IBM, AT&T and Intel Plan National Wireless ISP 160
dailywireless writes "Cometa Networks (formerly The Rainbow Project), a joint venture by IBM, Intel and AT&T, plans to merge Wi-Fi and cellular networks. 'Cometa's vision and plan for this is to offer a single sign-on, single authentication, seamless-roaming nationwide network,' said Michael Mass, vice president of marketing for the Communications Sector at IBM. 802 Plant reports 'AT&T will provide the network infrastructure and management, IBM the wireless installation and back-office system, and Intel the Banias processor.
The company plans to have ubiquitous coverage - no further away than 5 minutes walk in an urban area or 5 minutes drive in a rural area - by 2004. which will require the deployment of more than 20,000 hotspot access sites across the U.S.' What fate awaits "free" networks like NYC Wireless, Seattle Wireless or Portland's PersonalTelco?
Will AT&T use CoMeta's blanket coverage, with 20,000 "hotspots", to crush the "free" rebellion like a bug?"
you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you know... (Score:2)
The key thing is not the number of vendors, but how single sign on systems and user repositories interoperate so that trust credentials are passed between system to enable single sign on between different vendors products.
The key initiative behind this is SAML [oasis-open.org] the Security Assertion Markup Language. All the main vendors of SSO (RSA, IBM, Netegrity) are supporting this standard.
The major vendors had a bake off recently to test interoperability which I undersand went very well, with all 12 product successfully passing credentials between each other. I couldn't find much about it, other than a list of the participating vendors which can be seen here [oasis-open.org].
Re:you know... (Score:1)
fantasyland (Score:1)
Seriously though, its high time someone developed a peer to peer wireless solution that would be totally open, so all you need to to is buy, or build, a device to talk on it, and you funky computer scientists can come up with some dank routing algorithm, and some company can give out a million of them for free across the country to populate the country with nearby peers for everyone, then sell them, and boy oh boy we'd be all set.
Fears (Score:5, Funny)
re: Fears (Score:1)
Re:Fears (Score:2)
I like the though of wild propagation of wireless. The potential for increased mutaton rate alone is worth it, I hope I get good mutant powers like superhealing or flying or something and not a sucky one like a super long tongue and green skin. Mutation is such a crap shoot... =)
Re:Fears (Score:2)
first of all.. let me just say that NO.. i am NOT wearing a tin foil hat.. However...
what are the conciquences of having all these waves being beamed and bounced around the world? Radar.. Radio.. TV.. Microwaves.. Cell Phones.. Wireless Internet.. and God knows what the military is REALLY using up in alaska [fas.org].. ect.. ect.. ect..
what are the long long term effects to the earth? the us? dose any one know?
Re:Fears (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fears (Score:2)
With respect to the tinfoil hat, read up on:
- the inverse square law (i.e. they're REAL weak except right near the transmitter - why don't cell phones run the antenna out the BOTTOM of the handset?) and
- the skin effect (high frequency stuff doesn't penetrate well into things that conduct {like skin}, due to canceling currents induced near the surface of the conductor).
Then consider that radio photons are individually too non-energetic to break a chemical bond - so you need to add 'em up to cause damage. That happens in three ways:
- Structures that are conductive (relative to their environment) and somewhere close to half the wavelength.
- Really strong fields (so the resistive heating adds up)
- Really REALLY strong fields (so the electric field from the coherent individual photons adds up to more than the ionization potential of the bond to be broken.
what are the long long term effects to the earth?
Probably about zilch. Strong audio-frequency voltages in the earth might make earthquakes happen a little earlier than without. Maybe a slight effect on weather if really strong microwaves drive the ionosphere non-linear (and cause all sorts of OTHER havoc to communication). A few insects have log-periodic structures that MIGHT be antennas, leading to speculation that they might directly sense extreme microwaves or near infrared as radio signals - so these bugs might get confused. Just about any other effect amounts to a microscopic increase in thermal pollution in whatever structure absorbs the signal.
There is no "rebellion" (Score:2, Insightful)
enough to offer this same level of service as
the "free rebellion" is far too disorganized
to ever pull it off. The small community networks
will exsist, but a national network would suffer
at the hands of the dishonest, and greedy.
Perhaps if you have 20000 people as crazy as RMS,
yeah, it might work.
Now leave the drugs alone and face reality.
Re:There is no "rebellion" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is no "rebellion" (Score:1)
+5, Funny!
