If you are a major carrier that wants maximum distance between towers and total control of a national network based on old technology, maybe. When it comes to wireless, I think we have been and continue to take the wrong approach. We are currently supporting a big government / wireless cartel solution. There could be a better way. After all, the airwaves belong to all of us, not the FCC and a few corporations.

In a speech last year, Michael Calabrese proposed an alternative worthy of consideration.

Michael Calabrese argues that the FCC’s depicted apportioning of the airwave spectrum gives a false impression of scarcity, especially as it fails to consider the real use of each frequency assignment and the full capabilities of digital transmitters and receivers today. The government can do more to assure the wireless future offers pervasive, ubiquitous, and affordable connectivity.

By considering the two general concepts of underlay (increasing use of a particular frequency, such as in a time-sharing condition) and overlay (filling unoccupied frequencies), he means to show how much more can be done with the airwave spectrum, taking into account possibilities for frequency sharing and the adjacencies now possible without interference. He gives an example of “cognitive radio,” which operates at low power and searches out the most appropriate frequency in a given condition. (IT Conversations)

Audio link follows:

 

 IT Conversations [21:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

All of the chatter about  4G wireless in the big tech media is really beginning to annoy me.  The wireless broadband world as of right now is 100% Wimax, and it works. In fact this post comes to you tonight via a Wimax connection that outperforms AT&T’s best DSL offering in my neighborhood, and lags behind Time Warner’s pricey 15MBPS service a bit. So, 4G wireless is here, working and destined to improve.  Today it is 100% Wimax. You’d never know that from reading posts in the big tech media. They keep telling us that something called LTE is what I’ve been waiting for. Well, excuse me, I’m not waiting, I’m using. So why is it we keep reading FUD like this in GigaOM? I think it’s pretty simple. Lots of bloggers are following the lame stream media and recycling press releases and talking points as news. Sorry to single you out Om, I really do like your blog and you’re far from  the worst offender.

Let me spell my bias out for you, and I think it’s pretty much the same as the average broadband consumer. IF an LTE based carrier  shows up with a better deal I’m a customer. But, that’s based on if and when. Today, I’m writing about what I can buy now.

I do wish we’d get past discussion of technology. It’s a no brainer that LTE has a commitment from the major cell phone operators. It’s also a fact no one really has a clear idea of what LTE will be beyond the results of preliminary lab stats. The idea behind LTE is to make an easy transition form current cell phone technology for the nickel and dime you to death cellular carriers. Wimax was never designed to do that. So far, Wimax has been deployed as a big open pipe. Try getting that from the cell phone guys. By the time LTE is expected to be available in major markets, next gen Wimax will be available and an upgrade. I see a coming 4G war not only between two technologies, but also between two business models.

Bottom line: I can promise you we’re getting no largess from either the LTE or Wimax camp. We’re based in Texas, so I’ll use a little local analogy. Today Wimax is the only horse in town, and it’s pricier than we would like and slower than we would like. At the same time, as of today, the LTE camp is all hat and no cattle. Contrary to all of the tech media propaganda, both are likely to be with us for some time to come. In fact, I doubt one will be an clear winner over the other. There’s plenty of evidence for how that could work in today’s two competing cell phone standards.

It’s extremely irresponsible to call one a clear winner over the other before both players even take the field, and we’re not going to do that.

Which in this case means that if Google wants to deliver it, and you want to use it, Google WILL find a way to do so. Even if the device mfr says NO! Well in this case its AT&T/Apple saying no to a Google Voice app on the iPhone.

Now I understand why AT&T did not want it, it hurts their voice traffic income. But do both of these partners realize the semi truck load of a mistake they just made? Had Google followed their original plan they would have locked the Google Voice into the app space of the iPhone architecture. Doing so would have meant Google duplicating that for any subsequent smart phone with the attendant hassles and costs of handling multiple variants of software. Now?

