The Killing Of Wi-Fi By The Cell Phone Companies

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2098483,00.asp">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2098483,00.asp</a><br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />John Dvorak has some interesting thoughts on the threat of Wi-Fi to the cell phone companies and the steps they are taking to eliminate the threat. He also has some funny observations on the current state of "wireless internet access" by cell phone users. Given how little some people understand if and how their cell phone allows for internet access, it seems most polls about such usage are pretty inaccurate.

[inteller]

i attribute the death of wi fi by splintering the mesh into different vendors. I cant make a single flight where each airport runs the same vendors APs. i've also noticed that in other countries wifi is free in airports, but good ole capitalist USA has to charge for it. i've even seen jamming occuring in places where free wifi existed (which is not only illegal, but immoral)

[SteveHoward999]

The point is that there just aren't that many people out there who have any idea what they are doing. All you have to do is sit at the airport when two people begin to discuss the Internet. Someone will have an EV-DO card and call it Wi-Fi and say how neat it will be when San Francisco goes all Wi-Fi and he can use the card for free access instead of having to pay Sprint when he boots to the network

I agree. Add to that the carefully-crafted confusion over what wireless is! For some it is Wi-Fi only. For others it's simply a cell phone. Couple that with a general ignorance of technological nuances among the masses and it's no wonder that the cell phone companies in America are getting away with screwing their customers every which-way.

The tecchie-minded among us are going crazy at how we are falling behind the rest of the world so far as cell phone technology and take-up, while Johnnie and Janie Doe are blissfully unaware of how little their monthly $100 bill really buys them!

:soapbox:

[gmontielh]

I believe that people or businesses where wifi was available for free now are killing its use as they are charging too muchfor it. My DSL broke down for 15 days without any solution until finally a technician who knew what he was doing fixed the problem. In order to keep my work flowing I purchased Verizon's card (lot faster than EDGE) and it saved the day! At $2/day from anywhere n the US it sures is cheaper that going to locations with wifi services available at $10+/day. Even cheaper than hotels ($15 to $20/day with few exceptions nowadays). Nonetheless, where it is good for email and "simple" web browsing, I find it very slow when someone sends large files or searching into graphics intensive websites.

Honestly, after using my PDA Phone for almost 2 years the less and less web browsing I do with it. Screen is too small, takes a while to download (despite EDGE), not full version IE. I stick to email headers and download full text for the important ones. Although text messaging with the likes of Yahoo, MS Messenger really helps from time to time.

However, initiatives to make wifi available should be supported. This will make the market more competitive and carriers can still make money based on economics of scale and consumers might benefit (wishful thinking?). Besides, setting the whole infrastructure is not cheap either and carriers are not in the business to be charities. Profits must be made in order to make investments to upgrade for bette and faster technology. Or lobby with your local government reps to spend your tax $ on free wifi, but then will there be incentive to better technologies?.....

[ricksfiona]

If 3G was in general availability, I wouldn't use WiFi out in the public domain. Tethering my tablet to my phone is easy and convenient and I don't have to bother searching for WiFi signals. If the price came down, even better.

[jpf]

more fvud from the master of deception.
If you want to talk about the increase in wifi users, lets talk about the affordability of notebooks and their improved sales figures.
If you want to talk about threats to cellphone companies, try VoIP and the Skypes of this world.

USA isn't falling further behind in cellphone tech; you (USA) was never even close and never will be while each company uses different technology/standards.

I'm afraid I think the man talks out of his posterior orifice espccially when bragging about how clever he is and how stupid the general public are.

[eagle63]

USA isn't falling further behind in cellphone tech; you (USA) was never even close and never will be while each company uses different technology/standards.

I hear this type of comment a lot, and I don't get it. Exactly how is the US behind everyone else?

We invented the leading wireless technology. (CDMA) Everyone who isn't currently using CDMA or one of it's variants (UMTS) will be soon. If you believe the hype, WiMax looks to be a good candidate for "4G". When it comes to depth of 3G network deployments, we're probably second only to Korea. (possibly Japan too...)
There was a time when the US was considerably behind the rest of the world, but not anymore.

[frankenbike]

First, Wifi was never really well suited as a public utility because of its ultimately limited range. It's great for being able to use your laptop or PDA across the house or in the garage without a bunch of wiring, and I seem to remember that was its intent when it was designed, as well as to allow small businesses to do much the same.

Second, I think the people doing the complaining are the very ISPs and others who charge usurious hourly and day rates, their services good for small, limited environments only. The service you buy for one location, not good in the majority of others.

OTOH, cell services, especially CDMA, offer anywhere use (wherever there's a digital signal) and they're just getting faster. Value wise, they're far more flexible.

No elaborate conspiracy is needed. No more than the death of interurban railroads in suburbanized cities in the 50s which failed to service suburbs, were slow, and failed to offer the same freedom as a car for an increasingly dispersed population working in a decreasingly centralized working environment. Just as with the interurban railroads, there might be minor conspiracies to dismantle them, but in nearly all of those places the railroads (trollies, etc) were already in their decline as non-subsidized entities.

