Free Nationwide Wireless Internet Access? 350
LiquidEdge writes "ISP-Planet is reporting that startup M2Z wants to offer 95% of America free wireless Internet access using the 20Mhz frequency allocation. They're backed by Kleiner Perkins, one of the most successful VC firms in history, and being started by the guy who built the @Home network and a former FCC Wireless Bureau Chief. 384/128 speeds will be free and they'll sell the higher speeds and the government will get a kickback of the revenue."
Not if the Cell Companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it enough time, and the POTS system (as well as all those expensive cell towers) would go away permenently. The result would be a network with communications that are as free as instant messaging from your computer. Certainly an attractive world for the consumer, but can we really expect to get there without interference? Not to mention that this would mean the end to phones subsidized by cell phone connectivity. Net phones would sell for what they're actually worth as opposed to being "free" or "discounted" with service.
Not that this isn't without its advantages. I don't know about anyone else, but my cell phone never truly feels like it's "mine". Its linkage with my phone carrier makes it feel more like a device I've rented. Especially when carriers like Verizon go out of their way to disable features like the USB connectivity on the Razrs. Sure, in theory you can pop in a new SIM card. But because of network differences and technology changes, it usually ends up being easier to get a new phone and throw your old one in a landfill. What a waste.
Re:Not if the Cell Companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just the cells (Score:5, Insightful)
This *is* just another greedy cell company (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a trick. Get an axe!
No sir. If anything, just open the entire UHF spectrum for municipal wireless internet access. We don't need to assign control to a single entity (e.g. - two or three companies would be able to compete for both free and pay-for service). Yes, you'd still have to regulate it a bit since the spectrum is too valuable to be clouded up by the general public but single-source is just too dangerous. We've already learned that most anyone will take a few dollars in exchange for their corruption (e.g. - the "free" service has high-latency that prevents VoIP and other value added services).
No different than normal (Score:5, Insightful)
That's called "lobbying".
Not enough bandwidth (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps TFA means a 20MHz wide band at some vastly higher frequency. In that case I guess things are possible. Still, all those free users will very soon choke the channel and if you're paying nothing you can't exactly demand any performance level.
Re:How do we make money? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not enough bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, they reason they're offering the government money is not as a 'kick-back', but to actually pay for the allocation, since they aren't offering any money to purchase it up-front.
Re:Not if the Cell Companies... (Score:1, Insightful)
So how is this network going to be implemented? Where are all the WAP antennae going to be located? On top of phone poles? In people's houses/apartments? On separately built towers? Or rent tower space just like cell companies do? This also brings up the issue of transmitter power...you have to be able to hit the WAPs. Using today's 802.11 technology, the WAPs can't be far away or you'll need a UHF amp. (The article is slashdotted BTW).
And POTS going away? As someone who lives in a hurricane prone area, many times POTS (and amateur radio
Re:Not if the Cell Companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we have a VOIP cell phone that has secure communications, then the government has no way of listening in on calls ( with or without a warrant). If we have some kind of onion-based routing of calls, the government is no longer able to do its social network mapping (who called who, how often, and how long) that it purportedly uses to detect terrorist cells.
So, while it's a great idea, it's unlikely to happen. The future is looking more and more dystopian, at least in this country.
And it'll fall apart... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they'll do it for bit-torrent, they'll do it for VoIP.
Eventually a flat-rate thing is going to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm torn... (Score:2, Insightful)
384k is barely usable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or 95% of the web sites (Score:5, Insightful)
One with the filter they want to implement. If this becomes ubiquitous then anyone who pays for another ISP may be assumed to be doing so for 'porn' purposes. So you might want to keep your non-NBRS ISP connection to yourself.
Also this is a big-brother wet-dream! Especially if people start using it for unencrypted voip traffic. No need to bug people's houses. Just get anywhere within x-miles of the target and you can read everything they send out. And it will be easy to find them using a triangulation of multiple towers in the area. At least in heavily populated area's; it might be alittle more difficult to triangulate someone's position using the single tower in BFE, Kansas.
