Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

802.11 phones

Expand Messages
  • Rahul Dave
    Folks, Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
      Folks,
      Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
      coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
      enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
      802.11?

      I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones coming
      out[1].

      At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and list
      there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing parasite
      802.11 networks to exist.

      It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
      customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet. Today
      802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people outside
      the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.

      On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless web
      as its slow and awful.

      So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost low..
      and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
      average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
      This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller monthly
      price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
      broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better service.
      A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to reduce
      bandwidth impact on each.

      So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
      possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
      ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a real
      device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be greater
      and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
      saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
      somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is made
      up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the penetration
      there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
      With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of greater
      transaction costs.

      Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger gross
      margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive feedback
      loop due to the influx of phone customers.

      So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the technology,
      and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this not
      happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?

      Rahul
      http://tig.nareau.com

      [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
      [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
    • Rahul Dave
      (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some problems with yahoo groups..) Folks, Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
        (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
        problems with yahoo groups..)
        Folks,
        Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
        coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
        enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
        802.11?

        I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones coming
        out[1].

        At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and list
        there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing parasite
        802.11 networks to exist.

        It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
        customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet. Today
        802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people outside
        the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.

        On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless web
        as its slow and awful.

        So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost low..
        and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
        average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
        This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller monthly
        price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
        broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better service.
        A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to reduce
        bandwidth impact on each.

        So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
        possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
        ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a real
        device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be greater
        and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
        saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
        somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is made
        up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the penetration
        there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
        With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of greater
        transaction costs.

        Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger gross
        margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive feedback
        loop due to the influx of phone customers.

        So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the technology,
        and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this not
        happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?

        Rahul
        http://tig.nareau.com

        [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
        [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
      • James Hong
        people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak. cheers, james ... XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net ... From: Rahul Dave
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
          people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak.

          cheers,
          james

          ----
          XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Rahul Dave" <rahul@...>
          To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
          Cc: <rahul@...>
          Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:56 PM
          Subject: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


          > (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
          > problems with yahoo groups..)
          > Folks,
          > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
          > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
          > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
          > 802.11?
          >
          > I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones
          coming
          > out[1].
          >
          > At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and
          list
          > there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing parasite
          > 802.11 networks to exist.
          >
          > It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
          > customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet.
          Today
          > 802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people
          outside
          > the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.
          >
          > On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless
          web
          > as its slow and awful.
          >
          > So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost
          low..
          > and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
          > average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
          > This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller
          monthly
          > price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
          > broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better service.
          > A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to
          reduce
          > bandwidth impact on each.
          >
          > So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
          > possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
          > ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a
          real
          > device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be
          greater
          > and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
          > saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
          > somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is
          made
          > up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the
          penetration
          > there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
          > With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of greater
          > transaction costs.
          >
          > Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger
          gross
          > margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive feedback
          > loop due to the influx of phone customers.
          >
          > So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the technology,
          > and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this not
          > happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?
          >
          > Rahul
          > http://tig.nareau.com
          >
          > [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
          > [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
        • Rosser Schwarz
          ... largely because of the relatively short range of 802.11b. even under the best of conditions, you re lucky to get 1.5km, and at that range, actual
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
            while you weren't looking, Rahul Dave wrote:

            >So why does this not happen today?

            largely because of the relatively short range of 802.11b. even
            under the best of conditions, you're lucky to get 1.5km, and at
            that range, actual bandwidth is pathetic.

            at a former employer's, there was a fire in the building and we
            had to evacuate. the sysadmin and i ended up sitting outside on
            the sidewalk with our laptops, performing an emergency backup by
            sucking peoples' working files down off the network with our
            802.11 cards. we were absolutely marvelling over the fact that
            we were able to reach the other machines, despite our office
            having only been on the seventh floor, perhaps 100 ft. above us.