Now Google has turned the software and the iPhone into a VoIP TERMINAL. Unleashed from the underlying architecture Google Voice can now live on any device capable of handling HTML5. Any smart phone, MID, Nettop, Netbook, you name it. That single denial has unleashed a monster, at least for a Telco.

Very dumb AT&T.

Linky.

In this case its Verizon again. The name of the game is a Titanic shuffle of their data rate plan. May sound like small potatoes till you see the hurdle before you as a customer –

First, the details: Verizon has introduced a new data tier at $9.99 per month with a 25MB cap—this is the cheapest data plan now offered by the company and by most US wireless carriers, and applies to all 3G devices. Why does this equate to “upping” the data charges? Because the company is ditching its $19.99 per month plan with a 75MB cap altogether—you must either go with the $9.99 plan for a third of the data or or the $29.99 smartphone plan that applies to WinMo, Android, or BlackBerry devices.

This in a sense is a variant of the give the lantern away but charge for the oil dearly. Only this is charge minimally for low oil but if you want to use the lamp every night you has to pay!

Why can’t stuff be simple? Just charge .001¢ per kilobyte and be done with it. Equitable, quick and customers can check their bills quickly. But then that would not justify the marketees salary would it?

Linky.

I usually avoid perpetuating rumors, but this one is too interesting to resist. Imagine you are Clearwire and you sign a single contract that gives you a massive number of tower sites. Not only to you solve a siting problem, you  get an “anchor customer” for your backhaul network in the process.  In fact, putting a tower on every single Wal Mart could bring more broadband to rural America before the first one of President Obama’s very pricey broadband availability maps are completed.

Our source tells us that the effort to grow the nationwide WiMax network includes placing place WiMax towers on the top of all Walmart locations.  According to them, they were advised to consider how many stores overlap each other in a 30-50 mile radius.  Essentially, this would be enough to cover a good chunk of the United States. Plus, this would not cost nearly as much as erecting towers and dealing with hassles like zoning permissions. (Andriod Guys)

If you’re a regular reader, you’re already well informed on the end of voice as a viable wireless business. Sprint and Verizon had invested heavily in national 3G data services for years, while AT&T lagged. Now that 4G is coming online and 3G matters to to a growing number of customers -  like those who grossly overpaid for iPhones, AT&T is playing catch up. It hurts if you’re AT&T and one of your competitors that has been out investing you in 3G calls attention to that fact in advertising.  True to AT&T’s track record it continues to prefer competing in the courts over upgrading. Perhaps AT&T customers who are experiencing poor data service should be careful about what they say publicly too.

AT&T earlier this month filed a lawsuit claiming that Verizon is misleading customers by suggesting that AT&T subscribers cannot access wireless Internet services throughout its network. In the opening paragraph of its legal rebuttal to the suit, Verizon very plainly surmised its argument: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s ‘There’s A Map For That’ advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”

The rebuttal filed on Monday in a Georgia district court was in response to two complaints AT&T filed with the court asking that the Verizon advertisements be pulled from the airwaves. AT&T has called the claims in the advertisement “false” and “misleading.” And the company claims it has caused “irreparable harm” to AT&T’s wireless business. (Cnet)

Verizon representatives have responded to the press on these claims. But now the company has filed its official response to the court in a 53-page document that lays out the company’s defense.

It’s also worth mentioning that if Verizon really wanted to put the hurt on AT&T, all it would really need to do is dramatically drop 3G  prices. Since the wireless space is a cartel of spectrum licensees, that isn’t likely to happen. Still, a little competitive sparring is a good thing, There should be more of it. I’d bet even the lawyers agree.

COSHOCTON — A free service enjoyed by hundreds has been shut down due to illegal activity conducted by one individual.

“It’s unfortunate that one person ruins it for those who use the service legitimately,” said Commissioner Gary Fisher.

About five years ago, the county made a free wireless Internet connection available in the block surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St.

It was disabled last week after someone used the wireless local area network address to illegally download a movie.

