Slashdot Mirror
Google Reveals Wireless Vision — Open Networks
Anti-Globalism writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"Google's vision of tomorrow's wireless network is in stark contrast to how wireless operators do business today, setting the two sides on a possible collision course. Earlier this week, the search giant filed a patent application with the US Patent Office describing its vision of an open wireless network where smartphones aren't tied to any single cell phone network. In Google's open wireless world, phones and other wireless devices would search for the strongest, fastest connection at the most competitive price. Essentially, wireless operators' networks would be reduced to 'dumb pipes.'"
The full patent application is available as well. Google founder Larry Page recently asked the FCC to free up portions of the broadcast spectrum for this purpose.
And the first thing they do after connecting, is of course, load up Google! I'm sure none of this surprises anyone.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
did they set up an organization or something ? already buying out lawmakers ? where do i donate ?
im serious. there is no other way that people's will can be legislated, in current u.s. legal system. you have to BUY the laws.
so tell me where do we donate. dont say EFF, im already donating there.
Read radical news here
I sincerely hope this isn't all that's in the patent. I wrote about this model for wireless network access about a year ago, and when I was researching the article I came across people with the same idea ten years earlier, who cited even earlier people.
The big step needed to make it happen is to prevent network operators from offering services. When the state licenses them the bandwidth, it should be on the understanding that they only operate the network, nothing else. Otherwise you get serious problems with competition. It is much cheaper for me to make a phone call than a VoIP call from my mobile phone, even though it's cheaper for the operator to route the VoIP call, because it's in their interests to charge more for bandwidth that can be used for competing services. If the network only provided bandwidth, as my ISP does, then it would be in their interests to allow as many services as possible to flourish, so they could charge me more for usage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Essentially, wireless operators' networks would be reduced to 'dumb tubes.'
There, fixed that for you.
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
There seem to be some set of natural situations where monopolies essentially must exist due to physical constraints: frequency bands, roads, cable/electric, etc. But it seems to be that a logical principle is that whenever one of these monopolies must be assigned, this is one case where government intervention is warranted -- ensuring that services are decoupled/debundled to the maximum extent reasonable.
For example, roads are a monopoly assigned by local governments to be built by various contractors, but it'd be crazy to imagine that only buildings built by said contractors would be allowed to lie along that road.
I'm usually very against government intervention/regulation, but when these natural monopoly situations occur, that seems to be the point for some reasonable involvement.
--
Learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
The FCC has been the culprit in resisting the growth of communications in the U.S. Because they are so slow to react to what consumers demand, we're sitting around STILL using bandwidth for antiquated technologies such as broadcast television and radio.
For over a decade, research into software-based radios has continued at an amazing pace. Frequency hopping, which allows the software radios to discover the best frequency to utilize at a given moment, allows the transmission tower and transceiving device to negotiate noise, power needs and transmission speeds almost real time.
I find it crazy that people think we still need to designate frequencies for everything. One-way transmissions (radio, TV) use a ton of space that is seeing demand drop, significantly.
Can you imagine the amount of bandwidth that would be available if the FCC would just step back and let the consumer-producer market find the most efficient solution for wireless data needs? I believe we have a decent amount of proof that unlicensed bandwidth works well: WiFi, cordless phones, and a myriad of other technologies that work well together, but haven't had the chance to be pushed to the limit due to the limited amount of unlicensed bandwidth.
Google is right in wanting there to be a relatively open source process for utilizing available frequencies. I foresee an amazing leap in connectivity, a huge drop is pricing, and a roll out of services across the country that would leapfrog the U.S. to the head of the game again. If only the FCC would step back from their role of monopoly-regulator and possibly only be the organization that lays down the law against individuals or companies who are corrupting the open bandwidth with frequency noise or other clutter. As an anarcho-capitalist, I of course abhor the idea of the FCC doing anything, but I would accept them if they just monitored for those introducing chaos into the unlicensed spectrum if it was opened to an even larger set of frequencies.