Re:There is no "rebellion" (Score:1)
Linux is a very organized free-software movement that's gotten rather ubiquitous. The small, free networks have a chance- but they will have to work together, and I'm not seeing that happen.
a single everything (Score:2, Insightful)
As well as a single point of break-in for the whole shebang.
free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:free (Score:1)
Of course, being in a room full of Windows users doesn't degrade your free OS performance. The real question is how other 802.11 users will be able to communicate.
Limited bandwidth. (Score:3, Interesting)
WiFi is different. There you have a limited amount of bandwidth that is availible and inevitably debates will arise over who can have it. The First Come First Served argument probably won't cut it unless you can afford the same quality legal teams as IBM, Intel, and AT&T.
Take the case of Starbucks vs. Oregon's Personal Telco reported here [slashdot.org]. In that cose both sides are using open spectrum but Starbucks is claiming some sort of "inalienable right" to own the frequency since it is the same frequency that they use in any other city. Personal Telco is a volunteer project so they can hardly afford the lawyers to fight this one off.
And, even if the established free projects don't get shut down the revolution may still be stopped. Those free projects aren't ubiquitous. If Starbucks, AT&T and the rest overload the spectrum in other areas (such as rural areas) then there will be no room for new groups to start up.
I'm not arguing that AT&T has this in mind or that they have "no right" to step in and provide this service. But, I do believe that when push comes to shove (I'm certain that it will) and lawyers get involved, then the issue will be decided on the decidedly skewed playing field of the courts, in front of the FCC and in Congress where AT&T's deep pockets will hold sway.
So.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way - offtopic - Bryant Park is an incredibly historic place and a great place to have lunch when in New York. Visit bryantpark.org [bryantpark.org] for a bit of history.
Fear and Loathing (Score:3, Insightful)
The problems with such are obvious. If this is allowed to occur, it would be one company controlling it all as it is what is most availible. Start with low rates to kill the competition, then use the almost-monopoly position to kick the price tag way up.
Wait, that sounds like M$.
Re:Fear and Loathing (Score:2)
Pros: Can compete based on features and customer service, yay capitalism
Cons: Customer service is equally poor everywhere, all of the features are the same, coverage is redundant and competition is difficult (witness failing broadband providers)
Government Regulated Monopoly
Pros: Price is fixed and rate hikes must be petitioned for and approved, coverage is universal and not overlapping, companies required by law to provide support in reasonable, predictable timeframes
Cons: No competition based on new features (technology adoption may be slow), customer service probably won't be that great (slow), boo socialism
Bottom Line
Take your pick. Honestly, with the customer service and feature set I get with my current providers (which I don't have much of a choice over anyway) I think I'm better off with a government sanctioned/regulated monopoly...a single wireless utility for the U.S. I'd much rather deal with 1 government regulated monopoly than 2 or 3 non-regulated corporate monopolies.
Re:Fear and Loathing (Score:1)
Pros: You'll be familliar with the company... maybe
Cons: Massive prices, price fixing, no need for good service as there are no alternatives, only one feature set, their way or no way, no change, about 3,000,000 other complaints
Re:Fear and Loathing (Score:2)
Re:Fear and Loathing (Score:2)
And if I own a Mac, I can also own a PC and a cellphone and not really hurt myself. They have similarities, but they are each very different in their own right.
But what they all have in common is web access. Everyone needs a provider. A provider, not 2 or 3. And it's just like the power company...you have to lay cable, or use some portion of the wireless spectrum, which gets messy if more than one company is involved. I say it's only a matter of time before the government picks somebody and starts putting some controls in place.
Battery-life? (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, the lack of possibility to "walk" between the base-stations must be a major drawback.
No way 2 companies would work together (Score:4, Insightful)
For service providers, it will mean the ability to offer wireless services to their customers without having to invest in the wireless infrastructure themselves." I don't know. I'm already unhappy with my cable provider, with no other choice available. Do I really think that they could handle this reliably? I doubt it!
Whenever you add another layer of bueracracy, you're just going to get help desks saying "It's not our fault, it's 3i's fault, and 3i saying it's Comcast's fault".
Of course, I could see both of them saying it's Microsoft's fault, please reboot.
great (Score:2, Insightful)
Where is this going to end? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is this going to end? Are cellular companies going to offer phone service using VoIP over 802.11, complete with roaming via IP roaming?
I think whenever spectrum like that used for 802.11b/a is assigned, the FCC should prohibit people from selling services based on it--users that sell services should buy their own spectrum. Otherwise, such companies will just take over what was supposed to be a public resource. It's kind of like allowing businesses to just take over parts of the public park or street. Such restrictions wouldn't mean you can't use it for business purposes: you can still buy the equipment and use it internally, and you can still give service away to your friends.
Re:Where is this going to end? (Score:1)
Of course, the assumption that the goverment automatically owns all spectrum, and can "lease" it to other people might be regarded as highly debateable in some quarters anyway.
It's unregulated. Do whatever you want. (Score:4, Informative)
If widespread 802.11 is what it takes to get reliable, IP-based wireless everywhere, then so be it. The power is in the hands of consumers now to do it themselves.. and yes, I've been to some wireless presentations where industry experts have said 802.11 based cell phones are not out of the realm of possibility,expected and planned for. The only reason they don't exist now is the manufacturers don't want to piss off the people who got hosed by the joke that is 3G.
Which just opens up an opportunity for someone else.
Re:It's unregulated. Do whatever you want. (Score:2)
I believe that same law states your device can not cause interference to other devices also. Not that a law could actually prevent interference.
I would venture to say that if this ever did catch on, the rules would be changed to protect the business that is profiting from it. The FCC did the same thing with frequecies that are currently used by pagers, cordless phones, and cell phones. Since the invention of radio wave broadcasts these allocated frequencies were open to monitoring from the public. Big companies came along and made a conscience effort to roll services using insecure unencrypted cell phones and pagers in these regions. To protect their business and promote a false sense of security the government passed laws to make it illegal to listen to these bands and added to the law several times to prevent equipment from even recieving these bands. So, after the fact the government stepped in to protect the business cash flow. What used to be open and free to recieve was taken away.
Re:It's unregulated. Do whatever you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your interference is my modulation scheme. Notice I'm not arguing the ethics of that point.
Well, the right to listen to cellular conversations wasn't taken away in my country. Of course, I can copy music legally here, too. Nor was the equipment to recieve 800mhz made illegal. It is illegal to tell people about what you hear though, only fair, I guess. YMMV. Fix your legal system, or elect people who listen. Or something.
802.11 is unique in that it is the first time consumers have had access to a fast, flexible, inexpensive and high bandwith wireless communications medium. That just hasn't ever happened before. I've been a ham radio operator since I was 13 - the concept of being able to walk into Staples and buy a 10mbit/s spread spectrum transciever in a PCMCIA form factor for $100 would have seemed impossible 10 years ago. No wonder people are doing crazy stuff with it.
I would venture to say that if this ever did catch on, the rules would be changed to protect the business that is profiting from it.
Normally I jump right on the conspiracy bandwagon, but not in this case. People are making a LOT of money selling 802.11 gear. Those people will protect that right - and just like the RIAA and CD players, once a "good enough" technology hits critical mass, it takes on a life of it's own. Tell Joe Sixpack that he can't watch football's greatest compound fractures on DVD anymore and he needs a new player, he'll be e^unhappy. Same thing applies to 802.11 - it's not the best technology, but it's hit, or very near to hitting critical mass.
802.11 is a potentially disruptive technology that has a lot of people in the wireless telecom industry very worried. I'm not sure they can do very much about it though - 2.4Ghz is the wild west of radio, world wide. It isn't good for much besides 802.11 like schemes because of interference and noise, or so goes the theory. It's a completely different issue than with the cellular monitoring - that got through because politicians were sick of getting caught talking to their interns over cell. hehe.
My $0.02 (cdn).
Re:It's unregulated. Do whatever you want. (Score:2)
First of all, it's not unregulated; like any form of wireless, there are already lots of regulations that affect its use. For example, you can't build a 5 MW transmitter in the 2.4GHz band.
Second, my point is that it should be regulated more because if it isn't, there will be no band left for the purposes that this band was intended for.
That is, if the 2.4GHz and 5GHz start getting used for providing wireless services, you can kiss your corporate and home wireless networking infrastructure "good-bye": companies like IBM and AT&T have deep enough pockets to deploy enough access points to make any other use of 802.11 infeasible.
We need bands for home networking, wireless LANs, local wireless phones, and other in-house services. 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands are it, and other uses of those bands will interfere with their intended use. If it becomes a free-for-all, the intended use will lose out. And that's particularly unfair because those bands really only became economically interesting to wireless service providers after demand by consumers and businesses for equipment has driven the prices down so much.
