SBC Building Public Wi-Fi Network

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-1007820.html?part=dtx&tag=ntop' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-100...rt=dtx&tag=ntop</a><br /><br /></div>The number of companies joining the party just seems to grow larger and larger.<br /><br />"SBC has recently taken steps toward building a public wireless local area network, the company said Monday. The service is an attempt to fend off competition from the cable industry, say analysts, who note that SBC is the second major telephone company to use the popularity of Wi-Fi wireless networks to better compete against such rivals. SBC spokesman Michael Coe said the broadband and telephone provider has begun shopping for the equipment needed to create public hot spots, which are places such as coffee shops or hotels where SBC customers can connect to the Internet or their office computers without wires."<br /><br />If broadband is finally taking off, perhaps it's providing the incentive to see all of these public networks. One of the biggest problems though, I believe, is the heterogeneity of all of them. Are we going to subscribe to 10 different Wi-Fi networks for ubiquitous coverage?

[bdegroodt]

Maybe this is where a Boingo type operation can come into play. Help all the different networks consolidate onto one account. Tough one to figure out since the telcos seems to be deploying the service to retain market/customers. They may not want to play the co-opetition game. They best if they know what's good for them. :twisted:

[Janak Parekh]

They may not want to play the co-opetition game. They best if they know what's good for them. :twisted:
Of course, when have telcos ever done what's best for them? You know the deal with Verizon ISDN and DSL over the years, don't you? ;)

--janak

[lurch]

On the one hand, I think this is a great move, because the more hotspots, the better, I always say... (okay, I sometimes say)

On the other hand, this is a great point (below), but just how I've seen companies like Cingular come along and give you nationwide long distance (where they handle all the details behind the multiple vendors), I wonder if the same thing will happen with "nationwide" WiFi access -- where a company sells you the service and coordinates all the details for you.
One of the biggest problems though, I believe, is the heterogeneity of all of them. Are we going to subscribe to 10 different Wi-Fi networks for ubiquitous coverage?
And on the third hand, since I have an undying hatred towards all things SBC (a.k.a. SBC Ameritech, a.k.a. Ameritech), this is terrible news. This means that if their wireless service is anything like their phone service, we'll have to wait 3 months to get our wireless cards to connect to the access points. And numerous other problems... like if you want to cancel your account with them you have to wait on hold for 2 hours minimum, and you keep getting put on the bottom of the ever increasing caller backlog, full of angry customers, no doubt.

P.S. I had several bad experiences with them, by the way (I'm sure you couldn't tell!!)

[darrylb]

One of the biggest problems though, I believe, is the heterogeneity of all of them. Are we going to subscribe to 10 different Wi-Fi networks for ubiquitous coverage?

I would expect the companies to extend the roaming agreements to allow users to roam between networks. This seems like a reasonable expectation to me. Of course, if the roaming agreements are not there, then dont expect there to be one for WiFi as well.

Now if only we could get WiFi Hotspots in New Zealand :wink:

[jgrnt1]

I've been using T-Mobile's HotSpots for a couple months and it's great being able to find a spot to sit down and get some real work done just about anywhere I go -- there's always a Starbucks nearby with access. With T-Mobile, I know to look for Starbucks or Border's Books. With 10 different networks running in a city, even with some type of universal access, how am I going to keep track of all the access points -- or will I need to drive around and sniff for them?

[jimski]

Well, it looks like the U.S. telco companies are going to screw up WiFi the same way they have screwed up cellular for the past 10-15 years. With all the TDMA and CDMA and GSM and prorietary this and propriterary that it's no wonder that I have to carry two cell phones (one GSM and one TDMA) and I still only get a respectable signal about 70% of the time. And it's not like I travel to one horse towns. How about the NY Metro area, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, etc.

Now they want me to look at the sticker on the back of my PPC (what an idea) like the logos on the back of my ATM card to figure out where WiFi will work. No thanks!

Wireless is not a new concept to me. I owned a Palm VII a week after it became available in the NYC area several years ago. I loved the total freedom I had to flip up the antenna and collect information in an instant. Why can't all these guys just get together, pool their resources and let me choose which provider will manage (and disperse my payments accordingly) my WiFi account based on customer service, not based on which provider has the 7 Eleven down the block on their Hot Spot list this week.

