Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

How Much is Riding on Wi-Fi? 114

Posted by CowboyNeal from the ventures-into-capitalism dept.
nexex writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's John Cook explores the current flood of money on wireless networking startups and if they could be heading towards another dotcom bubble. Interesting tidbits include, ;More than 60 Wi-Fi start-ups have raised more than $650 million in the past two years, according to VentureWire. Last quarter, there was more money invested into wireless technologies than networking and enterprise software.'" The article's got some good commentary on grassroots-founded tech trends vs. investment-backed tech trends, and tries to explain why wi-fi has caught on so well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Much is Riding on Wi-Fi? More

How Much is Riding on Wi-Fi?

Comments Filter:

  • Bust (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moankey ( 142715 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:26AM (#5668313)
    I say it busts. I dont know that it has proliferated enough to be of enough interest that should have generated that type of investment.
    I guess what I am saying is, I consider myself a geek of new technologies and Im too cheap to shell out $19-50.00 a/month of Wifi Access at hotspots.

    • Re:Bust (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rblancarte ( 213492 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:57AM (#5668573) Homepage
      Just something to consider between WiFi and Dot.coms was that one of the biggest reasons that Dot.coms failed was that they were companies who got money and had no real product or service to offer. Dot.coms were built on speculation of, well nothing, and that is why investors were burned.
      Now look at WiFi which is something real and tangible. Sure, some of these companies could be gone very soon, but hey, they at least are offering something that we know is real, or working to offer something. This is where I think that we see a major difference.
      Again, will some fail, sure, but it will be very different, 1- because these are companies that are making an effort to make a real business. And 2- it is not like we have a whole freaking economy built on this. This is very small, compared to dot.coms who had hundreds of billions invested, and commanded a huge market share.

      RonB
  • What's with these bozos taking a free public resource, blocking it off, and attempting to profit from it? It might be different if they had purchased the bandwidth at auction, like cell carriers and television stations, but with effectively three channels available for 802.11b, it's a significant hit to personal use when you have these companies come in and set up shop.
    • Can you imagine how much it would suck to have to have a diferent card for personal and comercial networks?

      • Why should there be a problem with different cards for personal and comercial networks. If the access is reasonably priced I'll just put in the comercial card all the time, and use a VPN (ssh) when I need to get to the personal network.

        Oh, I see the problem, wireless is still a fringe technology and not cheap. My cell phone replaced my wired phone years ago, becuase it is cheaper for me. (No long distance charges, and more time than I can talk in a month for less than a wired line) In a few years expe

    • that the beauty of the free spectrum there... they have no more right to it then you do, and guess who is out if someone's $90 linksys ap is costing them $$$ in lost business, and nothing they can do...
      • Good point. And I would have nothing against boosting my AP to the legal max and aiming a tightbeam directional right at their AP, if they did something that had an effect on my existing operations. But it seems unproductive for it all.
        • - You can still violate the allowable power output with just an antenna...

          - Deliberately interfering with their communications may still be illegal. It's possible this would no longer be interference, but an actual active attempt to distrupt their business.

          • Deliberate interference is pretty much always against FCC rules, on any band.

            Of course, there are grey areas, a licensed user who interferes (though not "deliberately") with an unlicensed user generally isn't responsible for fixing the interference, as long as the licensed user was using "sound engineering practices", stuff like that.
    • Ummm, no. Many of the startups mentioned are working on applications of wireless (for example, Telesym is working on voice over wireless IP), not installing pay-for-use access points al-la Starbucks, T-Mobile, etc.

      You can hardly call Starbucks a startup ...
      • Voice over Wireless Intelectual Property? Thats a interesting one :) I could be just Daft but VOIP is old hat.. very little ground to break.. Just cause your medium is wireless it shouldn't affect IP there for VOIP should work. Unless they are doing special work to some how retrive lost packets from a poorly designed wireless network that has a high packet loss or incredibly high latency... Either way I wouldn't invest in a company trying to reinvent the wheel like this.

  • Wireless is here to stay... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vwpau227 ( 462957 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:30AM (#5668328) Homepage
    I work for one of these startups (we work on technology that enhances the co-existence of IEEE 802.11b and Bluetooth) and we were basically privately funded. First by the founders themselves and then by some of their close contacts.

    The tech bubble affected these wireless companies too. Most VC firms were not interested (or didn't have the money to invest in) wireless technology firms. Certainly the big money for growth was NOT there, and dealing with these constraints was necessary. This company did try for financing from a number of sources and was unable to obtain any VC funding of any sort.