If 802.11 is a viable way of providing commercial wireless services, the right solution would be for the FCC to allocate neighboring bands to such services and have providers pay for the use of those bands. That way, they can use essentially the same equipment, and they won't be interfering with the intended uses.
better way to fight back. (Score:2)
I think whenever spectrum like that used for 802.11b/a is assigned, the FCC should prohibit people from selling services based on it--users that sell services should buy their own spectrum. Otherwise, such companies will just take over what was supposed to be a public resource.
Why not just liberate the rest of the specturm? It's all fine and dandy that someone wants to build an infrastructure and charge for it, so long as the rest of us are free to offer service as well. Why would someone pay for rainbow when they could get free service? The most disturbing thing about all this is that the prime movers are large monopoly interests that have abused their position before. Let these turkeys have 2.4 GHz and give the rest of us 5 and above.
You know, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is only half the story. The other end of the thing collects quarters from gutters, under people's couches and places like that. With economic conditions the way they are, the rainbow has taken to mugging people. I was struck by one the other day and I'm afraid it will happen again.
Re:better way to fight back. (Score:2)
Why don't we just give up on urban plannning and let everybody build where they want? Why don't we just get rid of the police or military and let everybody defend themselves? Maybe you'd like to live that way, but most societies figured out that government is better than anarchy.
Why would someone pay for rainbow when they could get free service?
If people start using 802.11b for providing commercial services in a big way, there won't be any free service anymore because the bandwidth will be used up. That's exactly the problem.
Scary Implementation (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm worried that this idea may generate standards that support the larger (though not necessarily better) Microsoft technologies than others. Not everyone wants to run Windows to interface to a wireless network. If you're running a UNIX, your operating system will likely have stronger security that the proposed technologies that some networks expect your OS to support, such as encryption keys.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea. However, it's the implementation that scares me.
Re:Scary Implementation (Score:2, Informative)
AT&T sold UNIX to Novell...
UNIX was split into three parts upon leaving Novell. The UNIX trademark was transferred to an industry consortium, the X/Open group, (now just The Open Group) for certifying UNIX implementations as standard. The source base was sold to Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) who sold SVR4 on Intel hardware alongside their traditional Xenix-like SCO-UNIX offering. Hewlett-Packard got the operating system laboratory, which became mired in internal politics when asked to design the eventual replacement for HP's UNIX, HP-UX. Eventually the remaining employees were absorbed into the broader HP Corporation.
Re:Scary Implementation (Score:2)
Sorry, but... (Score:2)
http://www.unix.org/
Almost as good as the rest of the world (Score:5, Informative)
"you know, everyone has a cell phone here, it is so nice to use those GSM phone compare to US, you can always switch to a different phone company by plug in a different smart card on the phone"
Maybe the US doesn't need a single giant wireless monopoly?
Re:Almost as good as the rest of the world (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Almost as good as the rest of the world (Score:2)
Re:Almost as good as the rest of the world (Score:2)
I've never had any trouble just getting an unactivated GSM phone from any old place and swapping in my T-mobile card, and I've given old phones to Cingular users and they've had no problems swapping their cards in.
Re:Almost as good as the rest of the world (Score:2)
Voicestream assured me both times I bought into their service (when I got my first phone last spring, and when I got my replacement this summer) that they never lock their phones. If I find out later that they lied, I'll be upset, but so far I think they told the truth.
Also, the idea that you can swap out different GSM cards per country in the EU is like saying you can swap out different cards per state - if the local telcos in the EU were not primarily government-owned monopolies, you might see the rise of EU-wide carriers, and swapping would not be needed.
Sure, it's not seamless here, but if I'm in an area Voicestream(T-mobile) doesn't have its own presence, there's generally some other GSM provider out there my phone will jump to. I have "free" national calling both from and to any location, so I only care if my phone drops into "emergency" mode because the handoff gets fumbled. I wish that my voicemail would work seamlessly across carrier boundaries (the shortcuts, etc.) but that is less of an inconvenience than a pocket full of cards that I would have to keep track of, and keep programmed with current directories.
I don't care what they do (Score:2)
There is no reason there can't be nationwide wireless availability without the oversight of corporate greed.