I will pay $40-$50 per month for WiFi "all the time-anywhere". But as long these companies keep managing their little fifedoms, I am keeping my money in my pocket.

Just think of the U.S. with three large telco companies with service areas scattered across the country. Only problem is the people on system "A" can't communicate with the people on system "B". And the people on system "B" can't communicate....and so on. Hey, great network, and great service area, but really a whole lotta nothin'.

[Pony99CA]

Well, it looks like the U.S. telco companies are going to screw up WiFi the same way they have screwed up cellular for the past 10-15 years. With all the TDMA and CDMA and GSM and prorietary this and propriterary that it's no wonder that I have to carry two cell phones (one GSM and one TDMA) and I still only get a respectable signal about 70% of the time.
It's hardly the same. TDMA, CDMA and GSM are different signal specifications. With WiFi (at least 802.11b), there's only one signal specification. Yes, you'll likely have to change your WiFi configuration based on which system you're using, but you will not need multiple WiFi cards (or, worse, PDAs).

Even if some company decides to use 802.11a or 802.11g, you can just get a combined card and you're in.

Steve

[rlobrecht]

Yes, you'll likely have to change your WiFi configuration based on which system you're using, but you will not need multiple WiFi cards (or, worse, PDAs).


What if yo have to use a card provided by the ISP, because they've locked all their access points to only allow specific MAC addresses?

[daveshih]

Yes, you'll likely have to change your WiFi configuration based on which system you're using, but you will not need multiple WiFi cards (or, worse, PDAs).


What if yo have to use a card provided by the ISP, because they've locked all their access points to only allow specific MAC addresses?

Better yet, some of them will use Cisco's LEAP and others will use another EAP variation, and all of us who got regular non-EAP-just-WAP cards will have to either buy new cards or forget about service...

Dave

[Janak Parekh]

Well, it looks like the U.S. telco companies are going to screw up WiFi the same way they have screwed up cellular for the past 10-15 years. With all the TDMA and CDMA and GSM and prorietary this and propriterary that it's no wonder that I have to carry two cell phones (one GSM and one TDMA) and I still only get a respectable signal about 70% of the time.
It's hardly the same. TDMA, CDMA and GSM are different signal specifications. With WiFi (at least 802.11b), there's only one signal specification. Yes, you'll likely have to change your WiFi configuration based on which system you're using, but you will not need multiple WiFi cards (or, worse, PDAs).
Moreover, the same problem will happen in Europe, at least until Wi-Fi roaming is implemented -- and there is no consortium to standardize this. bdegroodt mentioned Boingo, but there's no guarantee everyone's going to adopt their standard.

As for competing wireless cellular standards, that's a separate discussion entirely, and it's not so open-and-shut. :)

--janak

[alan williams]

The model I keep hearing get floated is a combo of monthly access fees from carriers (with discounts for existing customers one would hope), and pre-paid Wi-Fi cards (akin to current phone cards)

Personally, if the rates were reasonable, I'd welcome a card-type plan. I don't see another alternitive aside from open network roaming.

[Will T Smith]

I hardly see how this is a move against the Cable industry. It isn't directed at land-line residential customers, cables ONLY customer base.

This is a plan to provide a mobile type service. If it's aimed at anyone, it's aimed at Mobile providers like Sprint and T-Mobile. Anopther potential target are "little guys" trying to start up "local" hotspot style businesses.

The third major player in this market are the wireless broadband providers. Basically, you bolt an antannae to the side of your house to receive the service.

Since cable providers don't compete in ANY of these market segments, I'm not sure that the thesis carries any weight.

[bdegroodt]

I hardly see how this is a move against the Cable industry. From what I can see, it's really NOT directed

This is a plan to provide a mobile type service. If it's aimed at anyone, it's aimed at Mobile providers like Sprint and T-Mobile. Anopther potential target are "little guys" trying to start up "local" hotspot style businesses.

The third major player in this market are the wireless broadband providers. Basically, you bolt an antannae to the side of your house to receive the service.

Since cable providers don't compete in ANY of these market segments, I'm not sure that the thesis carries any weight.

It's a move against them very clearly. You don't subscribe to our DSL service you don't get to use our service. Dump cable and get DSL and you get to play on our network.