Video broadcasts, audio broadcasts, two way communications and more could all share this open spectrum beautifully, with less power usage and more speed available based on the needs of each device at any given moment.
communications networks, like other societal infrastructure, are natural monopolies. that's the way in which they function the most efficiently.
i know a lot of people seem to think that competition and consumer choice are the end and the ultimate for everything from breakfast cereal to health care. but that's just not true for things like wireless networks. if you take the same amount of resources as multiple competing (redundant) networks and put them all into a single network infrastructure, you would have better connectivity, network performance, and probably network capacity as well.
so the best model would probably be to set up municipal wi-fi networks using the white space spectrum and simply have the telecoms provide a routing service. it would still allow cellphone users to have handsets not tied to any particular carrier, but rather the handset would connect to the local wi-fi access point and then select from the fastest VoIP service (like Skype) for each call.
i appreciate Google's proposal, which actually offers a compromise between municipal wi-fi and the current subscription model, but i just don't see the telecoms giving up their tight grip on wireless communication. they would lose their lucrative data plans which charge extortionate rates for basic internet access. if the telecoms were smart, they would work with google on realizing a these commercial open wireless networks, otherwise when the public/consumers finally get fed up with their abuse of tax-subsidized infrastructure, they'll simply adopt municipal wi-fi and create a public wireless infrastructure to replace closed telephone networks.
If someone sends an internet to my cellphone I'm going to duck.
Why is this patentable? People in Europe routinely use cell phones with multiple connectivity options. There are WiFi/3G phones and dual SIM card phones. You can use wireless carriers, callbacks, long distance dial-in, or VoIP over WiFi or 3G. And phones have some logic to pick cheaper combinations. If you really push it, you can manage to get two SIM cards and WiFi into the same phone.
Google is officially my preferred evil overlord.
factor 966971: 966971
For those who don't know, Carterfone(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone) was an extremely important 1968 FCC decision that obsoleted the phone company model of requiring you to lease a device from them to connect to their networks. The passing of this decision is what gives landline users to this day the freedom to connect whatever device they want to their landline.
Skype petitioned the FCC in 2007 arguing (rightfully so) that the FCC should make the Carterfone rules apply to wireless networks. The FCC chairman Kevin Martin (a member of the business-friendly/consumer-un-friendly Bush Administration) turned it down last year, with a very weak argument basically saying, "Such a move would be premature". Obviously, that translates to, "The wireless companies would like to protect their business model and we don't want to piss them off".
We can fully expect the wireless companies to fight tooth-and-nail against any promotion of truly open networks by companies like Google.
I agree. Communication technology becoming common to every day living. It's about time we turn it into something that governments service like the sewers, plumbing, and roads
I disagree. Unlike roads, wireless communications networks are not physically mutually exclusive: multiple networks can operate in the same physical space. Unlike phone and sewage lines, it's easy to redistribute capacity among individual consumers: an individual doesn't have just one line that must be operated by one company.
Wireless communications are perfect for competition, because all an operator needs to do is rent some frequencies, set up a tower, and make sure it can negotiate with phones and route traffic to the rest of the phone network.
There are two problems: fraud and privacy. Fraud might be solvable, and I sure as hell don't trust AT&T or Verizon privacy-wise, so how could things get worse on that front?
Google Reveals Wireless Vision
Wow, did anyone else read the title to mean Google had developed a way to make human eyeballs wireless?
Damn, I need more coffee.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Regulation doesn't have to mean monopoly. Right now, small providers get squeezed out because everybody wants a cheap cell contract that works everywhere. The more spectrum you control in more places, the better and cheaper service you can provide, thus supporting your brand and gaining more national market share.
If local wireless coverage is only a simple service sold as a commodity, with no consumer-visible branding, then (hopefully) the economic value of the spectrum will depend on how efficiently the service provider can use it. The highest bidder for spectrum will tend to be the most efficient service provider, whether it's AT&T or Mom and Pop.
Of course, QoS will have to be part of the deal negotiated by your phone on your behalf, to prevent a race to the bottom in terms of quality.
This patent **application** was filed on March 19, 2007; it was just **published** on the 25th. At the present rate, it will be evaluated by USPTO in late 2009 or 2010.