    Wireless is here to stay because I think most of these wireless technology companies that have been built during the "bust" and have had to learn to be profitable and have low burn rates in order to survive. This has allowed better structured companies to exist.

    Another one of the companies that I consult for is totally privately funded from a profitable operating company. This has created a situation that is sustainable for the long term without external financing. There is no "bubble" here. Wireless technology companies are here to stay.

    • Re:Ahh, but you forgot. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:41AM (#5668517)
      that there is a wireless bubble right now.

      Wireless is sexy and sci-fi. But it's also getting pushed hard right now, when it can't deliver the quality of wireless networking that people in the general public have in their heads. You guys better get caught up fast, or there's going to be some dissilusionment and a wireless bust and a few companies are going to have to die.
      • I agree that perhaps there is a bit of hyperbole going on in terms of the performance of wireless technologies these days. However, I think just like cellular phone technologies, these technologies are not perfect, but people will continue to adopt these wireless technologies despite these limitations.

        We don't stop using cellular telephones because we get dropped calls once in a while. We don't stop using our remote control devices because we sometimes have problems with the infrared transmissions betwee

  • This is not the dot com bubble (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sudilos ( 663913 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:38AM (#5668351)
    Comparing this to the dot com bubble is not really a very good comparison. No one really needed thousands of websites which attempted to sell you services that you could get from any high street shop. But I can see genuine uses for wireless technology which means that it is worth investing in.

  • It could well bust, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deanj ( 519759 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:42AM (#5668358)
    ... not for home or office wireless. It's just too easy now to buy a nice, cheap little setup to free your laptop from a desk.

    You think Starbucks is putting in wireless from the goodness of their heart? Bzzz...wrong answer... they'll sell more coffee...probably a LOT more.

    If this blows up, it's not going to be to the extent of the fantasy dot-com boom that started with Netscape and finally died out in early 2000, and is responsible for this economy.... ...it'll only be to the extent for those startup's that didn't have a good revenue model figured out in the first place.
    • I realise this isn't your point, but it wasn't Starbucks putting wireless in. It was Mobilestar that fitted out Starbucks. Mobilestar then went bust fairly promptly, and was at fire sale prices to Voicestream (part of Deutsche Telekom) and relaunched under the T-mobile brand.

      I tried it out on free trial a few months back. Works nicely, but the cost plans don't make sense for the casual user. Too expensive.

      No idea what the T-Mobile:Starbucks revenue split is.

      Check out this timeline [ac.aup.fr].

  • Wireless Fidelity (Score:5, Funny)

    by sydb ( 176695 ) <michael@NospAm.wd21.co.uk> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:43AM (#5668361)
    <rant>
    This is the first time I've actually seen "Wi-Fi" associated with the term "Wireless Fidelity". I'd always assumed this was the origin of the term Wi-Fi, by comparison with the terms Hi-Fi and High Fidelity.

    In the world of audio, High Fidelity means closely approaching the nature of the original sound source.

    What the hell does Wireless Fidelity mean? Prevention of adultery through remote control? Some kind of 802.11b connected chastity belt?

    Perhaps means closely approaching the nature of the Ethernet medium. If so, it's an outright lie. There is no similarity.

    I don't like the term Wi-Fi. I encourage others not to use it. It's vague and stupid and I wish it didn't exist.
    </rant>
    • Actually "Wi-Fi" is not the name of the technology, even though many use Wi-Fi and 802.11 interchangably.

      The "fidelity" in Wi-Fi is because it is a certification of adherence to the 802.11 standard, and therefore more compatable and interoperable with other Wi-Fi certified equipment.

      The Wi-Fi Alliance's website [weca.net]

      • Re:Wireless Fidelity (Score:3, Informative)

        by sydb ( 176695 )
        Not according to Weca! They specifically say it is the name of the technology, in their FAQ [weca.net]. Morons.

        To understand the value of Wi-Fi CERTIFICATION, you need to know that

        Wi-Fi is short for "Wireless Fidelity," and it is the popular name for 802.11-based technologies that have passed Wi-FI CERTIFICATION testing. This includes IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b or technologies that contain both 802.11a and 802.11b technologies -- commonly called "dual band.

        (Emphasis mine).

        • I also like the way that in their mad rush to capitalise CERTIFICATION for no determinable reason, they capitalised the final 'i' in WiFI too (the second time round)!