[Will T Smith]

I hardly see how this is a move against the Cable industry. From what I can see, it's really NOT directed

This is a plan to provide a mobile type service. If it's aimed at anyone, it's aimed at Mobile providers like Sprint and T-Mobile. Anopther potential target are "little guys" trying to start up "local" hotspot style businesses.

The third major player in this market are the wireless broadband providers. Basically, you bolt an antannae to the side of your house to receive the service.

Since cable providers don't compete in ANY of these market segments, I'm not sure that the thesis carries any weight.

It's a move against them very clearly. You don't subscribe to our DSL service you don't get to use our service. Dump cable and get DSL and you get to play on our network.

The gist of the DSL vs Cable issue comes down to AVAILABILITY. The thing that hurts DSL the most (beyond their incompetence) is the constraint that you must be VERY close to the switching station. Coaxial cable just has WAY more bandwidth than copper.

If I can't ORDER DSL, how could this be aimed against taking away cable broadband customers MOST of whom couldn't order DSL if they tried. Currently the most popular mode for roaming internet access is the wireless providers (It IS THEIR business after all).

Beyond that, you have to consider the small percentage of Cable Broadband customers (in the smaller percentage who can actually get DSL) who have mobile equipment that can effectively interact with Wi-FI. Remember the bulk of the netting public DOESN'T consist of us uber-geeks who own a PC AND a Notebook AND a PocketPC. It consists of families with a few computers and NO MOBILE equipment.

The business case for installing Wi-Fi access points isn't unsound. Their billing model IS. Especially if it's designed to compete with cable broadband.

Back to the wireless providers. Well, basically, I don't think this will compete very well with wireless providers. Why ?????

As I said before, the vast majority of computer users don't own TRULY mobile equipment (Like PocketPC). Yes, Laptop usage is pretty pervasive, however laptops aren't the kind of thing a lady slips in her purse. The segment of people who do carry such equipment around is relatively small.

There are places that people specifically GO TO, to use such equipment, examples: Net Cafes, Coffee houses, and Airports. Is this a good target market.

Well, for the Net Cafes ... No, they already sell their own internet access and wouldn't allow competition on their premises. As for Starbucks and the other coffee houses, well ... they could just as well sell their OWN internet access (which they are) and cut SBC out completely. As for the airports, most of these users are business travellers and would have corporate accounts not home accounts. Cable isn't exactly a big player in the business internet market. On all these counts theirs LITTLE TO NO incentive for anyone to switch their home cable broadband to DSL (assuming they can get it in the first place).

The true advantage that the mobile providers have over EVERYONE else is:
1) They provide the equipment (typically in "appliance" form) and subsidize the up-front cost in the service contract.
2) Their stuff works over a MUCH, MUCH broader area. You don't have to GO to their hotspots to use it. It works anywhere where your bored, (waiting in line, car trip, etc....).

In the Dilbert world we live in, I'm not sure whether this plan was made by people who believed in it or not. I do know that it is a COMPLETELY STUPID plan to lure away satisified cable broadband users for a service that has shown itself difficult, hard to get, and VERY, VERY UNFRIENDLY.

I do have suggestions for DSL providers if they want to expand their business.
1) Extend your network capabilities and general availability of DSL service.
2) Provide prompt, reliable, no hassle installation.
3) In areas with poor network capabilities, provide "Wireless Stationary Broadband" that is the style where you put an antannae on the side of your house.

Beyond that, the cable companies got you beat in broadband. The era of traditional phone services is starting to wain. IP telephony is becoming popular amongst business. So are services that completly bypass the copper voice network.

The Franken-Bells (previously the BABY-bells before they started merging again (thank you Newt Gingrich for SBC)) are facing obsolesence in the next 30 years if they don't get with the times (just like the railroads). Wireless and Cable are rapidly eating their cake. They better start getting that fiber closer to the consumers so they can compete when the AT&T core business finally collapses.

[bdegroodt]

I hardly see how this is a move against the Cable industry. From what I can see, it's really NOT directed

This is a plan to provide a mobile type service. If it's aimed at anyone, it's aimed at Mobile providers like Sprint and T-Mobile. Anopther potential target are "little guys" trying to start up "local" hotspot style businesses.