Anyway, in the past I would have considered someone crazy if they really thought these things were an issue. Unfortunately recent history is making me more and more concerned.
Re:Or 95% of the web sites (Score:3, Insightful)
Please feel free to try and examine the traffic flows from my SSH-tunneled connection to a box at home with a wired broadband connection.
Sincerely,
glindsey
Remember free dial-up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kleiner Perkins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your opinion might change.
Re:On the other hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Its an appealing business model though, because it matches the price of the spectrum against the revenue that can be earned from it rather than the crazy bids for 3G mobile which IMHO was partly to blame for the tech crash in 2001.
Re:Not if the Cell Companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Cingular and AT&T have used GSM here since 2002. T-Mobile also entered this market in 2002. Phones from 2002 still work, but I upgrade regularly. That doesn't stop people from using old phones. If people have no interest in using GPRS/EDGE based services, they don't need to upgrade. But GPRS-based services still work on phones that are 4 years old. Assuming they haven't been abused and the battery still works, GSM phones from five years ago should still work.
However, with upgrades allowed every 2 years, why not get a new phone?
No. I have a $20/mo text, data, and picture plan (1500/unlimited/200), mainly for the unlimited data. I never use 411. Of the 3 other lines, two of them never use more than 20 text messages a month. I download my own ringtones and games via BT/USB.
No. Coverage is decent enough. If I need to, I can roam all I want on T-Mobile here and Cellular One where needed. I haven't been on a carrier other than Cingular since they combined AT&T and Cingular's networks at the beginning of this year.
I haven't been outside of GSM service since 2004. That was for about 15 minutes in rural North Carolina. I could sign up for T-Mobile (prepaid or regular) and use my current phone right now.
Doesn't sound realisitc. Such a change in the carriers' business model wouldn't be acceptable to them. That's barely practical with wired interweb connections right now (Skype & the IM services doesn't count; they're way too closed). There are some SIP providers that provide calls on their own "network"/numbering plan, and offer PSTN connectivity and are relatively open, but many are unreliable (and, since they're not P2P at all, are funded only via PSTN connectivity charges or donations). Most other VoIP players provide wholesale connectivity or service designed to emulate regular phone company service.
An open, secure, as P2P as possible system would be ideal.
Re:Not just the cells (Score:4, Insightful)
If they really want to sell this they'd just have to promote the angle that a government controlled network would allow the government to much more easily spy and monitor that network... then knobbiest be damned because legal power is worth more then bribes at that point.
Blocking "Indecent Content"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoted from http://www.m2znetworks.com/pdf/Application.pdf/ [m2znetworks.com]
I'm not too sure if i'm okay with giving this agency the power to decide what is "indecent" or not. China's government has assumed that 'right' and look at what they consider "indecent". While this is America, the pandering tone of this application makes me think that the currently Bush stacked F'nCC will jump all over that "indecent Content" bit and have a field day with it...
technical complexities (Score:2, Insightful)
for starters, the 802.11 standards do not have a large number of channel models for open-space deployment. each nw access point will be shared by a number of people - so for example, if 54 MBps has to be shared by each laptop @ 512 Kbps, you can theoritically have only 108 people. In a real world scenario, due to contentions and access clashes- this number usually drops down to ~50 people. Assuming a ratio of active users to total users as 1:10, each nw point would support 500 users. So essentially, you'd need to put a access point for every 500 individuals. That is a LOT of access points jam-packed together.
i'm not sure if the access points can even run at their maximum supported speeds at such high densities (there will be a lot of co-channel interference from nearby access points). effectively, the available bandwidth per person will jack down to nothing.
this is not a new phenomenon also - a lot of people have reported this problem in tech-conventions where there are such a large number of access points that nothing works. even google is reportedly having trouble setting up a WiFi cover at mountainview!
to sum up - it looks like a good idea; but it requires a lot of work from the technological perspective. * lon3st4r *