And besides, as far as visionary thinking goes these days, isn't "nationwide" a little small? I should think world-wide cooperation is a more worthy challenge...
coming "soon" (Score:2, Interesting)
For some reason, I feel like it'll NEVER get outside those 2 metros.
Nothing good ever does. It's always...starting in Dallas, starting in L.A. 1TB cd's coming out "sometime next year".
I'd rather wait for teleportation devices to be invented before I see something like this roll out. What's next, 3G ruins it all?
Skeptical (Score:1)
Re:Skeptical (Score:1)
You asked:
And what really, besides money (granted, a lot of it), do IBM and Intel bring to the table?
The article says:
AT&T will provide network infrastructure and management, while IBM will provide wireless site installations and back-office systems. Cometa is also working closely with Intel, and Cometa President and CEO Dr. Lawrence B. Brilliant said the company will deploy Intel's forthcoming wireless-specific processor, code-named Banias, after Intel launches the chip in the first half of 2003.
AT&T sold AT&T Wireless last year (Score:2)
Where to put the antennas (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Where to put the antennas (Score:1)
Re:Where to put the antennas (Score:1)
Waaah (Score:4, Funny)
Nonsense.
Re:Waaah (Score:1)
Re:Waaah (Score:2)
Yes, it sucks that only optical and ham radio will be left for free networks but that's the way current US law is rigged. Unless the entire specturm is freed, you are about to see an atrificial tradgedy of the commons. As changing those laws would "disrupt the economy" of a few large companies and create a real free elctronic press that can't be co-opted and influenced by the federal govenrment, expect no changes.
YOU ARE A SLAVE. RELIGION MAY NOT BE EXPRESSED IN PUBLIC PLACES. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUBLISH, BUT ARE FREE TO STAND AROUND ON STREET CORNERS WITH PAMPLETS AND BE IGNORED. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. YOU MAY BE SEARCHED AT ANYTIME WITHOUT WARRANT. ALL YOUR EMAIL IS CARNIVORED. THIS IS A "TIME OF DANGER" SO YOU MAY BE KILLED BY UNMANNED CRAFT WITHOUT WARNING FOR ASSOCIATING WITH SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND PUBLICLY SWORN OATHS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION ARE NO GARUNTEE OF RIGHTS. THE STATES HAVE NO POWER AND THE PEOPLE ARE SLAVES.
Re:Waaah (Score:2)
Yeah. It sucks when a company ambitiously sets out to provide a service that people really want, and then has the nerve to charge money for it. Heh. Damn them!!
Not nonsense (Score:2)
And they're not paying a dime for it. They're stealing YOUR spectrum and MY spectrum, and then SELLING it back to us. Think about that for one minute... and if you're *still* not outraged, clearly you haven't thought it through very well.
AT&T (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I don't like the idea of big companies providing nationwide WiFi access. In the Netherlands there are a number of local initiatives working on WiFi access in a number of cities, and I'd hate to see the hard work of these people being spoiled by big telco's or ISP's...
The question more or less is can one prevent them from doing so?
My guess is yes...
The frequencies on which Wi-Fi networking is based are free to the public, right? So anyone can use them, right? It appears to me that the frequencies used for WiFi are near those of microwaves (2.??GHz), so my guess is perhaps one could 'nuke' such a network with a slightly modified microwave...
Re:2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:2, Informative)
seriously, while I see your point about it being a shame to squash 'the little guy' - the big-bad corporate behemoths are the only ones with the muscle to pull off a network on the scale the article talks about.
Besides which I don't quite see how this network would "spoil" those small co-operative nets you're talking about, they're free right? this isn't, so people who want free access and are prepared to live with the limitations of a local scale use the litlle guys' free nets, people who want national (or better yet, international!) roaming, cough up the subscription and use the big-bad corporations' commercial net.
see, no need to incinerate yourself modifying your combination grill, so put the spanner down before you take someone's eye out
Re:2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:3, Informative)
That's the problem with an unlicensed band - you can't complain when you get interference from other users.
I just thought of another problem. The 2.4GHz band used by 802.11b overlaps a ham radio band, and the ham radio users are licensed for their band. The hams might get pissy. A legal ham radio transmitter could pretty well wipe out a significant area's wireless comms.
Ham Radio Allocations (Score:2, Informative)
All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]:
2300-2310 MHz
2390-2450 MHz
Re:2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:2)
The hams might get pissy.
And this is a change, how?