          They must use the same chap who thinks up their marketing terms to type up their web pages. Let's hope he's not having to design technologies too.

          Oh, I'm vitriolic today; must be the hangover.
        • It's a brand name. Sort of like Microsoft and Intel saying you should call your box a "Windows-powered Pentium" rather than a "PC" (assuming you're not running Linux on an Athlon!)

          Of course, Wi-Fi succeeds even more than these two, because it is shorter and easier to remember than 802.11b, 802.11a, 802.11g, etc.
    • Ever try to explain wireless networking to a normal person by using the term 802.11b? THAT'S fun.
      • That would be easy.

        "Wireless networking allow computers to talk to each other using radio waves. You need to attach a wireless network card to each computer, and if you have more than two computers you might need a device called an access point.

        There are industry standards in place to allow different manufacturers' devices to talk to each other, so you can have a Cisco access point and a Linksys wireless network card. The most common standard for consumers is called 802.11b. Look for '802.11b' on the box

  • We need another bust (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheGrayArea ( 632781 ) <graymc&cox,net> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:47AM (#5668370) Homepage
    Cause I just noticed that local used office equiment store is running low on inventory.

  • If so much is riding on it... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    shouldn't it work better? My new Linksys cards didn't even work from one side of my house to the other until I put a directional antenna on the server end. A $100 antenna to get across 40' horizontal and 10' vertical is ridiculous. (aside: my coffee can directional antenna worked fine, but my wife said no so I had to buy a Yagi) At work, we're running new NetGear cards with the newest driver, orinoco-0.13a. We're still seeing 0.85% long-term packet loss. That's with ping running in the background send
    • I have 7 systems linked using Linksys and D-Link hardware. I have a 12DBi antenna on a 60' tower. The other systems are using 16DBi Vagi's and 24DBi Parabolics. I normal only see about 3-10% packet loss. Thats when its snowing and windy out side. The only problem I have is that the Linksys WAP11's lock up like once a day. I've had good luck with the WET11's and the D-Links.
    • Sounds like an environmental problem to me. Plants, Aquariums, 2.4gHz cordless phones, long range cell phones, baby monitor's, microwaves, stucco walls, concrete, marble. All of these can cause some problems with wireless networking.

      Instead of a $100.00 directional antenna though, you could have bought a $70.00 wireless access point to bridge your wireless network. Or found a way to move your router to a more central location. Also try to keep it at least 3 feet away from a wall and as high in the room a
    • Your *wife* wouldn't let you use a coffee can antenna? Pussy whipped...

  • dot.com bubble (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @10:54AM (#5668385)

    The dot com bubble was caused by a sharp cutback in interest rates, too much loose capital, and an obsessive delusion that economic wealth centers arround intellectual property instead of service and need. The first two have taken care of themselves, if they've gotten over the third, then things will be fine.

    • By no means have I ever been a member of the Holy Church of Greenspan, but he tried to tell people for quite some time that "irrational exuberance" was a problem. It was an inherently impossible situation:

      "Hey guys, things are ok, but they're not super-great. Why don't you stop throwing VC at anything remotely connected to the internet, but don't everbody do this all at once or things will be bad."

      • I think the truth is that, in normal circumstance the FED would have raised the interest rate long before they did. Unfortunately, this time they couldn't because of the Asian financial chrises so instead they lowered and let a shitload of money flow into the economy causing a stock market bubble.

        Of course, Greenspan couldn't say he was screwing over the US economey to save Asia's but, so instead he tried to ward off stocks as "irrational exuberance". Fine help that was.

        ps - In my first post I said cut

  • Many wireless startups still incompetent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:05AM (#5668403)
    I've dealt with several wireless startups in my career. I feel the analogy of the dot-com bubble is quite accurate. Let me explain why...

    One of the more prominent start-ups involved in building gear was requesting an ASIC (application-specific IC) engagement from my company to implement some of their functionality. They were asking about how fast we could run a certain type of embedded processor in one of our processes technologies. Keep in mind that these are guys with supposedly years of ASIC and system-building experience. When I turned the question around to them that it was more relevant for us to provide a solution with a certain amount of floating point performance, MIPS, multiply-accumulates per second, I/D cache size, etc., they kept saying that they weren't sure, but that clock speed was paramount. Yeah, right...