The third major player in this market are the wireless broadband providers. Basically, you bolt an antannae to the side of your house to receive the service.

Since cable providers don't compete in ANY of these market segments, I'm not sure that the thesis carries any weight.

It's a move against them very clearly. You don't subscribe to our DSL service you don't get to use our service. Dump cable and get DSL and you get to play on our network.

The gist of the DSL vs Cable issue comes down to AVAILABILITY. The thing that hurts DSL the most (beyond their incompetence) is the constraint that you must be VERY close to the switching station. Coaxial cable just has WAY more bandwidth than copper.

If I can't ORDER DSL, how could this be aimed against taking away cable broadband customers MOST of whom couldn't order DSL if they tried.


That's not really competition then is it? If I can't provide you the service in your area and somebody else can, at a micro level, we're not competing. Where both are available it is competition. Moreover, it's not just competition against the cable companies. It's also competition against other phone carriers (CLEC) in your area. If I have DSL service through Verizon, I can't use another phone carrier that may service my area because local service deregulation didn't make provisions for DSL service. Thus, if you want DSL service, you stay with Verizon (Assuming you want DSL and it's available to you.). That's how it's competitive against both cable and competing CLECs.

[ctmagnus]

What if yo have to use a card provided by the ISP, because they've locked all their access points to only allow specific MAC addresses?

Spoof your mac! :wink:

[Pony99CA]

In the Dilbert world we live in, I'm not sure whether this plan was made by people who believed in it or not. I do know that it is a COMPLETELY STUPID plan to lure away satisified cable broadband users for a service that has shown itself difficult, hard to get, and VERY, VERY UNFRIENDLY.
You're assuming that this initiative is to get people to switch services. However, here's what the article actually said:

The service is an attempt to fend off competition from the cable industry, say analysts, who note that SBC is the second major telephone company to use the popularity of Wi-Fi wireless networks to better compete against such rivals.

"Fend off" is a defensive term; it doesn't say anything about switching. I think that it's a method to do two things:

Get new subscribers who don't yet have broadband by providing something that at least sounds useful. This is similar to the way software companies add new features to their programs. For example, people buying a word processor may insist on seeing a feature supoorted even though they never use it.

Prevent existing customers from switching to cable, which tends to be faster, by providing something cable doesn't. This can keep the more techno-savvy people (which most broadband users likely are) from jumping ship.

I have both DSL and cable available in my area. I use DSL for two reasons:

DSL was available here first, and I hooked up before cable access was available.
I get my DSL through my current ISP, so I didn't have to switch ISPs.

As that first point no longer applies, and the second is less important now that I have my own domain(s), my DSL provider/ISP needs to ensure I don't have a good reason to switch. (Yes, I know that I'm overestimating the importance of my $55 per month to their bottom line. :-D)

Steve

[Will T Smith]

I hardly see how this is a move against the Cable industry. From what I can see, it's really NOT directed

This is a plan to provide a mobile type service. If it's aimed at anyone, it's aimed at Mobile providers like Sprint and T-Mobile. Anopther potential target are "little guys" trying to start up "local" hotspot style businesses.

The third major player in this market are the wireless broadband providers. Basically, you bolt an antannae to the side of your house to receive the service.

Since cable providers don't compete in ANY of these market segments, I'm not sure that the thesis carries any weight.

It's a move against them very clearly. You don't subscribe to our DSL service you don't get to use our service. Dump cable and get DSL and you get to play on our network.

The gist of the DSL vs Cable issue comes down to AVAILABILITY. The thing that hurts DSL the most (beyond their incompetence) is the constraint that you must be VERY close to the switching station. Coaxial cable just has WAY more bandwidth than copper.

If I can't ORDER DSL, how could this be aimed against taking away cable broadband customers MOST of whom couldn't order DSL if they tried.


That's not really competition then is it? If I can't provide you the service in your area and somebody else can, at a micro level, we're not competing. Where both are available it is competition.



That's kinda like saying that Circut City can't compete against Best Buy in market X because they have no stores there. The fundamental problem in competition here isn't lack of business fundamentals, it's a delivery problem. If Circuit City wants to compete in market X they need to deliver their product/service there (build a store).

