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.
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.
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.
The range is ridiculous or requires big antennas,...
Range? Do you really think there's no cell tower at less than 100m from you? In San Francisco? Let me doubt it. Never mind these pesky new protocols (WiMax, for example, even if it's a braindead specification) who allow you to connect from kilometres away. On the antenna subject, a bigger antenna doesn't equal better reception.
Transmitters that, as we all know, cover every WiFi signal in... ten meters around, since they are usually inside houses?
It's a completely different product.
Which explains why 3G works on top of IPv6. Yeah, it must be a completely different product: it provides the same service, uses the same technology. The only difference is the frequency range: 3G works on the 5GHz band (which requires almost line of sight to work, so there goes your complaint about range).
Next time, please document yourself beforehand. It doesn't matter your being moderated Insightful when your post if actually off base.
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.
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
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
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.
They really are two fundementally different technologies. WiFi isn't really designed for roaming, and it sure isn't much good at any distance for non-line-of-sight without raising power levels far beyond what anyone is allowed to do. Since WiFi actually wants to deliver a meaningful amount of bandwidth, that's just the way it is. Cellular networks, on the other hand, don't have the bandwidth issues, since voice communications and text messaging are hardly in the same league with surfing the Internet for pr0n at 1280x1024 in 32 bit color. Dvorak just pulls this stuff out of his ass. He doesn't give a shit whether it represents reality, has any evidence, or even is conceivable.
The fact is that cell and WiFi aren't mutually exclusive, and in large urban centers where one can expect good coverage, phones will doubtless be able to access IP networks directly, whereas where there isn't coverage, or where a guy is just making a phone call, the cellular network will do just fine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!!
Do you really think there's no cell tower at less than 100m from you?
The nearest cell tower is approximately 2 miles from here. No, I'm not in San Francisco. Inner city WiFi networks currently have more problems with too many access points competing for the scarce bandwidth. It's an unlicensed band...
I can keep my connections at the Faculty I work at
My experience with WiFi handovers in completely controlled networks differs. Not only does the computer not detect loss of signal fast enough, the renegotiations regularly kill open TCP connections. Nothing that couldn't be fixed, of course, but right now it's unusable for mobile applications. Even if you fix the handovers within one controlled network, you still need handovers at administrative boundaries. The problem is amplified by the short range.
(2Mbps for stationary systems, wow!) you get with 3G
I'll take working 2Mbps where I am instead of spotty 20Mbps where I am not. Like I said, different product.
it provides the same service, uses the same technology.
No, 3G provides medium range service and operates on licensed (read: exclusive) bands. The network is homogenous and enables seamless handovers in the whole covered area. WiFi is a local service on an unlicensed band with heavy interference. Coverage requires many more APs, so it will only be available in densely populated areas and that's where WiFi also faces most of the competition for the bandwidth. There are only 3 non-overlapping channels, all of which can also be used for private networks which interfere with municipal WiFi service. They're both digital and they're both networking technologies. That doesn't mean they're not in completely different markets.
Is there a difference?
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?
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?
There are a couple of companies that make WiFi roam quite well.
Amongst others...
RoamAD (http://roamad.com/) is a good example of a commercial company with rollouts that make WiFi roaming work.
Cohda Wireless (http://www.cohdawireless.com/) is a startup that also has a roaming solution, as well as some novel solutions to the non-line-of-sight problem that you mention. Actually, increasing the power doesn't fix the non-line-of-sight performance. The multipath increases with the power, so by boosting the power, you are also boosting the multipath components. The problem is solvable with some clever receiver algorithms which are still 100% wifi compatible.
A number of handset manufacturers are making handsets which switch between gsm/3g and a local wifi hotspot. Say you want to download a bunch of data (emails, work documents, etc). You head to the nearest hotspot and the handset switches to wifi via the internet (still maintaining the connection). You grab the data you want and then keep driving. This, as well as voip via wifi, will definitely take the cream out of the cellular profits.
Why, should it?
Nobody else has this sig.
On roaming experience, YMMV, of course. But I know it can work, since I'm taking advantage of it daily. You talk about handovers at the administrative limits, but forget that those handovers have been sorted time and time again (see standard cellular handovers between different commercial providers). Why shouldn't they now? And consider, also, that such handovers are less important when you get a city council to wire(?) a whole city. About range, please read again what I said about the 3G band range.
You'll take working service instead of spotty one. Good. But don't assume that, because current WiFi access is spotty, it will always be so. If I can get good WiFi access here in Spain for free, so can you in the US.
3G coverage, seamless? Methinks not, out of big cities at least. And yes, the 5GHz band allows for unlicenced use, so it's not exclusive (I'm starting to wonder if you really read my post): I can't fathom how 802.11a would be allowed otherwise.
I admit the current state of 2.4GHz WiFi leaves much to be desired, but in the US you already have 8002.11a, which works in the same band as 3G does, is already implemented and has less interference problems. And I still can't see how, suffering the same technical limitations, you can still say they are different products. Is IPv6 over 3G different from IPv6 over 802.11a WiFi? I just don't see it.
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.
"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?
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
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
Who says it has to be better, or even as good? Some people may be willing to get a lower quality service for a cheaper price, especially if the Wifi phone is a lot cheaper than the cell phone. There is also the possibility of a hybrid phone that uses Wifi when available, and falls back to cellular otherwise. This could allow the user to have a cheaper cellular plan as they wouldn't need the cellular network as much.
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
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 it just me, or is Dvorak like the Ric Romero of Slashdot, or something,... ?
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
"Next time, please document yourself beforehand. It doesn't matter your being moderated Insightful when your post if actually off base"
Wow, quite a comment for a post with multiple technical errors.
"3G works on top of IPv6"
Wrong.
WCDMA networks (such as Cingular's) don't even use IP for data routing within the network.
CMDA network (such as Verizon & Sprint) use Mobile IP for packet data routing but not for voice. It is not IPv6.
"it provides the same service, uses the same technology"
Wrong.
The radio access technologies are completely different.
3G networks have defined core network architectures, WiFi does not even specify this.
"3G works in the 5GHz band"
Wrong.
In US, 3G services operate in 850 and 1900 MHz bands.
In Europe, 2100 MHz is used.
If you had bothered to read thru the wikipedia article you linked to, you would have seen the above frequency bands listed.
WiFi is NOT a threat to cellular carriers as there can be no guarantee of service quality when using the shared ISM band as you cannot control who will also be broadcasting in that spectrum and therefore who will be interfering with you.
Your comment about "I can keep my connection" may work for your Outlook client using session-less https.
However, try setting up a VOIP call (or even an ftp session) and see if this handoff is seamless (it won't be).
The reason is you must completely fall off of the current WiFi access point before trying to find another.
With a cell network, the mobile constantly monitors neighboring cells in the network and move to a better cell when it sees one is available.
This does not happen with current WiFi gear (a,b,g,n).
Are the WiFi standards moving towards solving some of these handover issues? Yes.
However, if and when WiFi Access points support this, they will become more dependant on network configuration and mgmt.
This will add cost and actually make them more like the cellular networks they are trying to replace.
As another poster mentioned, WiFi access points may end up augmenting the current 3G cellular networks (this is actually in the 3gpp Rel6 specs) but will not replace them.
What is a threat (or at least a potential threat) to cellular carriers is traditional circuit-switched services (such as voice) moving to packet based networks.
Currently, cell carriers have no way to recover lost revenue if voice calls move to application level VOIP-type services such as skype.
To combat this, cell carriers are working to introduce the IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) which use SIP-based protocols to setup all call services.
This way the carriers can migrate to a packet based network while still being able to charge for individual services.
This is no different from what the traditional fixed-line voice providers are going thru now that cable/DSL providers can offer packet based VOIP services.
However, the above has little to do with what air-interface technology is used (be it WiFi, 3G, WiMAX, or anything else).
Will the switch to SIP-based packet services by the cell carriers benefit the consumer?
Hard to tell.
In the short term, probably not, as it will likely still be cheaper to use services such as skype.
However, as these new services get fully rolled out, competition between cell carriers (and potentially others such as fixed-line or cable carriers) will eventually drive the prices similar to what is offered by skype-like services.
The advantage will be that now a standardized technology (SIP) will be used instead of many proprietary ones (such as skype) which should, according to slashdot philosophy at least, lead to better interoperability and a wider range and lower cost of supported products.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I was, wrongly. Read 5Mhz, misunderstood 5Ghz.
Is it different from IPv6 over Avian Carriers...
Apples, oranges. Both 3G and 802.11a/b/g are wireless technologies (even if on different bands). Please make the effort to explain again the difference between the IP service available on WiFi and the IP service available on 3G. Is it on the physical level coding? Perhaps you want to factor in Bluetooth while you're at it.
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.
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!
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.