Fractals of Change

Airlines Encourage Cloud Computing

When things come full circle, you know you're old. I cut my professional teeth on massive centralized computers; helped use remote access to bring computing power out of the glass room; then I retooled for the massive decentralization that microcomputers made possible; made a new career in helping to connect all those decentralized computers. Now, IMHO, computing is about to go back into the cloud.

According to a story by Nathan Eddy at eweek.com, United is planning to join American, Delta, and Virgin America in offering WiFi on US domestic flights. The story talks about being able to exchange email and rebook flights while aloft. What's more important is that WiFi en route will remove one of the last reasons to carry around much more computing power than you can get in a netbook – a small computer with long battery life, a good screen, but not much disk storage and not many onboard applications.

When you want to do word processing or number crunching on a netbook, you use an application for that purpose available online. Google and others already offer somewhat weaker online versions of the Microsoft Office applications like Word and Excel that most of us are familiar with. You or your employer save money twice – once when you buy a cheap netbook without Windows rather than a more expensive laptop, the second time when you don't buy a copy of Microsoft Office.

Up until now the appeal of netbooks was small because we all spent a fair amount of our travel time offline but still wanted to be able to work. But, if we're going to be online most of the time, netbooks get to be a very good alternative. We already can get online in our cars in much of the country – hopefully only while we're passengers – using the cellular technologies EVDO and HSPA.

Maybe smart is the new cool but saving money now means survival. My prediction is that netbooks start to make serious inroads during the current ueconomic unpleasantness. Bad news for Dell and others who will probably see smaller margins on these cheaper machines; perhaps good news for Intel if the cheaper machines (which still need good computing power to execute remote apps locally) expand the market for chips. Good news for communications providers as the need for bandwidth – especially mobile bandwidth – increases. At least temporary good news for airlines since they plan to charge $12.95/flight for access (are we really saving money then?). Very bad news for Microsoft. Perhaps bad news for Apple since it's hard to see running most apps on the small screens of most cool Apple devices and the Mac coolness will be lost if we're all running apps in the cloud.

Also bad news for parts of the country which don't have pervasive Internet access. We end up using obsolete apps on obsolete machines and paying more for the privilege. Good thing we're building an e-state here in Vermont.

Shape of the Future?

 

This is good news, right? This convention center in Boston is NOT charging an arm and a leg for temporary roaming Internet access. BTW, it worked pretty well at a little less than one meg in the downwards direction.

But, even if access to information is free, the energy to power that access isn't. See below:

 

I think this may be aimed at people who forgot their chargers because there were plenty of wall plugs you could camp next to and get some free kilowatt hours.

But my guess is that we'll see less free access to energy and more free access to the Internet.

Vermont Files in Support of Using White Space for Mobile Broadband Access

The Vermont Public Service Department and the Vermont Telecommunications Authority have joined in an ex parte filing at the Federal Communications Commission urging that the Commission “move expeditiously to adopt the necessary technical parameters … and help make this promising technology [use of the so-called ‘TV whitespaces’] a reality.” Given that the docket has been open since May of 2004, a little expeditiousness is certainly in order.

“TV white spaces” is the term used by the FCC but it’s a misnomer; no broadcaster has actually paid for any of the spectrum at issue; no one is using it; in short; it’s wasted. Originally, before cable and satellite TV and before the Internet, it was reasonably believed that this spectrum would eventually be occupied by a proliferation of over-the-air stations. That’s not gonna happen. Vermont has as much radio spectrum “reserved” for over-the-air TV stations as New York City – 50 channels worth. That “reserved” spectrum is not of any use to anyone and won’t be until the FCC promulgates some rules for its use.

The filing explains the many reasons why this spectrum is ideally suited to meeting the needs or rural America for much better broadband and cellular coverage:

“First, rural areas like Vermont have relatively fewer TV broadcasters and therefore more unused ‘white spaces.’ Moreover, rural communities also have the largest geographic areas without access to wireless services. Second, the ability of TV frequencies to propagate over great distances and difficult terrain provides an opportunity to reach locations too economically challenging for existing wireless services. Third, the use of TV ‘white space’ for the provision of rural broadband is an alternative means of accomplishing the Commission’s universal service goal of deploying advanced services to all areas of the nation without requiring additional funding mechanisms. In fact, the use of TV ‘white space’ could actually decrease the demand for universal service funding at a time when the level of funding is facing heightened scrutiny.”