I guess the basic premise is that the Franken-Bells could provide DSL service to a LOT more customers if they invested more money to getting fiber closer to consumers. That is an expensive proposition. An even more expensive proposition is being permamently locked out of many of these markets because you've sat on your hands and allowed Cable and Mobile and Stationary Wireless to COMPLETELY saturate these areas.


Moreover, it's not just competition against the cable companies. It's also competition against other phone carriers (CLEC) in your area.

If I have DSL service through Verizon, I can't use another phone carrier that may service my area because local service deregulation didn't make provisions for DSL service. Thus, if you want DSL service, you stay with Verizon (Assuming you want DSL and it's available to you.). That's how it's competitive against both cable and competing CLECs.

Yeah that's the phone companies dirty way of keeping you on their phone service. It's ultimately destructive because you CAN in most cases choose and alternative local provider AND Cable Modem. The cable companies DO offer Broadband WITHOUT TV services. Basically they credit your account $10 a month if you carry both. Most people started with CableTV in the first place, so it's no big deal.

I understand the practical reasons why you couldn't deliver service from two companies over the SAME line. What is unreasonable is that the phone company could install a second line (provided your not apartment bound) and provide DSL over that. Obviously, it wouldn't be as cheap as DSL/Phone from SBC, but honestly this isn't the Franken-Bells MAJOR problem. Especially when you consider the certain demographics who are cell-phone carriers with no need for a phone attached to a residence.

Cable broadband pricing is based on the cost of a second phone line and ISP coverage. A large percentage of Cable consumers are dropping second lines in favor of a broadband connection. The boon for Cable comes because they effectively get both the line revenue AND the ISP revenue. Effectively the Cable companies are picking the phone companies pockets.

Futhermore, the combination of a Cable Modem and Mobile communication is enabling what was once unheard of. People are COMPLETLY dropping their land lines in favor of a TV/Internet from the Cable company (now effectively just Comcast) and voice over mobile. This is taking 1-2 (sometimes 3) land-line accounts away from the phone company for each exile.

In the final insult, Comcast is starting to role out VOIP service. Providing stationary telephone service over your IP cable connection.

The Franken-Bells core business have sat on their monopolies for a VERY long time and felt very smug about it. Their core problem is their outdated networks and inability to provide broadband and other next generation services to large portions of their network. There are many competitors vying for THEIR business, but the reverse is rarely true.

The solution ISN'T Wi-Fi hotspots. This may stop a few people from fleeing in the short-term. But, people inevitably move. Perhaps your new pad won't HAVE DSL available, you no longer have a choice. Especially if you choose to move to more surburban/rural digs. Then SBC forfeits by an inability to deliver on your broadband Jones.

What??? You'll go back to dial-up and skip Cable-Modem because SBC has a few hotspots at a few bookstores. This is a business case for competition???

Then ... Maybe the new tenant in your old pad weighs his choice of DSL/landline vs Cable/Mobile/VOIP and discovers that the Cable route is cheaper and more flexible. DSL/landline loses another subscriber. We live in a mobile society and stationary customers MAY choose to switch. Customers who MOVE must choose whether to switch services. An this is where their business will be won or lost.

Remember, the hotspot equation is only RELAVENT if you HAVE the necessary equipment. The core demographic of gadget carriers AREN'T family guys. These are young singles men with lots of discretionary spending capabilities. These are the folks who DON'T need land-lines and have lots of time to hang out at places like Starbucks and Barnes&Nobles. But, they do LOVE TV (especially the Sci-Fi channel). Hmm... Cable/Mobile costs less than DSL/Cable/Mobile. The choice is easy.

Cable has a core network of VERY HIGH CAPACITY coaxial line. That coax leads straight up to a customers residence. Thats why their winning the broadband war. If the Franken-Bells want to fight back they must install fiber (yes they have plenty of fiber but not in strategic places) closer to customers and get a good DSL product to MORE people.

In areas with really BAD legacy equipment, Stationary Wireless broadband is probably a VERY good option in lew of DSL. Heck, they could offer it at the SAME price to keep things simple and PROVIDE an option to consumers to choose THEM instead of abandoning them.

With the service of the Franken-Bells, I'm not surprised that consumers (AND Businesses (VOIP)) are increasingly choosing to abandon them in droves. Want to keep business, improve your services and increase availability. It's that simple.