The county’s Internet Service Provider — OneCommunity — was notified by Sony Pictures Entertainment about the breach, and the county’s Information Technology Department was in turn notified by OneCommunity.

Yes you got it. The actions of one person has ruined it for a whole town. Which is the problem with the current state of law in the realm of Internet Law. The innocent suffer along with the guilty.

‘Nuf Said?

Linky.

Before you you rush out and and sign a contract to get your hands on that hot new Droid handset in a couple of days, consider this: If you want our of the contract, you’ll have to pony up as much as $350 to leave the dark helmeted one’s network. The ETF will decline by $10 a month. That means you’ll still pay as much as $120 to leave in the last month of a two year contract.

The carrier is raising early termination fees on Novermber 15 to $350 for “advance devices” only. Clearly VZW is targeting users who were abusing the buy one get one free BlackBerry deals and those that figured out that it was cheaper cancel their current contract and pay the $175 ETF than to pay full retail for the hot new handsets like the Droid. (Mobilecrunch)

How’ that much ballyhood “network neutrality” for mobile really working out? As long as carriers can lock devices to their networks, and keep other compatible devices out, the marketplace will never work for the consumer. While there’s been plenty talk from the almighty FCC about addressing this, no real action has been taken.

I keep reading that WiMax is a fringe technology that will surely die in the shadow of LTE. Apparently, US mobile WiMax carrier Clearwire isn’t listening. While the big,  authoritative talk coming from the LTE camp’s minions in the blogosphere make it sound like Clearwire’s technology does not work, there are plenty of users whose experience indicate otherwise. In fact, if you compare raw carrying capacity, Clearwire curently has the rights to a much broader swath of spectrum than any of its LTE based competitors. That means if a speed race evolves in the wireless space, Clearwire should be the winner. Then there’s the technology itself. While LTE is in the testing phase the current version of WiMax is mature. In fact, by the time LTE is out of the test phase, second generation WiMax could be on its way. Plus, if you want 4G service today, WiMax is the only game in town. I’m not putting down, LTE. When it’s actually ready, I’ll give it an equally objective review.

With the new service Chicago and Dallas Fort Worth DSL and cable users will have a new competitive option to existing service. It will be interesting to see if a third option for those users is enough to start a price war. In the mobile space, this new pipe is a game changer. Initially, users will find themselves limited to access via traditional laptops, netbooks  and a very pricey new hand held device. In 2010, we’ll see new mobile devices entering the market that will signal the end of traditional cell service by enabling enabling VoIP as a feature on any device rather than the primary function.

For the Third Pipe readers that are lucky enough to be in Clearwire’s coverage area, our new sponsor Tucanae Services is accepting reservations for Clearwire service to be activated after November 1. Look for Tucanae’s ad here after the launch date.

Cisco isn’t a company that plays on the bleeding edge very often. When you have a ton of money and you’re pretty good at identifying technologies on the cusp of a growth spurt, you don’t have to be innovative. You simply buy a company that is. Cisco’s latest big spend on wireless infrastructure maker Starent is one of those very safe bets. It’s also is a sure sign that mobile broadband is the next big thing.

Networking giant Cisco is aiming to up its mobile broadband Internet offerings with the $2.9 billion acquisition of Starent Networks.

Through a deal announced today, Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO) will $35 per share in cash for each share of Starent (NASDAQ: STAR), while assuming outstanding equity awards for the company, a major supplier of IP-based mobile infrastructure.

Following its expected close in the first half of 2010, the acquisition will give Cisco a leg up in offering mobile infrastructure solutions to wireless carriers — helping it cash in on booming interest in smartphones and mobile data. Cisco said that its research has shown that global mobile data traffic is expected to more than double every year through 2013. (Internet News)

I have to agree with Cisco management that mobile broadband is a monster that not even a horrible economy can subdue. It could even shift the balance of power in communications providers if big government doesn’t step in to defend big telecom from upstart competitors. Lets hope big government  is too distracted by the power of its own minutia to do much harm this time around.