    To top it off, they wouldn't give us any details of their end application. Was it 802.11a/b/g? 802.16? On-board multipath antenna signal processing? They also said if we asked too many questions we'd be out of the running for an ASIC bid. In other words, there was little substance to what they were dealing with. Yet, they were supposedly one of the most promising companies out there.

    Then I took a stroll through the Bluetooh forum a few months ago in San Jose, CA. I saw a lot of folks involved in wireless IP not just for Bluetooth but for 802.11. Based on this, and my experiences with companies as described above, my verdict on wireless is as follows:

    1. There are too many players who don't know what they are really doing, and who have no focused strategy. They're just getting into wireless because it is the industry's newest buzzword. That's at all levels of the value chain (semiconductors, box builders, and service providers).

    2. There are far far too many players in the semiconductor aspect of wireless. From soft/hard IP providers to chipsets, it's a confusing soup whose interoperability is unconfirmed, and who are jockeying for position on issues such as range, power consumption, and how integrated they are (both from the baseband+PHY perspective and from the driver/software stack perspective). In some cases, the IP hasn't been tested or even implemented in an FPGA, yet they're on the show floor peddling their wares. There'll be a major shake-up in this area not only because of oversaturation of players, but because of oversaturation of silicon suppliers, where profit margins of the manufacturers are being pushed almost endlessly downwards due to overcapacity in semiconductor manufacturing and desperation of some companies to stay in business. Most of these players should disappear and leave us with hopefully two or three good standard chipsets per major standard group. Those looking at integreated wireless ASICs with PHY are only dreaming for the next several years.

    3. In the system arena (commercial/residential wireless APs, repeaters), everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Yet, as shown by the company I described above, there is a headlong march to get these products out without looking at some of the fundamentals such as interoperability. Heck, I had a friend yesterday whose Linksys PC card wouldn't link to her Netgear AP. That's a tiny example, but we could potentially be facing some of this type of problem.

    4. In the service provider arena, there are some revenue opportunities. The end market, however, needs to have greater uptake of compatible wireless gear. That's going to be very difficult. There's only a limited amount of bandwidth available in the already-crowded space. For example, 2.4GHz is for 802.11b/g, and that's already crowded with devices from cordless phones to microwave ovens that could be potential sources of interference. If wireless is to be successful commercially, as a service, I think we'll either have to piggy-back on the 3G networks, or set up a standard that doesn't use frequencies fully opened up by the FCC. Of course, you know what that could mean (the big fis
    • I've dealt with several wireless startups in my career. I feel the analogy of the dot-com bubble is quite accurate.

      I agree with you for one simple reason. A lot of the same opportunists are involved with the local wireless startups as the formerly local dot coms.

      $G
    • Very interesting post. But all of your points are technical points, not business points. It may be a fact that "There are too many players who don't know what they are really doing [from a technology standpoint], and who have no focused strategy [to developing robust IP]. They're just getting into wireless because it is the industry's newest buzzword." But they might know the business end inside-and-out. The many dotcoms that failed after the bubble burst didn't all fail because they were technologicall
      • A copmany I know has many good digital design people but when it comes to RF, its a completely different ballgame. You tend to run into people that know the old style analog systems but the people who can design a newer digital system correctly are very, very rare. We may have funding for a project but I don't even know where to start looking for the RF design people.
    • Analogies to the dot.com bubble seem to be loosely applicable. Most dot.com's were out-and-out frauds. Corporate wash-outs with some past success, university researchers with a get-rich-quick scheme based on work initially funded through public and private endowments to the university system, committee chairs leveraging their influence for personal gain, and other non-sustainable plans. Big budgets, fat salaries, celebrity boards, all designed to create toll-roads that would tax internet traffic into t

  • Wireless *is* the future (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hype7 ( 239530 ) <u3295110.anu@edu@au> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:11AM (#5668419) Journal
    But that doesn't necessarily mean 802.11b, however. Ultimately though, computers are going to continue to shrink and converge with such devices as mobile phones. Data transfer and communications are going to be fundamental to such devices.

    Now, whether 802.11 or its descendants are going to be the facilitators, or whether it's satellite; or maybe even a combination of both, wireless technology will be the future. In my mind, the fusion of short range and long range makes sense; satellites are useless indoors or in cities with skyscrapers or underground in facilities like subways or busses. 802 is perfect for this. On the other hand, 802 has a very limited range; you drive from Washington to NY, you still want to be able to get your mail. Satellite slips in.