            /rls
          • Rahul Dave
            I was under the impression that such phones were only glorified wireless phone replacements, to use in your building. But its good news if these are coming out
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
              I was under the impression that such phones were only glorified
              wireless phone replacements, to use in your building. But its good news if
              these are coming out as cell phone replacements, perhaps augmentations.
              Any links? The press seems to only cover
              3G phones. Anyone also making such routers?
              Thanks,
              Rahul
              I got this from you:
              >
              > people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak.
              >
              > cheers,
              > james
              >
              > ----
              > XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Rahul Dave" <rahul@...>
              > To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
              > Cc: <rahul@...>
              > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:56 PM
              > Subject: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
              >
              >
              > > (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
              > > problems with yahoo groups..)
              > > Folks,
              > > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
              > > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
              > > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
              > > 802.11?
              > >
              > > I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones
              > coming
              > > out[1].
              > >
              > > At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and
              > list
              > > there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing parasite
              > > 802.11 networks to exist.
              > >
              > > It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
              > > customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet.
              > Today
              > > 802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people
              > outside
              > > the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.
              > >
              > > On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless
              > web
              > > as its slow and awful.
              > >
              > > So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost
              > low..
              > > and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
              > > average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
              > > This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller
              > monthly
              > > price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
              > > broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better service.
              > > A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to
              > reduce
              > > bandwidth impact on each.
              > >
              > > So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
              > > possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
              > > ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a
              > real
              > > device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be
              > greater
              > > and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
              > > saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
              > > somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is
              > made
              > > up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the
              > penetration
              > > there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
              > > With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of greater
              > > transaction costs.
              > >
              > > Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger
              > gross
              > > margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive feedback
              > > loop due to the influx of phone customers.
              > >
              > > So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the technology,
              > > and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this not
              > > happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?
              > >
              > > Rahul
              > > http://tig.nareau.com
              > >
              > > [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
              > > [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
              > >
              > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              >
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • C. Wegrzyn
              I m not sure the 1.5km is true. There are a few 802.11B sites around the U.S. that span miles (as in more than 5). With directional antennas the stuff will go
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                I'm not sure the 1.5km is true. There are a few 802.11B sites around the
                U.S. that span miles (as in more than 5). With directional antennas the
                stuff will go quite a way (the farthest I've been able to support is over 4
                miles - it uses a tower at a high point. From within the area I can us a
                laptop with a PC CARD and stay connected).

                The biggest problem right now is in security, which with the current set of
                cards has already been broken.

                Chuck Wegrzyn

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Rosser Schwarz [mailto:rosser@...]
                Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:02 PM
                To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


                while you weren't looking, Rahul Dave wrote:

                >So why does this not happen today?

                largely because of the relatively short range of 802.11b. even
                under the best of conditions, you're lucky to get 1.5km, and at
                that range, actual bandwidth is pathetic.

                at a former employer's, there was a fire in the building and we
                had to evacuate. the sysadmin and i ended up sitting outside on
                the sidewalk with our laptops, performing an emergency backup by
                sucking peoples' working files down off the network with our
                802.11 cards. we were absolutely marvelling over the fact that
                we were able to reach the other machines, despite our office
                having only been on the seventh floor, perhaps 100 ft. above us.

                /rls


                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • C. Wegrzyn
                Routers for 802.11? Sure try D-Link, LinkSys to name a few. You can also find Cisco and Intel in the mix. Chuck Wegrzyn ... From: Rahul Dave
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                  Routers for 802.11? Sure try D-Link, LinkSys to name a few. You can also
                  find Cisco and Intel in the mix.

                  Chuck Wegrzyn


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Rahul Dave [mailto:rahul@...]
                  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:15 PM
                  To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


                  I was under the impression that such phones were only glorified
                  wireless phone replacements, to use in your building. But its good news if
                  these are coming out as cell phone replacements, perhaps augmentations.
                  Any links? The press seems to only cover
                  3G phones. Anyone also making such routers?
                  Thanks,
                  Rahul
                  I got this from you:
                  >
                  > people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak.
                  >
                  > cheers,
                  > james
                  >
                  > ----
                  > XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Rahul Dave" <rahul@...>
                  > To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Cc: <rahul@...>
                  > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:56 PM
                  > Subject: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
                  >
                  >
                  > > (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
                  > > problems with yahoo groups..)
                  > > Folks,
                  > > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                  > > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far
                  apart
                  > > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                  > > 802.11?
                  > >
                  > > I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones
                  > coming
                  > > out[1].
                  > >
                  > > At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and
                  > list
                  > > there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing
                  parasite
                  > > 802.11 networks to exist.
                  > >
                  > > It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
                  > > customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet.
                  > Today
                  > > 802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people
                  > outside
                  > > the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.
                  > >
                  > > On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless
                  > web
                  > > as its slow and awful.
                  > >
                  > > So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost
                  > low..
                  > > and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
                  > > average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
                  > > This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller
                  > monthly
                  > > price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
                  > > broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better
                  service.
                  > > A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to
                  > reduce
                  > > bandwidth impact on each.
                  > >
                  > > So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
                  > > possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
                  > > ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a
                  > real
                  > > device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be
                  > greater
                  > > and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
                  > > saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
                  > > somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is
                  > made
                  > > up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the
                  > penetration
                  > > there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
                  > > With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of
                  greater
                  > > transaction costs.
                  > >
                  > > Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger
                  > gross
                  > > margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive
                  feedback
                  > > loop due to the influx of phone customers.
                  > >
                  > > So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the
                  technology,
                  > > and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this
                  not
                  > > happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?
                  > >
                  > > Rahul
                  > > http://tig.nareau.com
                  > >
                  > > [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
                  > > [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
                  > >
                  > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >


                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • Rahul Dave
                  Does one even need 1.5km? If enough phone- 802.11 routers are there in a neighbourhood the max range would probably be far less. Furthermore, bandwidth could
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                    Does one even need 1.5km? If enough phone->802.11 routers are there in a
                    neighbourhood the max range would probably be far less. Furthermore,
                    bandwidth could in principle be aggregated across multiple routers,
                    swarmcast style..

                    Security is another matter altogether, though..
                    Rahul
                    I got this from you:
                    >
                    > while you weren't looking, Rahul Dave wrote:
                    >
                    > >So why does this not happen today?
                    >
                    > largely because of the relatively short range of 802.11b. even
                    > under the best of conditions, you're lucky to get 1.5km, and at
                    > that range, actual bandwidth is pathetic.
                    >
                    > at a former employer's, there was a fire in the building and we
                    > had to evacuate. the sysadmin and i ended up sitting outside on
                    > the sidewalk with our laptops, performing an emergency backup by
                    > sucking peoples' working files down off the network with our
                    > 802.11 cards. we were absolutely marvelling over the fact that
                    > we were able to reach the other machines, despite our office
                    > having only been on the seventh floor, perhaps 100 ft. above us.
                    >
                    > /rls
                    >
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                  • Rahul Dave
                    ... These are the standard 802.11 routers right? For some reason I thought the 802.11 phones would need special equipment.. Rahul
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                      I got this from you:
                      >
                      > Routers for 802.11? Sure try D-Link, LinkSys to name a few. You can also
                      > find Cisco and Intel in the mix.
                      These are the standard 802.11 routers right? For some reason I thought the
                      802.11 phones would need special equipment..
                      Rahul
                      >
                      > Chuck Wegrzyn
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Rahul Dave [mailto:rahul@...]
                      > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:15 PM
                      > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
                      >
                      >
                      > I was under the impression that such phones were only glorified
                      > wireless phone replacements, to use in your building. But its good news if
                      > these are coming out as cell phone replacements, perhaps augmentations.
                      > Any links? The press seems to only cover
                      > 3G phones. Anyone also making such routers?
                      > Thanks,
                      > Rahul
                      > I got this from you:
                      > >
                      > > people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak.
                      > >
                      > > cheers,
                      > > james
                      > >
                      > > ----
                      > > XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: "Rahul Dave" <rahul@...>
                      > > To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Cc: <rahul@...>
                      > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:56 PM
                      > > Subject: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
                      > > > problems with yahoo groups..)
                      > > > Folks,
                      > > > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                      > > > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far
                      > apart
                      > > > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                      > > > 802.11?
                      > > >
                      > > > I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones
                      > > coming
                      > > > out[1].
                      > > >
                      > > > At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2] and
                      > > list
                      > > > there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing
                      > parasite
                      > > > 802.11 networks to exist.
                      > > >
                      > > > It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
                      > > > customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better bet.
                      > > Today
                      > > > 802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few people
                      > > outside
                      > > > the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.
                      > > >
                      > > > On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done wireless
                      > > web
                      > > > as its slow and awful.
                      > > >
                      > > > So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost
                      > > low..
                      > > > and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
                      > > > average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone owners.
                      > > > This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller
                      > > monthly
                      > > > price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake of
                      > > > broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better
                      > service.
                      > > > A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to
                      > > reduce
                      > > > bandwidth impact on each.
                      > > >
                      > > > So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
                      > > > possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
                      > > > ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of a
                      > > real
                      > > > device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be
                      > > greater
                      > > > and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
                      > > > saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the architecture
                      > > > somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost is
                      > > made
                      > > > up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the
                      > > penetration
                      > > > there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
                      > > > With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of
                      > greater
                      > > > transaction costs.
                      > > >
                      > > > Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger
                      > > gross
                      > > > margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive
                      > feedback
                      > > > loop due to the influx of phone customers.
                      > > >
                      > > > So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the
                      > technology,
                      > > > and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this
                      > not
                      > > > happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?
                      > > >
                      > > > Rahul
                      > > > http://tig.nareau.com
                      > > >
                      > > > [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
                      > > > [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
                      > > >
                      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • C. Wegrzyn
                      Nope - all the 802.11 phones I ve seen discussed use IP as the means of working. The problem would be in handing off the phone calls to different cells but
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                        Nope - all the 802.11 phones I've seen discussed use IP as the means of
                        working. The problem would be in handing off the phone calls to different
                        "cells" but this wouldn't require special hardware. It would just require
                        software to do the cell hand-off. Seems like the start of an OSS project!

                        Chuck Wegrzyn


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Rahul Dave [mailto:rahul@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:01 AM
                        To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


                        I got this from you:
                        >
                        > Routers for 802.11? Sure try D-Link, LinkSys to name a few. You can also
                        > find Cisco and Intel in the mix.
                        These are the standard 802.11 routers right? For some reason I thought the
                        802.11 phones would need special equipment..
                        Rahul
                        >
                        > Chuck Wegrzyn
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Rahul Dave [mailto:rahul@...]
                        > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:15 PM
                        > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
                        >
                        >
                        > I was under the impression that such phones were only glorified
                        > wireless phone replacements, to use in your building. But its good news if
                        > these are coming out as cell phone replacements, perhaps augmentations.
                        > Any links? The press seems to only cover
                        > 3G phones. Anyone also making such routers?
                        > Thanks,
                        > Rahul
                        > I got this from you:
                        > >
                        > > people are building phones with 802.11 capability as we speak.
                        > >
                        > > cheers,
                        > > james
                        > >
                        > > ----
                        > > XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: "Rahul Dave" <rahul@...>
                        > > To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Cc: <rahul@...>
                        > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:56 PM
                        > > Subject: [decentralization] 802.11 phones
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > (Apologies if this shows up a second time..I seem to be having some
                        > > > problems with yahoo groups..)
                        > > > Folks,
                        > > > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                        > > > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far
                        > apart
                        > > > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                        > > > 802.11?
                        > > >
                        > > > I ask because I was reading on CNET today that 3G is way behind phones
                        > > coming
                        > > > out[1].
                        > > >
                        > > > At times in the past on this list, and on Dave's Seybold2001 site[2]
                        and
                        > > list
                        > > > there has been talk about finding an economic model for allowing
                        > parasite
                        > > > 802.11 networks to exist.
                        > > >
                        > > > It would seem to me if I were an ISP that being able to charge 5 phone
                        > > > customers in addition to the 1 broadband customer would be a better
                        bet.
                        > > Today
                        > > > 802.11 public access does not constitute a business model as few
                        people
                        > > outside
                        > > > the valley seem to have the laptop+card combo in the general public.
                        > > >
                        > > > On the other hand a whole lot have cell phones but havent done
                        wireless
                        > > web
                        > > > as its slow and awful.
                        > > >
                        > > > So, if it could be built into phones in enough volume to keep the cost
                        > > low..
                        > > > and phones have gotta be abetter way to sell it than laptop cards, the
                        > > > average broadband consumer would be subsidized by the cell phone
                        owners.
                        > > > This means for that the ISP could charge broadband owners a smaller
                        > > monthly
                        > > > price and a subsidized phone->802.11 router, allowing for more uptake
                        of
                        > > > broadband, greater cells in a neighbourhood, and automatic better
                        > service.
                        > > > A stream could be aggregated swarmcast like over different routers to
                        > > reduce
                        > > > bandwidth impact on each.
                        > > >
                        > > > So the broadband user got it cheaper. The cell phone person got speeds
                        > > > possibly faster than 3G without too much infrastructure cost to the
                        > > > ISP/phone company. With faster speeds the cell phone would be more of
                        a
                        > > real
                        > > > device than the pathetic WAP so maybe 'wireless web' uptake would be
                        > > greater
                        > > > and the phones themselves would not be too expensive. The ISP/telco is
                        > > > saving on 3G equipment instead having the DSL user fund the
                        architecture
                        > > > somewhat and provide the service. Whats lost in the per DSL user cost
                        is
                        > > made
                        > > > up by the likely greater penetration in the phone market, if the
                        > > penetration
                        > > > there is large enough to offset the greater number of DSL customers.
                        > > > With more broadband services there would exist the possibility of
                        > greater
                        > > > transaction costs.
                        > > >
                        > > > Ofcourse the prices would be adjusted so that the Telco makes a larger
                        > > gross
                        > > > margin due to a larger volume. There would seem to be a positive
                        > feedback
                        > > > loop due to the influx of phone customers.
                        > > >
                        > > > So why does this not happen today? I am not very clued on the
                        > technology,
                        > > > and so I wanted to ask, what are the technical factors which make this
                        > not
                        > > > happen, as it would seem the econimics work out..?
                        > > >
                        > > > Rahul
                        > > > http://tig.nareau.com
                        > > >
                        > > > [1] http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7120842.html?tag=tp_pr
                        > > > [2] http://seybold2001.manilasites.com/
                        > > >
                        > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >


                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • Rosser Schwarz
                        ... i can see a range in that, err, range working downstream--that is, from antenna to node, but back upstream, as well? with off-the- shelf hardware? what
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 10, 2001
                          while you weren't looking, C. Wegryzn wrote:

                          >I'm not sure the 1.5km is true. There are a few 802.11B sites around the
                          >U.S. that span miles (as in more than 5). With directional antennas the
                          >stuff will go quite a way (the farthest I've been able to support is over 4
                          >miles - it uses a tower at a high point. From within the area I can us a
                          >laptop with a PC CARD and stay connected).

                          i can see a range in that, err, range working downstream--that is,
                          from antenna to node, but back upstream, as well? with off-the-
                          shelf hardware? what kind of throughput are you getting at the
                          boundary? and what's the effect on the laptop's battery life, in
                          particular at the boundary?

                          >The biggest problem right now is in security, which with the current set of
                          >cards has already been broken.

                          the chief reason i don't use 802.11. which isn't to say that the
                          other wireless nics available are particularly better (and the set
                          i have are worse; they don't even pretend to have security). i
                          just tunnel everything i do over ssl. you'll have a better time
                          using van eck sniffing...

                          /rls

                          (as an aside, i was just spurred to do some reading on van eck
                          analysis and came across an article on the 802.11 vulnerability
                          describing a means of deducing keys in a matter of hours. of
                          course, i also found an article describing an exploit against
                          ssh based on statistical analysis of keystroke timings.)
                        • Brandon Wiley
                          ... The biggest hurdle to 802.11-based cell phones is deployment. There isn t a nationwide 802.11 network blanketing all of the major cities. Of course you
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                            > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                            > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
                            > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                            > 802.11?

                            The biggest hurdle to 802.11-based cell phones is deployment. There isn't
                            a nationwide 802.11 network blanketing all of the major cities. Of course
                            you could manufacture a triple-band analog-digital-802.11 phone but it
                            would be pricey to put all of that hardware in one device and the 802.11
                            part would only work when you were in the office.

                            I think that the original question was addressing cell phones which
                            happened to have 802.11 as an added bonus. The discussion has already
                            moved on to the idea of 802.11 devices which can do VoIP and thus get rid
                            of the old cell network (or just do IM or whatever). I've been planning
                            for some time to see if an iPAQ with a Ricochet card can make a decent
                            phone. Sure it's a $500 phone, but it's also a streaming Internet radio
                            station, organizer, instant messenging client, and arcade emulator.
                            Ricochet has plenty of bandwidth to do VoIP, it's a flat monthly rate, and
                            when I'm at home I can use my Ricochet card to gateway my entire home
                            network. So it's overall a better deal that cell phone + cable/DSL.
                            However, people have expressed doubts about its viability for VoIP due to
                            lag. And of course Ricochet's future is hazy currently.

                            It doesn't matter since Ricochet is not currently offered in the city that
                            I live in and they may disappear before I move to a supported city.

                            Of course there are the people that think that the country is going to be
                            blanketed with open 802.11 networks through a grass roots effort to bring
                            the network infrastructure to the people. Having looked into the
                            technology and all of the projects supposedly working on this I can easily
                            say that this is an unrealistic idea. The hardware is too expensive and
                            the range too short for a useful amount of area to be convered. People
                            will go on about how you can boost the range to miles but that requires an
                            expensive antenna. The ground-breaking article which claimed a 5 mile
                            range actually used directional antennas on both ends, a setup which is
                            totally useless for providing open access to roaming passers-by.

                            In fact the best deal you can currently get for wireless roaming Internet
                            access if your city doesn't have Ricochet is to use a cell phone modem to
                            call a local access number for a national ISP. It's a sad world, but
                            that's how it is.
                          • James Hong
                            umm, fyi, ricochet is already gone. cheers, james ... XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net ... From: Brandon Wiley
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                              umm, fyi, ricochet is already gone.

                              cheers,
                              james

                              ----
                              XMethods web service listings - http://www.xmethods.net


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Brandon Wiley" <brandon@...>
                              To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 12:26 AM
                              Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


                              >
                              > > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                              > > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far
                              apart
                              > > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                              > > 802.11?
                              >
                              > The biggest hurdle to 802.11-based cell phones is deployment. There isn't
                              > a nationwide 802.11 network blanketing all of the major cities. Of course
                              > you could manufacture a triple-band analog-digital-802.11 phone but it
                              > would be pricey to put all of that hardware in one device and the 802.11
                              > part would only work when you were in the office.
                              >
                              > I think that the original question was addressing cell phones which
                              > happened to have 802.11 as an added bonus. The discussion has already
                              > moved on to the idea of 802.11 devices which can do VoIP and thus get rid
                              > of the old cell network (or just do IM or whatever). I've been planning
                              > for some time to see if an iPAQ with a Ricochet card can make a decent
                              > phone. Sure it's a $500 phone, but it's also a streaming Internet radio
                              > station, organizer, instant messenging client, and arcade emulator.
                              > Ricochet has plenty of bandwidth to do VoIP, it's a flat monthly rate, and
                              > when I'm at home I can use my Ricochet card to gateway my entire home
                              > network. So it's overall a better deal that cell phone + cable/DSL.
                              > However, people have expressed doubts about its viability for VoIP due to
                              > lag. And of course Ricochet's future is hazy currently.
                              >
                              > It doesn't matter since Ricochet is not currently offered in the city that
                              > I live in and they may disappear before I move to a supported city.
                              >
                              > Of course there are the people that think that the country is going to be
                              > blanketed with open 802.11 networks through a grass roots effort to bring
                              > the network infrastructure to the people. Having looked into the
                              > technology and all of the projects supposedly working on this I can easily
                              > say that this is an unrealistic idea. The hardware is too expensive and
                              > the range too short for a useful amount of area to be convered. People
                              > will go on about how you can boost the range to miles but that requires an
                              > expensive antenna. The ground-breaking article which claimed a 5 mile
                              > range actually used directional antennas on both ends, a setup which is
                              > totally useless for providing open access to roaming passers-by.
                              >
                              > In fact the best deal you can currently get for wireless roaming Internet
                              > access if your city doesn't have Ricochet is to use a cell phone modem to
                              > call a local access number for a national ISP. It's a sad world, but
                              > that's how it is.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                            • pippo_67
                              when trying to figure out how an 802.11b (or 802.11a) network will work, one should not think about it being mutually exclusive with other networks. What will
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                when trying to figure out how an 802.11b (or 802.11a) network will work, one
                                should not think about it being mutually exclusive with other networks.

                                What will probably happen in the real world is that multistandard devices
                                (phones+handeld devices) will come out and people will have the choice of
                                using the most appropriate network.

                                As an example, Starbucks in the US is deploying 802.11b HotSpots in their
                                shops, so are a number of other companies (either would be virtual operators
                                or companies); on the business side, companies are trying to understand that
                                they could route most of their out bound traffic through 802.11b and then
                                through fixed networks. In few years we will check our handheld device for
                                coverage and depending on what we need to do, we'll postpone our music
                                download until we are in a 802.11b HotSpot or make that quick call using
                                Gprs/UMTS.

                                There are a number of new ideas coming out right now as to how to build
                                these "virtual operators", which economic model will they use and which
                                technology will be the most appropriate.

                                On a side note: It is ironic to see how technology and business evolve... if
                                you think about just 8/12 months ago: 802.11b was already there as a
                                technology, fully tested and functional and at that time people were
                                fighting to get UMTS licenses for billions of dollars thinking that that was
                                the only viable solution to give wireless high speed connection to the
                                masses...

                                Marco Palombi
                                www.tipic.com

                                p.s.
                                check:
                                - www.consume.net and other grass root would be 802.11b networks (we'll se
                                if their technology works)
                                - http://www.symbol.com/index.html for 802.11b phones
                                - did you know that you can buy an Ipaq and add a 802.11b PCMCIA card to it
                                :-)
                              • C. Wegrzyn
                                Because of the topology of the place it does get a little difficult to use in areas of poor reception. Though with the little USB box pointed in the right
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                  Because of the topology of the place it does get a little difficult to use
                                  in areas of poor reception. Though with the little USB box pointed in the
                                  right direction I can still connect up.

                                  Battery life on a laptop - lol. I keep spares charged. It does suck all the
                                  power out in no time.

                                  Chuck Wegrzyn


                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Rosser Schwarz [mailto:rosser@...]
                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:52 AM
                                  To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [decentralization] 802.11 phones


                                  while you weren't looking, C. Wegryzn wrote:

                                  >I'm not sure the 1.5km is true. There are a few 802.11B sites around the
                                  >U.S. that span miles (as in more than 5). With directional antennas the
                                  >stuff will go quite a way (the farthest I've been able to support is over 4
                                  >miles - it uses a tower at a high point. From within the area I can us a
                                  >laptop with a PC CARD and stay connected).

                                  i can see a range in that, err, range working downstream--that is,
                                  from antenna to node, but back upstream, as well? with off-the-
                                  shelf hardware? what kind of throughput are you getting at the
                                  boundary? and what's the effect on the laptop's battery life, in
                                  particular at the boundary?

                                  >The biggest problem right now is in security, which with the current set of
                                  >cards has already been broken.

                                  the chief reason i don't use 802.11. which isn't to say that the
                                  other wireless nics available are particularly better (and the set
                                  i have are worse; they don't even pretend to have security). i
                                  just tunnel everything i do over ssl. you'll have a better time
                                  using van eck sniffing...

                                  /rls

                                  (as an aside, i was just spurred to do some reading on van eck
                                  analysis and came across an article on the 802.11 vulnerability
                                  describing a means of deducing keys in a matter of hours. of
                                  course, i also found an article describing an exploit against
                                  ssh based on statistical analysis of keystroke timings.)


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                • C. Wegrzyn
                                  I can tell you an iPAQ with a 802.11B PC Card can do it. I have it running right now - and it doesn t (for the most part) even stress the network. I run a SIP
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                    I can tell you an iPAQ with a 802.11B PC Card can do it. I have it running
                                    right now - and it doesn't (for the most part) even stress the network. I
                                    run a SIP phone program on top of it and it works fine.


                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Brandon Wiley [mailto:brandon@...]
                                    Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:26 AM
                                    To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [decentralization] 802.11 phones



                                    > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                                    > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
                                    > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                                    > 802.11?

                                    The biggest hurdle to 802.11-based cell phones is deployment. There isn't
                                    a nationwide 802.11 network blanketing all of the major cities. Of course
                                    you could manufacture a triple-band analog-digital-802.11 phone but it
                                    would be pricey to put all of that hardware in one device and the 802.11
                                    part would only work when you were in the office.

                                    I think that the original question was addressing cell phones which
                                    happened to have 802.11 as an added bonus. The discussion has already
                                    moved on to the idea of 802.11 devices which can do VoIP and thus get rid
                                    of the old cell network (or just do IM or whatever). I've been planning
                                    for some time to see if an iPAQ with a Ricochet card can make a decent
                                    phone. Sure it's a $500 phone, but it's also a streaming Internet radio
                                    station, organizer, instant messenging client, and arcade emulator.
                                    Ricochet has plenty of bandwidth to do VoIP, it's a flat monthly rate, and
                                    when I'm at home I can use my Ricochet card to gateway my entire home
                                    network. So it's overall a better deal that cell phone + cable/DSL.
                                    However, people have expressed doubts about its viability for VoIP due to
                                    lag. And of course Ricochet's future is hazy currently.

                                    It doesn't matter since Ricochet is not currently offered in the city that
                                    I live in and they may disappear before I move to a supported city.

                                    Of course there are the people that think that the country is going to be
                                    blanketed with open 802.11 networks through a grass roots effort to bring
                                    the network infrastructure to the people. Having looked into the
                                    technology and all of the projects supposedly working on this I can easily
                                    say that this is an unrealistic idea. The hardware is too expensive and
                                    the range too short for a useful amount of area to be convered. People
                                    will go on about how you can boost the range to miles but that requires an
                                    expensive antenna. The ground-breaking article which claimed a 5 mile
                                    range actually used directional antennas on both ends, a setup which is
                                    totally useless for providing open access to roaming passers-by.

                                    In fact the best deal you can currently get for wireless roaming Internet
                                    access if your city doesn't have Ricochet is to use a cell phone modem to
                                    call a local access number for a national ISP. It's a sad world, but
                                    that's how it is.



                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  • Rahul Dave
                                    ... Cool! ... The deployment part is where a financial model would be needed. Here the impetus would be cheaper broadband landline by passing cost on to the
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                      >
                                      > I can tell you an iPAQ with a 802.11B PC Card can do it. I have it running
                                      > right now - and it doesn't (for the most part) even stress the network. I
                                      > run a SIP phone program on top of it and it works fine.
                                      Cool!
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > The biggest hurdle to 802.11-based cell phones is deployment. There isn't
                                      > a nationwide 802.11 network blanketing all of the major cities. Of course
                                      > you could manufacture a triple-band analog-digital-802.11 phone but it
                                      > would be pricey to put all of that hardware in one device and the 802.11
                                      > part would only work when you were in the office.