Re:2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:2.??GHz - Nuke 'em! (Score:2)
When you become a HAM Radio Operator, the first second and third rule is "do not jam". They make sure to burn the idea into your brain that you are not to intentionally disrupt other people's transmissions.
The reason that most HAMs wouldn't intentionally jam a signal like that is that the FCC will fine the living hell out of them. Not just that, but the HAM community seriously frowns on that type of behaviour.
Wait, wait wait. Hold on a sec. (Score:2, Funny)
EMF (Score:2, Funny)
Soon I'll have to put aluminum foil all around my body, and not just my head.
'Air Waves' Are Full Already (Score:2)
Funny you mention that. Recently I found out about this device called a "radio". This "radio" thing can "tune in" these neat things called "stations" - and I can actually listen to music on these so called "stations".
(Unfortunately most of them want to blast me with Britney Spears or other such nonsese and seem to be controlled by some secret organization code named "Clear Channel", but that's another story.)
Not only are there these "stations" but they also seem to be divided into "bands", something called AM and FM. They are futher split into "frequencies". It seems the air is full of these "radio waves" which I can use my "radio" to pickup pretty well anywhere. I'm told these waves belong to a big soup of 'em called a "spectrum". I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like there is a whole lot of different types of these things and they are all over the place! Imagine that! I've even heard about an even newer technology called "Broadcast Television"...
Joking aside, it's also interesting to note that anyone using an electric hair dryer is exposed to far more ELF radiation in a few minutes then they are sitting in front of a monitor all day.
Ionizing radiation is what you need to be afraid of... unless you are really close the the transmission source.
Maybe if I start saving now... (Score:2, Funny)
Personaltelco has the fun equpiment (Score:3, Interesting)
The Problem As I See It (Score:5, Interesting)
The larger issue as I see it is that here's yet another large corporation guzzling up RF spectrum and leaving nothing for anyone else.
AT&T has a penchant for loading spectrum auctions with seemingly small outfits that they support, and when one of them wins spectrum it (surprise!) ends up in the hands of AT&T.
If the FCC were truly concerned about competition in the broadband market, they'd carve off two or three UHF television channels and start printing licenses for their use by small companies wanting to be WISPs. These channels would be expressly off-limits to incumbent telcos and wireless outfits.
Picking something between 500 mHz and 1 gHz will allow the users to have a reasonable chance of overcoming losses due to foliage and weather. Existing FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum) technology can be used, and speeds well over 500 kbs are easily attainable, yet the range is upwards of 5 miles.
Of course, that'll never happen as small businesses are completely unable to swing the required $70,000 campaign donation to those legislators sitting on the FCC's appropriations committee.
Disgraceful, really.
This isn't the same AT&T (Score:2)
AT&T Wireless gets involved in spectrum auctions, but 802.11 isn't something that's auctioned off - it's non-licensed spectrum that anybody can use. (Most of the auctions have been for cellphone frequency bands.) AT&T does use some radio spectrum as well - mostly point-to-point digital radio used for infrastructure in low-density nasty-terrain places like South Utah where it doesn't pay to run fiber, and 38GHz microwave access circuits (typically T3 or OC3), which can be cheaper than local fiber loops, and are good diversity options for backing up fiber.
I agree with you that there's a major need for spectrum that isn't controlled by creativity-limiting FCC monopoly control, but I think your ideas of limiting who can use it are a mistake. Making more spectrum available to the public is a big win.
why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting a free network up and running costs too much. I just hope they don't try and punish the hobbyists for their forward thinking (cough Apple, Microsoft, IBM).
Free Nets won't die (Score:2)
the red zones (Score:5, Interesting)
Enoughs enough, we managed to get electric wires to homes all over, then we got copper telephone wires, next step is fiber optics everywhere or cable. Wireless with competing products and frequencies and etc, swell, but for true nation wide broadband (commercial that is) we just need to put hardwires every place electric lines go.
To answer in advance who should do it? That's easy, the government MANDATES that the old monopolies who made billions and billions and billions of dollars over the generations "do it", they take some of that profit and put it back.That's ATT, the baby bells and the off shoots now. The right of ways already exist, the telephone poles already exist. They either add on to what's there or replace the twisted pair, one or the other or both. I just don't want to hear they don't have the money. I remember one time I was installing modular office walls in an ATT building north metro atlanta, an entire building, a big one, that was being upgraded then sat EMPTY unused. I even asked, "why are we here, why is this company doing this, why did they build this building and do all this work to not use it?" Obvious millions of bucks being spent. I asked our ATT "tour guide" who was there to oversee us sub contractor workers. No rational answer, the ATT dude didn't know or wouldn't say. Nuts. Cable monopolies granted in city after city after city across the US, but they aren't required to deliver cable everywhere in those cities, just wherever they felt like it. Nuts. Same companies way back then claimed you woukld pay for cable and be commercial-free. Nuts.
I agree with the other poster, people need ad-hoc personal wireless and mesh networks and by pass these monopolies, by pass the government, by pass echelon and carnivore and whatever other voodoo censorship command and control nonsense is coming down the pike, by pass the commercial offerings. You can smell what's coming, an internet totally pay-per view for every byte with complex "packages" and pricing scams like what has happened with cell phones and cable TV. Maybe that would work, I don't know, but something has to be done to get broadband all over, not just core concentrated dense metro areas.
Re:the red zones (Score:2)
In fact you can often have a single high-gain antenna (see: pringles can) pointed at the non-focussed antenna on the other end and extend range by a couple miles. You can only get one or two megabits this way but how much bandwidth are you planning to buy from AT&T anyway?
where the money might come from (Score:2)
--generic rants---
--rural people wouldn't need a subsidy if our tax money wasn't siphoned off to pay for urban areas that are no longer are needed as much as in the past when we didn't have personal easy transportation or communications like we have now. There is no longer such a "need" to have congested over built and extremely expensive cities and "urban lifestyle". And 1/2 my tax disappears into the vast wasteland that is called 'government' bureaucracy,it gets taken and never returns, barely 50 cents on the dollar, the rest for "overhead", this bloated government growth industry that is setup in the various major urban areas, and in paying ridiculously high prices by the trickle down phenomena of urban areas driving up the prices of everything. Just in my county property prices have almost doubled in the past few years, primarily from city people driving up the prices as they buy second honmes, and from government not enforcing our border control and illegal immigration laws. Property taxes up, taxes to the state and feds up, and I sure ain't seeing any benefit coming from all that, it's the reverse actually. Let us keep our money more, then it becomes affordable. Stop the mandated government schools scam, let people home school without harassment, encourage that instead of the massive almost yearly increases in local property taxes to pay for sub par mediocre government brainwashing facilities that churn out students with lower over-all knowledge at greatly increased cost. That's more money saved to pay for it. Fire 90% of the federal command and control bureaucrats, that's a LOT of money saved that could pay for it. Stop encouraging sloth and vote buying with the nanny welfare state, save billions. Stop invading other nations on a whim at the behest of international arms, energy, and construction corporations, turn the US back into more like a big neutral switzerland like it was originally designed as, instead of the worlds bully. Lot of tax money back in everyone's pocket then, could pay for a variety of projects, including a nation wide broadband infrastructure.
--beyond that I would have to get into a rant on the stock market and the greed and "something for nothing" gambling mentality that takes people over, leading to such gross wastes as the dot bomb scams with the 1500$ chairs and parties. Basic good quality infrastructure FIRST, then comes mega-profit and extravagance, right now, that's been reversed. The money is there if it wasn't wasted. Give people some true capitalism options, right now you are stuck. Look at all the posts from people here, they would gladly pay some more for better home pipes, or to be allowed to host at home. And like my original thought, vast areas of the nation have zero hope right now of getting broadband of ANY kind, ATT and some of these other companies need to go out there and offer broadband, not just reinforce a few core areas that already HAVE broadband, and usually in multiple forms. The nation is "all of us" not just "city people". The rural people of this nation provide the food, the water, the raw materials, everything that's required so that "cities" can exist, all we are asking is some kind of normal choices in the matter, it's just not that much to ask, especially from the companies that have already made billions and billions and from urban-centric "government".
manufactured schisms (Score:2)
Phooie.
What goes around comes around, keep having the mindset of "screw the rural people, we can't afford them, it costs too much to give them what we already have...", that they aren't worth any "investment", and one day you just might find out how wrong you really are.
Enjoy your urban lifestyle while you still can, it's been massively subsidised by basically stealing from other folks via legislative fiat and urban/corporate centrism. You don't want to "invest" in your rural neighbors, but keep "investing" in high rise dot bomb electron shuffling skim based middleman industries, and urban oriented entertainments? HAHAHA! Eventually you'll find out what REAL human priorities are. Have fun!
802 Plant (Score:2, Funny)
I'd like to have one of those, does it have a usb port?
Free Market, in Public Airwaves (Score:5, Insightful)
It just boils down to the fact that consumers will have to vote with their dollars to say how they want this (their) bandwidth to be used.
And, for all the
Re:Free Market, in Public Airwaves (Score:2)
Wow, have you been suckered.
Competition for Boingo (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, this sounds cool.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I'll probably get small fee'd to annoyance, but hey, I'll have net access at my run-down hotel in the country.
That vision would allow every Internet user in the U.S. to access their existing accounts wirelessly, anywhere in the United States, without changing their accounts or service providers.
Sure, it's early, it may be hot air, but I say "Go IBM! This is exactly what I want!" rather than wish death upon Big Business....
Oh come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on... (Score:3, Interesting)
computing utility - private, public or anarchic? (Score:3, Insightful)
ironically tho, the very idea of mimicking a utility would appear to make government (federal, state or municipal) more suited to its delivery -- like how the road and highway system is administered in the US or perhaps a pseudo-public venture like the US postal service, which still leaves room for private competition.
the altruistically anarchic model for wireless network expansion is ideal and i hope it continues! but it's naive to think private entities would be content to provide equipment (as literally shareware) for an emerging wireless network and not seek to run (and monetize) them.
local, state or federal government i think would be wise to take the initiative and make sure providing computing utility does not become an entirely private venture (they might even contract with cometa
This is never going to work. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sticky Situation (Score:5, Interesting)
IANALBIPOOTV
It seems to me that these companies might be wandinging into a bit of a legal gray area by trying to offer pay services based on spectrum that has been set aside for free public use. I can't imagine the FCC allowing Clear Channel [clearchannel.com] to throw up a stick and start broadcasting a commercial signal below the 92 MHz mark on your FM dial.
Of course, if the portion of the spectrum used by 802.11 a/b isn't specifically stamped "Non-Commercial Use Only", then I don't see how AT&T et al. can be stopped.
I guess the major question is: "Does the fact that the public has the right to use a given resource for free preclude individuals/corporations from packaging and selling that resource?" I would say as long as Ma Bell's nationwide WiFi network doesn't keep you from using a free WiFi network, then AT&T's in the clear.
Now, will people want to pay for something they could get for free? Of course they would. How else has Micro$oft stayed in business for so long?
Re:Sticky Situation (Score:2)
that would mean at&t can do whatever they like, so long as they don't mind that my wireless phone stomps all over their customers.
The Short Stick (Score:2, Funny)
Me: Um, im not getting a signal here, is there an outage?
Att: No, it's your computer.
Me: You don't understand, im on a mac, it doesn't break.
Att: we don't support macs, linux boxes or even sun machines for that matter. Not that I know what any of those are, i just read what they tell me.
Me: What? Your not trained to trouble-shoot a wireless network?
Att: No they fired all of the actuall computer-people in early 2002, thanks God, they stunk... Anything else I can help you with?
Me: Um... no, I gues not...
Att: thanks, have a good day...
Small towns lose (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Small towns lose (Score:2)
Nonetheless, the one telco owns both the phone and cable company. As a result, we get DSL only with no hope of ever having a competing cable-internet provider. The area is mountainous andthe population small enough that WiFi is not particularly feasable.
It's $19 for the ISP, and $25 for the dsl line, which I don't find outrageous. A $99 setup fee, fully refundable for 30 days, got me the DSL modem, 2 filters, and all the setup help I needed. I'm just lucky that my co-op is reasonable, but they could be real asses about it. I'm about 16,000' from the switch and peak above 550kb down.
I suppose a wifi in my area might work, though the cell towers near me give marginal, analog-only cell coverage. Driving five minutes gets me to the end of my driveway...and the bottom of a valley...and I probably wouldn't want to do all of my online work from five minutes away from my home anyway.
$50 per month is fine (Score:2)
Rapid City, SD (Score:2)
Sigh - just a bleep on the advertisement radar
I've been predicting this.. (Score:2)
Viva la Lain!
Re:I've been predicting this.. (Score:2)
You hack the Gibson? your 3v1l l33t! [megatokyo.com]
Sorry, just had to say it
Re:Make Wireless Network Open Source! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Make Wireless Network Open Source! (Score:2)
What's their incentive to do so? AT&T, on the other hand, makes quite a pretty penny on providing a service people need/want.