Most of the people I see using wireless internet services are using them with phone/pdas, they're not in a fixed location, and they're women using them for personal use, not businesses.

And for businesses, having to purchase services from a bunch of feudal ISPs doesn't make as much sense as purchasing them from a single vendor.

[isajoo]

wifi is not free... one way or another wifi users pay for it.be it from the occasional user at airports...or daily users at coffee houses. its not FREE. even if the government provided FREE wifi city wide, it would be the tax payers money supporting the network. but as it is, all people pay for internet be it at home, work or mobile...in the end u still end up paying for it. now, where do cellphone companies come in to this, well, they are just another provider, trying to take a bigger bite of the pie.but i dont think they really want anything to do with wifi or even internet users. they make a killing already on regular airtime. plus like others have pointed out, with wifi u could make a possibly FREE long distance call around the world. why would cellphone companies even want to have internet support. if they kill wifi. they might as well kill 3g, edge and any other internet connections. just go back to dialup modems.

[TOCA]

Well I must say, that I partly agree with John Dvorak, but he missed a few points.

Yes, the cellphone companys look at WiFi as a unfair competition, to their "services", and therefore have made pressure on the device manufactores to keep processor speeds on WiFi equipped devices below 200MHz, in order to prevent them from running programes like Skype.

But now they've learned the lesson, and "reinvented" the good old MSN browser: You can get online, and surf the web, as long as you only surfs the sites WE like you to look at, and only downloads files from OUR servers, then we don't care if you use GPRS, 3G, 3,5G, or eaven WiFi, you will pay us annyway.

I've seen plenty of teenagers being proud of their 3G (UMTS) phones, and their capabillitys, to download MTV videos, and eaven wach streaming TV, right until I stepped in, and showed them what real mobile internet could do, eaven if I only use a GPRS connection, and a old SE z600 phone as modem, for my just as old iPAQ h2210.

Who cares? The consumers are getting new gizmos, that can do more, than the old one, and the companys are making more money than ever, leaving the geeks among us, standing head shaking on the sideline, wondering when the majority will start listening to us, instead of those multi million $$ adds, hurling at us, from all sides, at near light speed :roll:

Yes I'm a geek, and proud of it, because it saves me a lot of monney, and makes me able to do more, than the average Joe 8)

[inteller]

USA isn't falling further behind in cellphone tech; you (USA) was never even close and never will be while each company uses different technology/standards.

I hear this type of comment a lot, and I don't get it. Exactly how is the US behind everyone else?

We invented the leading wireless technology. (CDMA) Everyone who isn't currently using CDMA or one of it's variants (UMTS) will be soon. If you believe the hype, WiMax looks to be a good candidate for "4G". When it comes to depth of 3G network deployments, we're probably second only to Korea. (possibly Japan too...)
There was a time when the US was considerably behind the rest of the world, but not anymore.

so many wrong statements, where to start?

first of all CDMA2000 (which you refer to), in its current incarnation is not "leading" anything. It has been eclipsed by WCDMA which is NOT a derivative of CDMA2000. W-CDMA is a COMPETITOR to CDMA2000. CDMA only describes the type of multiplexing.

furthermore, W-CDMA IS the future, and UTMS w/HSDPA eclipses anything EV-DO Rev A (hell even Rev B) could even hope to do. at 14.4Mbps HSDPA gives you YOUR OWN wifi like bandwidth, not huddled around an AP and sharing 11Mbps with who knows what.

That's what will kill wifi.

[eagle63]

so many wrong statements, where to start?

first of all CDMA2000 (which you refer to), in its current incarnation is not "leading" anything. It has been eclipsed by WCDMA which is NOT a derivative of CDMA2000. W-CDMA is a COMPETITOR to CDMA2000. CDMA only describes the type of multiplexing.

furthermore, W-CDMA IS the future, and UTMS w/HSDPA eclipses anything EV-DO Rev A (hell even Rev B) could even hope to do. at 14.4Mbps HSDPA gives you YOUR OWN wifi like bandwidth, not huddled around an AP and sharing 11Mbps with who knows what.

That's what will kill wifi.

Oh, so that's why Qualcomm holds most of the key patents to UMTS? The air interface (RF layer) of UMTS is pure spread spectrum, CDMA technology. The Europeans didn't "invent" that.

The CDMA vs GSM war is over. CDMA has long since won, the only question now is which implementation do you prefer - CDMA2000, or UMTS. UMTS is clearly dominating that battle, though I hope for the sake of competition that CDMA2K doesn't completely fold.

BTW, if you believe the 14.4 Mbps speed that the marketing departments are telling you, than I've got a bridge for sale. Rev A should compete favorably with HSDPA.

[Mark Larson]

If CDMA has been implemented with R-UIMs here... if only. Goddamn greedy carriers and limp-wristed FCC. :evil: