SSB amplifier.
So, "There is mounting evidence that the cellular service companies are going to do whatever they can to kill Wi-Fi." What evidence, where? No mention of any such evidence in the article, just some business analysis.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Judging by his name... I'd say Gay Pride.
The article's title is the "Killing of WiFi" and there not one word about how the telco's are going to do it. Jam the 2.4 GHz ISM band? Sue cities that offer free WiFi? Get the Congress to ban free WiFi?
Or maybe they realize it's not about what you look like but what you can do.
Go some where else with your petulant teenage ranting. Or do your self some
good and go learn something. Or just stand there and try to look pretty untill
some one gives you money. No body here gives a fsck what you think anyways.
Money is the root of all evil?
hey, dorkvorak has raised his ugly head again, or at least some half-wit fucktard around here did it for him.
slashdot is showing how lightweight it really is.
I got in to help a community wifi setup before the corrupt local officials took the bribes from the companies to "outlaw" commuity wifi. So we are grandfathered. but I also help support illegal and subversive community wifi setups. all it takes is a few friends with Tv towers and setting up an accesspoint is easy. beaming wifi to a local park you can see also works really well with a dish.
Until the cellular companies give me 10megabit per second for free everywhere I will continue to subvert their corruption and help the feedom fighters of WiFi do our evil deeds of giving away free internet wifi access.
God I am incredibly evil!
Why, should it?
Nobody else has this sig.
I've often wondered why Slashdot "editors" allow / write these types headline when the article clearly doesn't support them. I believe it's because it them higher pagerank in a general Google search, and often front page exposure at Google News for random unsupported crap like this. The result is higher page views which of course is more money for The Core Slashdot Team.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Ummm... well sure in theory 802.11a and g can do 54 Mbps, practically you're doing very well if you get 15 Mbps on them.
And most of the current "free" Wifi options, e.g. Google's offering in Mountain View, are capped at 1 Mbps (some of this is a kowtow to the local telephone companies). So edge cards can compete with the "free" offerings, at least to date. Also, coverage of the edge cards is substantially better if you are moving.
Are cell phone companies powerful?
Yes, of course
Do other companies, with political pull, have an interest in more global wifi access?
Yes, of course...
Will more global wifi access be free?
Not likely, but it probably will be available. Cell phone networks surely can profit from this and they already do. Isn't it lucrative to offer a cellular connection to the internet and then provide wifi from that location (shouldn't this be obvious to John)? I do believe that AT&T offered to provide me with overpriced wi-fi access the last time I walked into Barnes and Noble. I'm failing to find anything relevant in the entire article.
Just because he's French (heauxmeaux), doesn't mean he's gay.
*rolls eyes*
The opposite of progress is congress
"Dvorak reputation factor" aside:
What is it about Wi-Fi that forces hot-spots to be free? If cellular outfits can 'protect' access to their towers with SIM cards, why couldn't Wi-Fi hot spots do the same?
And if hot-spots can be 'protected', why couldn't they impose charges?
And if hot-spots can be charged for, why do they HAVE to be free : muncipality-funded or not?
And given the technological potential, why couldn't such an arrangement be *far* less expensive (even if not costing zero) than today's conventional cellular services?
Or pants either!
That's the main reason you don't see wifi in many phones these days - providers are worried that customers will use VOIP instead of their long distance service.
What we need is laws to protect private users who share their bandwidth and standards in APs to make it easy for them to do so and to create a standard way for people to connect. An open wirless AP in every home and business should just be expected. Let the users create the network themselves if you really want what is best for the consumer. Of course businesses will cry foul over their lost chance to squeeze every penny out of the consumer and government will cry foul because it'd make it much harder to control and spy on the consumer.
Eventually it will happen though. There are just to many benefits to the consumer and to few downsides for it not to eventually. Someone just needs to release a killer app for the system and people will flock to it. Consumers don't understand technical reasons something will be ebtter but if they lust for a product that users it then they'll demand it.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Read the subject.
Yet another sensationalist headline. Nobody's trying to kill the wifi connection you have in your home, or the one you get at the coffee shop. Dvorak thinks that he's on to something that telcos are trying to prevent municipal governments (or Google, since TFA does mention San Francisco) from setting up free WiFi. This has been covered before.
4 years ago, my professor for personal mobile communications class said wi-fi and cellular complements each other. It was his first year at school after 5-6 years of experience in one of the biggest cellular (hardware) companies. Later, he corrected himself by saying both sides are trying to kill each-other: cellular is trying to provide higher data rates (and hence WCDMA etc.) and wi-fi is trying to incorporate mobility and hand-off which are essential for voice communications (and hence WiMAX, IEEE 802.20 etc.). I believe at some point both will merge if the IP rights issues could be solved.