                                      The deployment part is where a financial model would be needed. Here the
                                      impetus would be cheaper broadband landline by passing cost on to the
                                      (possibly many more) phone customers.
                                      You would need to do this and perhaps some symmetric line booster
                                      spots yourself for this to be viable.

                                      The interesting thing IMHO is that this provides money to the
                                      entrenched powers that be as opposed to a community network..the crucial
                                      issue I always thought was the peering with the land internet issue which
                                      is solved to the benefit of all and lower marginal cost to a much larger base
                                      of subscribers, if they bite (the big if :-))

                                      >
                                      > I think that the original question was addressing cell phones which
                                      > happened to have 802.11 as an added bonus. The discussion has already
                                      > moved on to the idea of 802.11 devices which can do VoIP and thus get rid
                                      > of the old cell network (or just do IM or whatever). I've been planning

                                      Given the asymmetry of most broadband landline connections, a
                                      multifunction phone would make more sense than VOIP. And you could hand off to
                                      a very poor bandwidth 9.6KBits data network when the signal was poor.

                                      Rahul
                                    • Bill Kearney
                                      ... also ... Folks, let s be clear on what s being routed to where. From what I gather, this thread is about using a wireless device for telephone
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                        --- In decentralization@y..., "C. Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn@g...> wrote:
                                        > Routers for 802.11? Sure try D-Link, LinkSys to name a few. You can
                                        also
                                        > find Cisco and Intel in the mix.

                                        Folks, let's be clear on what's being routed to where. From what I
                                        gather, this thread is about using a wireless device for telephone
                                        applications. This would require a handset that worked over 802.11b
                                        wireless protocols to an 802.11b base station of some sort that
                                        routed to telephony services.

                                        These telephony services might be a simple as a single POTS interface
                                        for a single line. Or they might be more sophisticated, using
                                        larger 'gateways' to PBX systems or multiple trunk lines.

                                        This is not a 'regular' 802.11b wireless to ethernet router. While
                                        such a beast might be involved, it's not directly relevant to an
                                        802.11b telephone.

                                        IIRC, Proxim once made (or announced) a wireless IP telephone. A
                                        brief review of their web site shows no reference to it.

                                        Using an IP telephone is going to be rather more difficult than a
                                        cell phone. The IP address of the telephone is going to change as
                                        you move from base to base. This, of course, is going to be a
                                        routing issue. But even with resolution of this issue, there's still
                                        the problem of telephony being circuit based not packet based.

                                        This is where folks like Cisco have made tremendous advances with
                                        Voice over IP (VoIP). However, these don't deal with the handset
                                        being moved from subnet to subnet during conversations.

                                        But more importantly, while this seems like a cool idea, it is going
                                        to consume bandwidth. 64k per conversation for toll quality audio.
                                        This will come at the sacrifice of any other data traffic. It might
                                        be interesting to be able to 'route around' the telco for voice but
                                        at what cost for the other traffic?

                                        -Bill Kearney
                                      • Brandon Wiley
                                        ... I m sorry to hear that. I heard that they were pondering a buyout.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                          > umm, fyi, ricochet is already gone.

                                          I'm sorry to hear that. I heard that they were pondering a buyout.
                                        • Tony Kimball
                                          ... I think you must reasonably assume a fixed IP station bridging to the POTS network. The Rocks project deals nicely with the problem of maintaining a
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                            Quoth Bill Kearney on Tuesday, 11 September:
                                            : But even with resolution of this issue, there's still
                                            : the problem of telephony being circuit based not packet based.

                                            I think you must reasonably assume a fixed IP station bridging
                                            to the POTS network. The Rocks project deals nicely with the
                                            problem of maintaining a socket stream during IP number changes,
                                            but i don't think it is necessary, if you use congestion-controlled
                                            UDP -- which is preferrable anyhow.
                                          • Wesley Felter
                                            ... I linked this yesterday: http://www.interactiveweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D1825%2526a%253D14310,00.asp Wesley Felter - wesley@felter.org -
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Sep 11, 2001
                                              On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Rahul Dave wrote:

                                              > Is there a technical reason, like perhaps power requirements, or voice
                                              > coexistence issues(though the freq ranges 0.9GHz and 2.4GHz seem far apart
                                              > enough) that prevent us from having internet capable cell phones with
                                              > 802.11?

                                              I linked this yesterday:

                                              http://www.interactiveweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D1825%2526a%253D14310,00.asp

                                              Wesley Felter - wesley@... - http://felter.org/wesley/
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.