The filing makes clear that the petitioners do NOT think that this spectrum should be auctioned off at a high price. The greatest public good will come from making these public resources available “at low or no-cost to those entities willing to utilize them for such purpose [broadband and mobile access].”

It will take the concentrated political power of rural America to free up this spectrum to meet the rural need for better communication. But this isn’t urban vs. rural; urban areas also have something to gain from better spectrum availability and nothing to lose.

Not to over-dramatize but I see this as the public interest vs. entrenched communications interests. The TV industry would like to sit on this spectrum without paying for it “just in case”; they also may be worried about Internet use of the spectrum becoming a competing “channel” for delivering entertainment. Traditional communications carriers benefit from LACK of competition in the US broadband market; they have no reason to want to see competition growing like weeds (or, more accurately, like WiFi) in fields of open spectrum.

Google and other “Internet” companies do have an interest in keeping their paths to the consumer unblocked; competition would be good for that. This post is about a proposal Google has made for putting the unused white space to work.

Disclosure: My wife, Mary Evslin, is Chair of the Vermont Telecommunications Authority.

Cordless or Wireless? Good Question

We don’t do spring here in Vermont so now it’s summer although there’s still plenty of snow gleaming in the mountains. Time for me to work outside (at least until we get our obligatory late season snowstorm).

My cordless phone is scratchy by the time I get out on the deck; it doesn’t like being that far from the base station. The WiFi isn’t great on the deck either.

I could move the base station for the cordless phone and install a repeater for the WiFi signal. Last year I used my antenna and high-power WiFi card to make WiFi work right outside. But that’s all a lot of trouble.

Instead I made my calls using my wireless (aka cellular) phone. And I put the EVDO USB modem in my computer and just used that for connectivity. Since I never use my 500 wireless minutes each month nor the 5 gigabytes per month included in my EVDO account, it doesn’t cost me anything incremental to be in my travel configuration while on the deck; and it’s a lot more convenient than making the house radios have good coverage outside.

So here’s the question: will there come a time when we don’t install our own little radios for voice and data at the end of the wires, cables, or fiber that comes into our houses? Will we just pick up the same signal from our carriers that we use when we’re traveling inside the house as well as on the deck and in the car?

Clearly WON’T happen unless the carriers lower the prices for cellular and EVDO and lift the volume limits. $99/month for unlimited talking on Verizon Wireless or AT&T is a lot more than $24.95 on Vonage which also includes reasonable rates on international calling. 5 gig would disappear pretty soon if I were doing my nightly over-the-net backups and watching MLB.com on EVDO. Moreover EVDO isn’t really fast enough for lots of web stuff.

The conventional wisdom is that eventually voice and data will come over a fiber into the house and then be distributed wirelessly thoughout the house and maybe the yard and that mobile needs will continue to be met by different technology at a higher price. Maybe the conventional wisdom is right but it’s always worth questioning.

I think there’s a strong probability that not just the last 100 feet but the whole last mile will be wireless in many places. Radio technology is advancing very quickly. There would be plenty of spectrum IFF (and it’s a big IFF) there were regulatory reform to allow use of whitespace and make much more spectrum open. As we (and our computers) spend more and more time connected, we’ll be more and more impatient with having to switch connectivity modes when we walk out the front door.

That would mean no communication wires, cables or fibers coming to most single family residences. That could also mean true competition in communication services just as cell phone service offers more choices, more competition, and more innovation than landline service does today. It’s hard to make a business case for duplicate networks to each house; much easier to make the case for competitive radios, even on the same towers.

Just a speculation.

Google’s Gigabit Gambit

Want a gig (1000 megabits per second) of Internet access bandwidth? Google says you could have it by the end of next year “from Manhattan to rural North Dakota (sic, I think they meant Vermont)” if their proposal to the FCC is accepted forthwith according to CNET’s newsblog. Not only a gig but a mobile gig, accessible by cellphone or roaming computer – no fiber required. Sound too good to be true? – it isn’t, IMHO!

Engineering is not the problem (more below). Politics, entrenched interests, and bureaucratic inertia, however, make it unlikely this dream’ll come true as quickly as it ought to despite the fact that America could lead the world in broadband penetration and accessibility within two years if the FCC accedes to the request Google made yesterday to open up “whitespace” for use by broadband devices. Rural areas – most deprived of broadband service to day – would be the biggest beneficiaries; but urban America has plenty to gain as well. Google also has plenty to gain by FCC agreement – nothing wrong with that.

How’s this possible? In short, open spectrum. But I’ll explain.

A huge swath of frequencies is reserved for over the air use. Even after TV stations give up a relatively small amount of spectrum in February of next year by switching to all digital broadcast format, there will still be enough spectrum available for channels 2 through 51 in every market in the United States; there is also unused space between channels which modern technology makes safely usable. In rural areas, as much as 300Mhz of spectrum may be completely unused; even in rural areas there are unused swaths and the space between the channels can now safely be used thanks to modern technology. In the recently completed FCC auction, Verizon promised to pay over $4.7 BILLION dollars for just 22Mhz of spectrum so 300Mhz is a really big deal.

Although this whitespace is nominally reserved for television use, no one has paid for a license to use any of it. It’s fallow, as we say in Vermont. It’s time it was grazed.

Unlike the 22Mhz band which Verizon just bought, the whitespace is a patchwork. Different frequencies are available in different places. Radios, whether in cellphones or attached to computers, which use this spectrum have to either know where they are (trivial with GPS) or have some way to listen to see what frequencies are usable locally and be able to change their frequency as you drive down the road much as you change radio stations to adapt to local conditions. Mobile phones already do this within a narrow range of frequencies; wifi has much of this technology. Google is suggesting that only radios which have passed FCC licensing criteria for safe operation be allowed to operate.

Despite the fact that the radios will be licensed, the operators will not! A cellular operator has to get a license to use a specific frequency from the FCC; a WiFi operator does not. Google calls its proposal WiFi 2.0 for this reason. Google is proposing that these frequencies b made available for UNLICENSED use (albeit with licensed radios). Experience has taught us that much more signal will be crammed into a given swath of spectrum if the spectrum is unlicensed than if it is licensed. (BTW, some smart people disagree on this and point to real instances of wifi congestion. I think this is a consequence of the relatively tiny slivers of junk spectrum wifi shares with microwave and cordless phones and will not be a serious problem in the wide open whitespaces).

Moreover, innovation thrives in unlicensed spectrum. From Google’s letter to the FCC:

“In short, FCC rules should specify only what is allowed, not how that result is to be achieved, or by whom. Much like the Internet itself, the agency’s specifications should as much as possible enable “innovation without permission” (although with necessary technical constraints). For example, the Part 15 rules permitting WiFi were written years before the IEEE 802.11 technology was even contemplated, much less existed. If those rules had been contingent on the pre-existence of WiFi, one of the most successful and efficient uses of spectrum in the history of wireless communications likely never would have happened.”

Google is not asking for any special privilege. However, the availability of open spectrum would not only create a huge opportunity for their proposed Android phone design but also protect them from the threat of the established carriers finding a way to establish toll booths which divert revenue from Google’s coffers to those of the carriers. Because Google has such a large stake in making open spectrum a success, they’re offering help to those who will do the actual implementation:

“Google also would be willing to provide, at no cost to third parties, the technical support necessary to make these plans happen; this could include intellectual property and reference designs for underlying technologies, open geo-databases maintained by Google, and other supporting infrastructure.”

Why won’t this happen?

Remember Verizon just promised to pay $4.7 billion and change for the 22Mhz C block; how much is that 22Mhz worth if huge blocks of unlicensed spectrum with similar propagation characteristics become available around the country? Google made a pass at this spectrum and probably forced the Verizon bid up. Was this rope-a-dope?

Don’t feel to sorry for Verizon though; they cited the upcoming rulemaking on the whitespaces as a reason why the spectrum they bought at auction should be auctioned rather than released for unlicensed use.

Americans pay more for less Internet access bandwidth than people in most developed and many developing nations. These prices will plummet per megabit when over-the-air competition becomes available. Those who benefit from this pricing will not be happy to see the competition – and they have lobbyists.

Cellphone calling costs much more than the price of providing the service. Control of spectrum lets the major carriers keep these prices up. What happens if spectrum is open? There goes another rubber tree plant.

I’ll be speaking at David Isenberg’s always worthwhile F2C conference next Monday morning at 8:30AM. Even though it’s only the day before April Fool’s Day, I’ll be giving a history lesson from a 2018 perspective of how almost all spectrum got unlicensed. The Google proposal is a milestone in that “history”.

More on open spectrum:

Internet 2.0 is Open Spectrum

Backstory of Open Spectrum Epiphany

Spectrum Serendipity

Google’s Brilliant Proposal (this one wasn’t adopted)

WiMAX vs. WiFi

In fact WiFi (technically standard 802.11) and WiMAX (802.16) don’t compete for broadband users or applications today. That’s partly because WiFi is widely deployed and WiMAX is still largely an unfulfilled promise and partly because the two protocols were designed for very different situations. However, if WiMAX is eventually widely deployed, there will be competition between them as last mile technologies.

Some people describe the difference between WiFi and WiMAX as analogous to the difference between a cordless phone and a mobile phone. Wifi, like a cordless phone, is primarily used to provide a connection within a limited area like a home or an office. WiMAX is used (or planned to be used) to provide broadband connectivity from some central location to most locations inside or outside within its service radius as well as to people passing through in cars. Just like mobile phone service, there are likely to be WiMAX dead spots within buildings.

From a techie POV, the analogy is apt at another level: WiFi, like cordless phones, operates in unlicensed spectrum (in fact cordless phones and WiFi can interfere with each other in the pitiful swatch of spectrum that’s been allocated to them). There are some implementations of WiMAX for unlicensed spectrum but most WiMAX development has been done on radios which operate on frequencies whose use requires a license.

Some more subversive types (they’re subversive so I can’t link to them) say that WiMAX is what you get when bellheads (not a nice term) try to reinvent WiFi the way they’d like it to be. It’s true that WiMAX is much more a command and control protocol than WiFi. Oversimplified, in a WiFi environment every device within reach of an access point shouts for attention whenever it’s got something to transmit. In that chaos, some signals tromp on other signals; the more powerful devices and those closer to the access point tend to get more than their share of airtime like the obnoxious kid who always has his hand up in the front of the class. In WiMAX devices contend for initial attention but then are assigned times when they may ask to speak. The protocol allows the operator more control over the quality of service provided – bellheads like control.

But it’s not clear that more control means better service than contentious chaos (I’m talking about technology but the same may apply to economies or bodies politic). The Internet and its routing algorithms are chaotic; the routers just throw away packets if they get to busy to handle them. Bellheads (and even smart people like Bob Metcalfe) were sure that design or lack thereof wouldn’t scale. They were wrong.

Same people said that voice would never work over the Internet – there’s no guarantee of quality, you see. They were wrong although it’s taken awhile to prove it. Now HD voice is available on the Internet but NOT on the traditional phone network (although it could be).

Lovers of an orderly environment and those who like to keep order were absolutely sure that WiFi couldn’t work once it became popular. Not only is it chaotic; it also operates in the uncontrolled environment of unlicensed frequencies along with cordless phones, bluetooth headsets, walkie-talkies and the occasional leaky microwave oven. But somehow it’s become near indispensable even in places where a city block full of access points contend for the scarce frequencies.

Net: I’m not convinced that WiMAX won’t suffer from its own orderliness. Did you ever fume leaving an event when an amateur cop (or a professional one) managed traffic into an endless snarl? Fact is cars at low speed usually merge better without help than otherwise. Turns out that control comes at the expense of wasted capacity. The reason that the Internet or WiFi radios can work is that the computing power necessary to deal with chaos from the edge of the network is far cheaper and less subject to disruption or misallocation than the computing power (and communication) for central command and control.

WiMAX may be too well-controlled for its own good. Moreover, if it is used only in regulated spectrum where most frequencies are idle most of the time AND licenses for the frequencies have to be purchased, it will be even less efficient than if it could contend for unlicensed spectrum.

By the way, WiFi CAN operate at distances as great as WiMAX but there are two reasons why it doesn’t. One reason is that radios operating in the unlicensed frequencies are not allowed to be as powerful as those operated with licenses; less power means less distance. These regulations are based on the dated assumption that devices can’t regulate themselves – but the assumption MAY be correct over great enough distances. The second reason why WiFi access points don’t serve as wide an area as WiMAX access points are planned to do is the engineering belief that the problem of everybody shouting at once, even if it’s surmountable in a classroom, would be catastrophic in a larger arena. Maybe.

New licensed spectrum is being made available for WiMAX and other technologies NOT including WiFi - for example, the valuable 700MHz frequencies currently used by analog over the air TV. WiMAX could have a good run because it is allowed to operate in that efficient spectrum while WiFi will eventually run out of the pitifully little spectrum that’s been allocated to it. That’s policy and politics and not engineering but could still be a reason for WiMAX success.

Why WiMAX? is about the advantages of that technology.

Internet 2.0 is Open Spectrum is an argument against licensed spectrum.

Why WiMAX?

The chart above tells part of the “Why WiMAX” story. WiMAX is yet one more standard (IEE 802.16) for the wireless transmission of data. The most recent rev, 802.16e, provides for very good mobile access to data. At speeds up to 75mph you can receive at rates “up to” 1 megabit per second and, at slightly lower speeds, much higher data rates. So, unlike WiFi (802.11), WiMAX competes with various cellular technologies for use in a moving vehicle. Not only voice but receipt of traffic conditions, weather, and entertainment will be coming to your car soon over your Internet connection and WiMAX is a contender to be that mobile Internet connection.

But WiMAX is also a contender to be your fixed connection to the Internet – even if you have DSL or cable available. Clearwire communication has already deployed a very limited WiMAX network in the US which it has promised to expand rapidly. Sprint is piloting its planned national rollout in a couple of locations and, if bankers don’t stand in the way, plans widespread coverage. WiMAX speeds can be faster than most DSL and rival cable in some locations. But, more importantly, you can use the same account both for Internet access at home and while roaming – if it’s a WiMAX account. That’s not important now when there’s not a significant WiMAX network to roam on but will matter if and when there is a nationwide and global WiMAX rollout – assuming that does happen.

Perhaps the most significant fact about WiMAX is that it IS a public standard. Most wireless ISPS (WISPs) today deliver service over proprietary precursors to WiMAX.  Because the transmission standards are proprietary to the radio manufacturers, a WISP which uses one brand of radios on its towers MUST use the same brand of radio at all its customers’ premises. With a standard-based protocol (and after testing and certification) radios from different manufacturers should interoperate freely and competition should quickly bring down the price of these radios. Note that WiFi cards and modems and USB dongles are very, very cheap BECAUSE WiFi is a standard. Moreover, WiFi gets built into laptops at almost no incremental cost. Cheap and builtin WiFi radios created the market for WiFi services at places like Starbucks which led to more demand for WiFi radios.

Learning from its success in pushing WiFi by building it into chipsets, Intel has an aggressive program to get OEM computer manufacturers to build WiMAX into laptops. Codenamed Echo Peak, the chipsets combine WiFi and WiMAX so that a single antenna and other components serve both – clearly Intel understands that users’ll be switching from WiFi to WiMAX and back for some time to come. And clearly Intel is committed to building a market for WiMAX as it did for WiFi; however, you can’t buy a laptop with WiMAX preinstalled today. “Should” be available 3d quarter of this year.

Because WiMAX chips will be cheap and WiMAX mobility can be implemented on a low power budget, enthusiasts predict that it will quickly show up in cameras, phones, GPSes, and all kinds of other devices.

The chicken and egg problem, however, is that there still needs to be enough WiMAX coverage available to make such devices useful.

WiFi vs. WiMAX is more about the differences between the two protocols and a little about creative chaos.

Sharing Cellular Data Access Between Multiple PCs

As described in the previous post, you only want to use a cellular data service (EVDO or HSPDA) for your home ISP if you can’t get good DSL, cable, or fixed wireless access. Cellular data service is, when available, usually better than satellite service. Like satellite service, cellular data comes with limits (not always enforced) on how much data you can transfer in a month. The previous post also describes how to find out whether high speed cellular data service is available where you live.