Competition is always good for both end user and for engineers (and engineers to be like myself).
Well, there is the possibility that if enough altruists and idealists open up their own WAP's, then there would be literally nothing that anybody could do about it. The local telcos and governments and companies could battle all they want, but there'd be no point if smart people at least in larger cities formed their own ad-hoc networks. Who wouldn't use free ad-hoc networks? Just about anything you want to do is encryptable these days, anyway.
I don't respond to AC's.
Unlicensed WiMax isn't a competitor, because there can be no guarantees for range or bandwidth, which is the same problem WiFi has (the spectrum is openly shared, you must accept interference from other unlicensed users).
Licensed WiMax is likely to be end up being owned by existing cell providers (they recognize not only the threat, but the opportunity).
Only licensed WiMax which is owned by "outside" entities is a threat to existing cellular providers, and that's going to have a relatively small footprint.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Not supprising given the boat-loads of cash, cocaine and prostitutes that George Walker Bush and the Republicans are funneling to ATT and all other communications providers in the run-up to 2008.
Bush-baby would say that it's just the Re-Christification of the United States of America, which since the Salem Trials is long over due.
Toodles
Verizon itself would rather you pay $50/month for their internet access (even if its their old 1x network) then allow you to use WiFi on your cell phone. I believe there is only two phones (Both MS based; shocking) that allow WiFi use on them.
I am not sure about any other providers tho. I know myself wont pay $50 a month for data access when my college campus and most of the city has free hotspots. Also a reason why I am switching to a Treo 700 WINDOWS based phone even tho I love palm, becuase of the WiFi.
Bryan
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Agree with you. Doesn't the future iPhone tout doing just this? It would mean that Cingular (ATT) is going to go this way too.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
That he's a completely self-involved disdainful jackass.
"A good portion of the public with cell phones that can access the Net cannot grasp the concept in their brain, since going on the Net usually means sitting at a keyboard, looking at a big screen, and typing stuff."
Perhaps his brain simply cannot grasp that most people couldn't care less about being net-accessible 24/7--for ANY purpose.
You make an interesting technical argument, but there are a few details I think you missed. The 2.4 GHz and the 5.6 GHz bands are license free ISM bands. They allow ANY device to operate, within reason, provided the device conforms to certain power radiation limits and stays within the ISM band limits. There are many different kinds of RF devices operating in ISM bands including (but not limited to) diathermy machines, induction heaters, cordless telephones, and microwave ovens.
There is a physical chemistry reason why certain frequencies were designated for the ISM bands; they happen to be frequencies that are not as useful as other (similar) frequencies for communication purposes because those frequencies represent electrical resonances in commonly occurring atmospheric gas molecules. These resonances cause excessive path loss in what would otherwise be usable free space paths. Water is one molecule that causes excessive path loss, but only at certain frequencies. The fact some of the ISM bands coincide with water molecule resonances is not an accident. Ever wonder why your microwave oven operates at 2.4 GHz in the ISM band and not some other frequency? The radio frequency energy absorbed by all those water molecules has to go somewhere....and the conversion of RF energy into molecular vibration (heat) is a good candidate for the cause of the excessive path loss at 2.4 GHz compared to path losses at 2.3 GHz or 2.5GHz.
The cellular companies all operate on licensed frequencies for which they have paid "Big Bucks" to the Federal Government and they need to make a return on their "Investment" for their shareholders. BTW, the fees the cellular companies pay to the FCC have been used by Congress to balance the Federal budget. There is a long story here that I won't go into now about spectrum use, but suffice it to say, the creation of the Cellular telephone" bands was not the first time, nor the last time, that Congress has "auctioned" off parts of the RF spectrum to the highest bidder, spectrum previously used for other purposes.
The cellular phone companies routinely disable features built into the hardware and software in many of the newer cell phones because they hope to force their customers into paying exorbitant prices for "enabling" those features, even if these are features that actually have almost no inherent cost. SMS is one example. SMS stands for "Short Message Service" and is actually the use of a very small portion of the bit rate available to cell phone users. SMS bits are like "space available" seats on airliners, they are used to fill otherwise partly empty data packets, so SMS should cost users almost nothing, but SMS users pay a higher price for SMS bits than they do for voice data bits when they talk.
