 |
Priority
Interrupt
by Steve Ciarcia
Why-Fi?
|
I'm
sitting here with my laptop in a big over-stuffed chair
writing my editorial and telecommuting with the Circuit
Cellar office via e-mail. Ordinarily, I'd be doing all
of this down in the basement (that's why they call it
the Circuit Cellar, folks), but today was such a nice
fall day here in New England that I decided to do it above
ground. Technically, I've always been able to accomplish
this stuffed-chair routine, but it hasn't always been
as easy. Up until about nine months ago when they finally
strung a DSL cable out to where I live, the best I could
do for remote computing was a long tether to a standard
dial-up phone line. I was forever tripping over it.
Because using high-speed DSL has more installation options,
I added a wireless router along with the hard-wired network
connections. All I had to do was insert a credit card-sized
wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) transceiver in the PC-card slot
of my laptop and, voilą, instant mobile Internet (for
a few hundred feet anyway). I'm happy to say it was completely
successful, and it allows me to use the laptop virtually
anywhere on my immediate property. In fact, I love it
when we're watching TV and there is some reference about
e-mailing an opinion or getting more info from a web site,
and I can do it in real time as we watch.
Probably,
the reason I like the idea of Wi-Fi most is that its popularity
has come from the user side rather than declarations by
industry analysts or promises from big companies. For
the most part, Wi-Fi is like dealing with other open-source
technologies, and there are only a few strict rules: devices
must be low power to avoid jamming other signals, and
they must follow the agreed upon design standards of 802.11.
Unlike cellular telephone service, which uses a heavily
regulated and high-priced frequency spectrum (some companies
have paid billions of dollars for networks and licensing
fees), the 802 frequency bands come free of charge and
are largely unregulated by the FCC.
Of
course, the low cost of becoming your own neighborhood
ISP appeals to many people. Neighbors within 300¢ of your
home wireless network get to share your bandwidth, and
all they need is a $50 wireless network card. If you're
generous, you call it a "freenet." If you're on a tight
budget, perhaps a few neighbors chip in to pay the monthly
broadband bill. Of course, all of this sounds plausible
and sensible until you extrapolate this to opportunists
who might apply "chipping in" to a few hundred "neighborhood"
people in an apartment tower.
The
problem is, all you need is one paying broadband subscriber
to set up a wireless local network that allows any number
of others access to the same service (for fun or for profit).
Most local networks are set up by individuals like me
just looking for a way to work in another part of their
home or business. There's another crowd interested in
networking every cafe, hotel, airport, and conference
center in existence. In the meantime, all of the potential
free network access (intended or simply the unintended
bleed within 300¢ of a system like mine) creates an adventure
for hackers. All it takes is some Sniffer software, usually
downloaded for free, combined with a Wi-Fi card in a laptop
to search out the nearest network (Aside from the fact
that you may or may not have a legal right to redistribute
bandwidth, what do you do when some federal-type comes
knocking on your door to discuss all the kiddy-porn that's
apparently being channeled through your IP address?).
As you might have guessed, some broadband service providers
aren't happy about "freenets" at all. They even equate
it to theft of service and will disconnect the subscribers
who are found guilty of sharing bandwidth. One of the
solutions is pay-for-play Wi-Fi from a provider such as
Boingo. The service, designed primarily for business travelers,
provides a list of places to log on with your PDA or laptop.
While Boingo says they will soon list thousands of network
access points, it still costs up to $75 a month to use.
The
big wireless phone companies aren't sitting on their thumbs
either. The telcos have been pushing their own wireless-data
services, generically referred to as 2.5G (generation
two and a half) and 3G (third generation). Such services
are popular already in Europe, but I suspect that it has
more to do with the difficulty of routing DSL lines through
1000-year-old buildings than strictly performance. To
make a long story short, I see the telcos eventually providing
a hybrid of Wi-Fi and 3G. The Wi-Fi would be high speed,
small area, but very low cost. The 3G would be wide area,
lower speed, but higher cost.
Of
course, just like the popularity of Wi-Fi, the course
and costs of Internet services can be greatly influenced
by users who vote with their wallets. If you deal only
with ISPs that allow freenets, they will flourish. Similarly,
if everyone runs out tomorrow to buy a 2.5/3G phone, the
telcos will have little incentive to offer you anything
different.
When all of the dust settles, I hope they arrive at the
one immutable wallet-driven conclusion. Some of us would
like to have just one bill a month for all our communication
services-phone, Internet, cable, etc.-rather than being
nickeled and dimed to death by every individual puzzle-piece
provider.
steve.ciarcia@circuitcellar.com
Published: December-2002