This post tells you how to use a single cellular data service account for all of the PCs and even some other IP devices in your home. That’s important because the accounts are expensive so you certainly don’t want to buy one for each PC. Note that, although the Verizon Wireless terms of service seem to permit such non-commercial shared use, other carriers may have at least a nominal prohibition on sharing; I haven’t checked their terms.

One way to share a connection is with a Windows feature called Internet Connection Sharing (I don’t know what the Mac equivalent is but would be glad to have some Mac-knowledgeable reader supply the details). There are also devices which act as hubs for sharing a cellular data connection (subject of a future post).

In order to get Internet Connection sharing working, here’s what you need to do:

1. Assuming that you already have your cellular data account and the necessary PC card or USB device to access it (or, less likely, your PC came with EVDO and/or HSPDA capability), start up the service as instructed in its documentation so you can access the Internet.
2. Open the Network Connections window. One way to get to it is through Start/Connect To…/Show All Connections.
3. Right-click the icon for the service you’re using in the Network Connections window and elect Properties from the popup menu
4. Click the Advanced tab
5. Check the box which says “Allow other network users to connect through this computer’s Internet connection”
6. Right below that checkbox is a dropdown menu which says “Select a private network connection”. This is the connection that will be used to connect your computer to the other computer(s) which share the Internet connection. If you are going to use WiFi to connect the computers, select Wireless Connection. If you are cabling them together by putting Ethernet cables between the computers’ Ethernet ports, select whichever local area connection corresponds to the Ethernet connection.
7. Click OK
8. If you are using Ethernet, you should now have a connection to the Internet from both your computer and the one which is connected to it (connecting more than two computers to the Internet in this manner requires more equipment and is beyond the scope of this post). BTW, you could use the Ethernet connection to share your cellular data connection with a VoIP phone or some other IP device.
9. If you are using WiFi, you now have to set up an ad hoc WiFi network. The good news is that this can be shared by multiple computers within WiFi range. The bad news is that you have some more steps to follow.
10. Even worse news is that I can’t give exact steps to follow next because different WiFi cards and builtin chipsets come with different setup programs. But somehow you want to do all the things in the steps below.
11. On the computer which has the cellular data connection and all other computers with which you want to share the connection, enable ad hoc networking in the control application for your WiFi device (may already be enabled).
12. On the machine with the cellular data connection, create a profile for an ad hoc network with a name (SSID) which you believe will be unique.
13. Turn on WiFi on all machines in your network and, on the machines that want to share the connection, look for the SSID you set up above to become visible.
14. Most WiFi control applications will require you to explicitly connect to this SSID and some may require you to make a profile for it.
15. Once the WiFi connections are established, all machines should have Internet access through the “gateway” machine, the one with the cellular data connection.

IMPORTANT: Don’t forget to turn off Internet Connection Sharing when you are no longer using your computer as a gateway. If you leave it on, you’ll have trouble connecting that machine to the Internet when it’s NOT the gateway.

You can make the WiFi network secure in the usual way with WEP encryption (not covered in this post). The way I described above creates an open ad hoc network where transmissions are visible to those within range of the network who choose to access it and where others may decide to share your Internet connection.

BTW, these techniques are also useful for sharing a single WiFi or Ethernet connection in a hotel room. Use WiFi to share an Ethernet connection or Ethernet to share a WiFi connection. Mary and I are a two computer family even when traveling and we do this all the time.

Nerd Help Needed – WiFi at JetBlue JFK

There’s supposed to be free WiFi here at the JetBlue JFK terminal. Last time I was here no one could get it to work so I didn’t feel bad that it didn’t work for me either; was even a little smug that I could limp by on EVDO (which is usually fine in US terminals but has bad reception here). But now everyone else is connected.

I can see the hotspot: everyone who is on is telling me to use the one called “default” rather that the one called “Jet Blue hot spot” – that one is an ad hoc network so I don’t really want to use it. Default is infrastructure even though it has that ugly name.

I can connect to default. It gives me an IP address so my system thinks it has an Internet connection. But, whenever I try to access the Internet, I get a message that the page isn’t found as if didn’t have a connection.

Those who are successfully logged on (I hate them!) are telling me I have to open a browser to agree to the terms of service. I know that; but, when I open the browser, it tells me I’m probably not connected to the Internet rather than giving me the JetBlue logon screen.

I had no problem logging onto WiFi in Burlington airport this morning (free and terminal wide!). So what’s going on?

When I look at ipconfig (this is obviously a nerd post), I see my connection but no dns server. Hmmm… Why? Did I change some sensitive parameter and forget to change it back.

Logging on with EVDO works – just slow.

Just for the heck of it, I delete the profile for default in Intel Proset Wireless. Now I tell WiFi to look for networks and it finds default and presumably sets up a profile for it. I connect. And I can still get to the Internet. But I’m also connected to EVDO; maybe my packets are going through there. Logoff EVDO; still connected and can get web pages starting with JetBlue signon.

But did the WiFi connection inherit something from the EVDO connection? I power off the EVDO card and am going to try disconnecting and reconnecting the WiFi. Pause. Breathe deeply. Reconnected without incident (my flite’s still scheduled on time, too).

This does NOT convince me I know what’s going on or will get connected next time Do know (and this post will help me remember) to use default rather than Jet Blue hotspot (not good implementation by JetBlue). Do know that I have to start the browser to logon before getting any other connectivity (usually the case but something that has hindered the deployment of WiFi phones).

Would welcome a comment from someone who really knows what’s going on. BTW, am running Windows XP with latest mods on Toughbook with internal WiFi.

Verizon OPEN Wireless

Very surprising and welcome announcement from Verizon Wireless yesterday:

“Verizon Wireless today announced that it will provide customers the option to use, on its nationwide wireless network, wireless devices, software and applications not offered by the company. Verizon Wireless plans to have this new choice available to customers throughout the country by the end of 2008…

“ ‘This is a transformation point in the 20-year history of mass market wireless devices – one which we believe will set the table for the next level of innovation and growth,’ said Lowell McAdam, Verizon Wireless president and chief executive officer.”

Lowell’s right. And Verizon Wireless is right to open up. There’s plenty of room to be cynical about this; after all, Verizon Wireless is trying to STOP the FCC from putting an openness requirement on the 700Mhz spectrum to be auctioned. Very well-informed Om Malik posts: “Do we really believe that Verizon is going to be happy being Pipes-R-Us?” He point out many ways this there may be less to this announcement than meets the eye.

As an optimist, I think Verizon’s acting in enlightened self-interest which is just great. Here are some of the factors which may have influenced their decision:

1. They DO have the best network coverage in the US – especially for data coverage. Best way to capitalize on that is to have developers build appliances and apps which run on their service.
2. Because they are CDMA (a protocol NOT used in most of the rest of the world), they run the risk that no new stuff will be developed for their network, especially if it remains a walled garden. The US is a big market but the rest of the world is even bigger.
3. The next time somebody develops an iPhone-like breakthrough – and somebody will – they want it run on their network, not be locked to AT&T.
4. Amazon’s Kindle, which could but doesn’t run on Verizon’s network, is a clear example of how usage may be sold bundled with a device. They’re not going to be a better bookstore than Amazon. They need these innovations to be on their network.
5. They know that the next year or so will bring huge device innovation including (I think) wireless connectivity in almost every GPS and associated services. They know that their network and their data service – EVDO – which can do handoffs at 80mph is well positioned to benefit greatly from this
6. As voice minutes turn to VoIP minutes and WiFi minutes, they’re better off keeping some of that traffic onnet even as simple bits rather than losing it all. Note that, to their credit, they DID change their terms of service to allow VoIP over their data service.
7. The FCC has said that the huge chunks of 700Mhz spectrum going up for auction have to be used “openly” by the winner. It would be hard for Verizon to operate a network which is half open and half closed. Maybe they DO want that spectrum, don’t think they can change the rules, and want to be ready for it.

If you’re torn between my optimism and Om’s pessimism, Galeal Zino suggests a test:

“Let's see which comes first:

“1. Articles about the millions of dollars of deep packet inspection and payload-based billing systems that Verizon is going to incorporate in order to "manage" their soon to be "open" network.

“2. Articles about third-party mobile devices that interop with Verizon's network, using CDMA for voice when necessary, and using unrestricted IP to place VoIP calls using third-party solutions when more appropriate.”