I think the reason for this is consumer ignorance. Kids frequently "texting" each other have no idea how SMS works, nor do they know how much bandwidth they are NOT using when they send SMS messages to each other. SMS does not even have guaranteed delivery, unlike some other wireless messaging protocols. But don't forget that a corporation is legally obligated to make as much money as possible for its stockholders.
The infrastructure cost of an ad hoc 802.11x mesh network is "unfair competition" as far as the cellular operators are concerned because 802.11x access point costs only a few hundred dollars each. Site rent for them is also low because they usually are located on top of streetlight poles. But the cellular phone operators must pay rent for their sites on the order of $1500 each per month, on top of hardware investments in the many thousands of dollars. This "overhead" cost for the cellular operators must come from somewhere, or they will go out of business.
An analog gray hair frantically clinging to the trailing edge of technology.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Setting aside that speculation is presented as fact, I would consider for the moment the viability of the comment.
Will cellular companies directly compete with wifi. I assume, one means, by wifi, the 802.11 standard. Otherwise, some may consider the data over cell coverage as wifi.
First, I would be surprised if they ever defeated any private wifi scheme. Getting rid of private wifi would have to be equivalent to getting right of direct to home services, which both AT&T and Verizon offer. Otherwise, if the companies meant to ruin wifi via fcc regulation, this could be potentially problematic, for it would have to overthrow any long standing notion to intentionally radiate emissions via fcc approved equipment at low signal power, which would be extremely problematic.
But I expect the article refers to municipally regulated companies which provide internet access through 802.11 standard. Since this requires a little bit more power, the system's existence relies a little more on the fcc's allowance. But as the fcc recently prefers to deregulate, but despite deregulation encourage competition, I'd be surprised if the fcc regulated because a company wanted them too. The fcc is much more likely to deregulate per corporate request.
Mostly however companies tend towards synergy, I think. Like the iPhone, which can use the cingular's Edge, but if 802.11 is available, either unprotected or with the client aware of a key. With the telecos providing more and more packaged services, I wouldn't be surprised if they just started up public wifi services, offering included 802.11 access with their cell phone data packages and/or domestic broadband services.
Telephone company's aren't stupid, and they will do as much as they can to make more money. Which seems to border bundled packages. Well I take that back, they may be stupid enough. But given lobbying the fcc presents such a large marginal cost compared to marginal return initially, where a more cooperative model at this point presents better marginal returns. Long story short, its just easier not to lobby the fcc anytime soon. And I doubt anywhere in the near future.
Embed an 802.11g router into a cell phone. Sure, the consumers won't buy the service, but they'd keep the cell phones!
your hatred of Dvorak is greater than your hatred of cell phone companies + your love of municipal wifi.
Trench work is demanding and dangerous even for the pro.
Excavation cave-ins are a major source of fatalities within the construction industry. Trenching accidents on U.S. construction sites account for an estimated 100 fatalities per year, with at least 11 times as many workers injured. The fatalities account for nearly 1% of all work related deaths in the United States. Trench Safety
I would like to see those cell phone companies try to pry my wifi router out of my hands. I'll drop a nuclear bomb on their head before something like that every happens.
However, I'm not sure how anyone could "kill Wi-Fi." What qualifies as "killing" it? You're not going to get hardware companies to stop manufacturing it, and that's more or less all you need for it to be perpetuated. Dvorak (unsurprisingly) doesn't address this either.
This whole article was completely idiotic.
+++ATH0
I think the quantity compared here should be "Percentage Bandwidth" rather than simple "bandwidth". At 800 MHz, modulation of plus or minus 10 MHz (meaning you are using the space from 790 MHz to 810 MHz) represents a larger percentage bandwidth than the same plus or minus 10 MHz centered at 1900 MHz (meaning you are using the space from 1890 MHz to 1910 MHz). If you compare the two, the 800 MHz center frequency with plus or minus 10 MHz for modulation means you are occupying more than twice the percentage bandwidth as you would with a 1900 MHz center frequency and the same plus or minus 10 MHz for modulation.
An analog gray hair frantically clinging to the trailing edge of technology.
Only problem is that the water resonance is something like 20 GHz. I've an industrial scale (1 MW) microwave oven running in the 900 MHz ISM band and I read about someone cooking hamburgers with a cavity tuned to 144 MHz.
Is that the event where they try to attack eachother's "no-no spots", or flip eachother on their backs?
It's. so. hard. to. tell. teh. difference..!!!
Is it just me, or is Dvorak like the Ric Romero of Slashdot, or something,... ?
Starting with the sewer system; electrolyze the moisture from all waste, to recycle the hydrogen and oxygen for further purpose.
Then after, to perfect the localised process, is to:
(1) Isolate the non-biodegradable materials, in favor of organic soaps and safe chemicals,
(2) Prevent medicated people from contributing their filtered blood (urine) to the water table,
(3) Advocate good diet, to improve fecal matter to a grade possible for reuse as fertilizer after a localised process,
(4) Returning policing character to the subjects, so they can immediatly contact their armiger for any said conflict of interest determinations in policing their property; and to be an armed Court, to dispel all impersonation and hold appointments and assignments proper,
(5) Advocate that the self-sufficieny of tending to one's own food is not economic, it is necessary; to extend liquidity that no catastrophe should extend beyond ones estate and domicile, and the capability to move charities elsewhere doesn't entertain or bias for the speculation and profit over the mis-deeds or misfortune of a neighbor for them to enter into a debt for the subsistency of them and their posterity.
(6) Remove the presumption of commerce on all use of the public roads, that the people can move about in their good cause in the original purpose of the roads to encourange commerce while expecting the unhindered movement of the good people in all time.
(7) I conditionally agree to pose admiralty distress (raise and waive hands in air) and consent to your Search (albeit at gunpoint) on condition that I search You FIRST! (prove you are an officer, with a verified complaint or verified statement of right or controlling interest,
(8) If there is no injured party, there is no crime.
Oh wait, this is a republic and the standing army is forcing an essential democracy and an essential morality on a free and conquerred people. My mistake. Let the irregularities continue...
Kill it in the home, they need to kill it municapally. Once there is wifi Everywhere for free people will all start using wifi phones. No more cell phones no more crazy expensive cell phone service.
:(
QED.
Considering the sorry state of VOIP and wifi-VOIP phones I don't think they have much to worry about though
You already said it. You are Anonymous Coward, aren't you? You sure do talk to yourself alot. Speaking of which, anyone out there got a pussy? I want to try an experiment. This side of my personality...has a dick. Can I insert it into myself? That's why I ask. Who knows, that I might have a pussy on my shoulder or somthing. Anyone willing to come forward on this? I might wake up another process, and re-afirm that I have a pussy available. It's great being me.
Sincerily, Anonymous Coward.
When they kill wifi, I know what I'll be doing.
In Spain telcos use an easier and cheaper way to kill wifi.
They have just spread wifi all over. Thousands of wifi routers are plugged everywhere, nearly every DSL or cable connection has one even if it isn't needed.
Wifi routers they provide are nearly allways poorly configured and allways on the same channels, so when you try to connect even to yours the signal noise is so high you can barely use your own network. You can imagine how difficult is to get a decent link on street.
You can get tenths of wifi networks on every corner, every street, and many of them open. Really usable? only a bunch, on neighbourhoods where DSL don't have much penetration (if you ever manage to find one).
Here we currently have more than 100% penetration of celular lines (i mean, more lines than people). Most telcos have interest both on celular and broadband bussiness, and obviously they aren't in the mood of lose any of them.
n/t
Markets generally make them available in far greater numbers, better variety and quality than you could do so yourself.
That's odd - I've seen only a reduction in quality, yet the same exact price. I doubt I'm alone on that one.
Government is often the worst solution, can you prove that this is not the case for Wi-Fi?
When large corporations use it to take power and wield it against those who exist in physical form(and not by virtue of law), you're right. The only practical difference between government and the corporations in question is by name.
Then you would have no real problem letting them succeed/fail on their own before trying to buy up politicians that would kill it? There are some things that business will not do that would be of great benefit if allowed to exist on its own without business interference.
Somehow a paraphrased quote comes to mind as being the scariest words to hear in the English language, given the above:
"We're from the business community. We're here to help."
How true that has been, given that about everything from product quality, worker morale, job security, and true innovation (opposed to M/A, offshoring, and the general deification of businesses) has gone down as influence has ramped up. I believe you would do well to talk to those in the Midwest US(who are still reeling from 2000 and 2003), those who worked for sellouts Arcelor, Rover and Peugeot, and those in the manufacturing region of our Most Favored Nation before thinking that they're helping. All you'll see is a bunch of morally bankrupt bunch of individuals who thought business would help them, but received greater harm from their interference.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I'm a Brit and I visted Canada recently. GSM roaming voice calls on their "Rogers" network cost me exactly one pound a minute (let's say a couple of dollars.) Calls to same numbers via Skype Out on my PDA cost 0.02 Euro/min. Guess which one I used most.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
is this a joke or something? lets see if this gets modd'd insightful
Kill your TV
change is inevitable. this type of article was around sometimes 2002, so many restructuring has gone by in most mobile companies, but wifi has remained.
I haven't see a free AP at an airport. Typically they force you to subscribe to Boingo for a 'Full day's access for $7.95' which excuse me, is a fucking joke.
There are significant chunks of "good" spectrum available for research: you need to have an Amateur radio license of at least "General" class to do it. ("General", the still existing but no longer issued "Advanced", and "Extra" class license holders are allowed to do these things.)
The rules are freely available at the FCC's web site as well as the ARRL's site.
("Disclaimer" I hold an Extra class US amateur radio license)
For those that missed the joke, it's pronounced 'homo'.
For those that haven't: I salute you!
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I have no doubt they would.
Dvorak's comments on user intellgence are highly debatable, but his technical point is that WiFi is delivering now, for free, faster speeds than cell is, for $60-$70/month, is completely accurate.
Why woudn't they try to spread FUD, lean on cities not to implement citywide WiFi, and anything else they can, to kill this business threat?
Fizz
Dvorak was not addressing the issue of whether you have wifi in your home or office. This article was about the campaign by cell phone companies to get municipal wifi systems outlawed using whatever lies and threats that are necessary. That isn't speculation, it is just reporting and he is adding his own analysis of motives and harsh realities.
not mentioned in the article:
If Cellphone Cos get a hold of the Wi-Fi spectrum for their own use, invariably they'll
have to change the moniker to Ci-Fi.
I can see at least one cable TV channel opposing that, and the hordes of angry geeks
likely to back them.
Who'd want that kind of aggro?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I don't like the broken clock analogy. If an analog clock is broken so that it spins super-fast then it is right thousands of times a day. If it is broken so that it spins just slower than normal it is right a couple of times a week. Broken digital clocks can be correct never, or once a day, or many other possibilities. Then you have the whole am/pm indicator issue. It makes me cringe every time I read it.
I think Dvorak is broken like a talking digital alarm clock that announces random times, you can't shut off and it keeps blabbing irritating repetitive "information" that you're better off without. This type of clock is correct once in a while, but you probably aren't paying attention anymore. Once a clock says "*BEEP* It's Five Seventy-Eleven AM" I stop listening and put it under a pillow in a closet and go back to sleep.
Man, you really need that seminar!
From the link above:
"Hours after New Orleans officials announced Tuesday that they would deploy a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters, city officials said yesterday."
From another article: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/200 6-03-28-new-orleans-wifi_x.htm
"BellSouth has opposed proposed legislation that would allow New Orleans to keep its Wi-Fi network running. The carrier, which provides phone service in Louisiana, stands to lose phone and wireless customers if other cities follow New Orleans' lead."
Seems like at least one carrier doesn't like free Wifi.
The air and water are public resources. Privatization of them is not a good thing, if you can't accept that stop reading and please shoot yourself now.
Sewers must use common pipes for many reasons, water as well. This requires a "neutral" area of land for interconnections. Nearly all roads are a public resource (well, the land is.) Typically, the pipes run on the land the roads also do. Depending on the wisdom & corruption of your local government determines how well it is managed.
Using the SAME LOGIC we regulate radio waves. Its a public resource and its quite limited. The FCC is doing a poor job managing OUR air waves. Cell phone companies are wasting good bandwidth with this so called "wonderful" competition. It would be better to force them to share a wide band, which would necessitate some sort of industry standard. Its not necessary to mandate specifics, but if competent at it, I see no reason why not to do so as well.
Its under this direction of management that it begins to make sense to have local governments setup more; depending on how much accessibility you want.
Given how bad cell phones and ISPs are today, I can't see how a somewhat corrupt government can't beat them.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Dvorak: Czech word for "grain of salt".
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Just ran across the WiMaxx wikipedia page. Looks like there are a few key ideas here.
1) 802.16 (WiMax) is not 802.11 (wifi).
5) Not only would WiMax provide better service than EDGE or other cellular data networks, it would provide better wireless internet access, for both public and private implementations2) 802.16 standard allows for operation in both regulated and unregated bands
3) Spring holds licenses for one of these bands.
4) WiMax is considered a better protocal for metropolitan wireless internet due to its AP scheduling method for weaker signals.
This information in hand, I wouldn't be so agressive to say wifi will be assasinated. But it will probably be replaced by a more robust protocol, which would benefit the telecos as much as the private consumer.