    Either way, wireless technology is going to continue to play an increasing role in our lives. People are insisting upon staying connected with the rest of the world no matter where they are, and connectivity without wires facilitiates this.

    -- james
    • Ultimately though, computers are going to continue to shrink and converge with such devices as mobile phones. Data transfer and communications are going to be fundamental to such devices.

      There will be some degree of convergence, but I don't think anybody has this at all figured out yet. The most practical convergence toys I've seen are the PDA/phones. The contact info and notes that you would want in a phone are there in your pda. Conceptually perfect - one fewer device to lug around. The problem is t

      • There will be some degree of convergence, but I don't think anybody has this at all figured out yet. The most practical convergence toys I've seen are the PDA/phones.


        Have you seen the Final Fantasy movie? My idea of the future is going to be the computer that Aki has on her arm in the beginning of the movie. With the display that projects out up to 5 cm above the unit itself.

        Along way off, but that would be the ultimate i think :)

        -- james
      • On a slightly more on-topic note, what about existing cellular networks and 'net connection? Sure, the bandwidth isn't going to be anything near that at the Starbucks/Hotspot, but coverage is built in already. Besides, the most vital mobile killer app is email, which is almost always low bandwidth/text.

        On a slightly more off-topic note, what does it cost to send a SMS message from your mobile phone?
        I live in the Netherlands and the operators charge 0,22 for delivering a message, 140-160 characters at m
    • Ultimately though, computers are going to continue to shrink and converge with such devices as mobile phones. Data transfer and communications are going to be fundamental to such devices.

      Question: was there a bubble in CAT5 cable producers back in the 80s? No? Then why should there be one for wireless producers now?

      • Then why should there be one for wireless producers now?

        Agreed in principle, but was there the same amount of $$$ going into the CAT5 people in the 80s? I don't remember, was too young. Ultimately, the $$$ in have got to turn into $$$ out, and in increasing amounts. That's what screwed dot com, and it risks screwing the 802 crowd as well.

        The risk is that ultimately it just turns into a commodity good. All the wireless routers and hubs and cards do fundamentally the same thing; all that's left to differen

    • Virtual Reality will make physical travel unnecessary. Wireless computers will only be used by police and delivery men. Humans will become more machine like, not machines more human(i.e. wireless)....IMHO.
  • The article only talks about venture capital firms, but I would guess they're in the minority compared to the individuals (like me) who have bought stock in various wireless companies. There are billions invested.

  • Service area (Score:3, Insightful)

    by b3h ( 663941 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:14AM (#5668430)
    Personally, I'm not going to get excited about wireless networking until it is availably globally. Here in rural Pennsylvania, it's hard enough to even get broadband. Isn't the whole point of wireless that you are connected wherever you are?

  • "tries to explain why wifi has caugh on so well" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hype7 ( 239530 ) <u3295110.anu@edu@au> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:14AM (#5668431) Journal
    "and tries to explain why wi-fi has caught on so well"...

    How about: the same reason why the GUI, the mouse, the floppy drive, USB and heaven knows how many other standards have caught on so well in the PC markets:

    Apple.

    They pushed it. Note: I'm not saying they developed it; but there's a big difference between some geek sitting in his basement with a really cool tech, and getting the entire world to use it. Apple is the link between the two in this case.

    yep, I'm gonna get marked as a troll or overrated for this, but I got karma to burn.

    -- james
  • How Much is Riding on Wi-Fi?

    Quite a bit .. but it'll all come crashing down when a bird lands on the antenna.
  • You only need one piece of evidence: Brad Silverberg, former Microsoft Vice President, works for a wireless venture capital [ignitionpartners.com] company.

    This is from the "Investment Focus" [ignitionpartners.com] page of their website: "We believe the potential exists to build large companies based on disruptive technologies and shifts in the value chain of usage and deployment in these sectors."

    Conclusion: Wireless is more over-hyped than the dot-coms were.

    - adam

  • Centrino (Score:2, Troll)

    by Perdo ( 151843 )
    Welcome to Intel, where if your laptop has a pentuim-M, an intel chipset and an Intel 802.11b card, you can call your laptop a Centrino. Oh, don't tell anyone that Apple has had the same functionality for three years, otherwise people would know we are not doing anything new, which we are!

    For instance the new Pentium-M is an all new from the ground up processor that at 1.6 Ghz, outperforms the Pentium 4 at 2.8 Ghz. The Pentuim 4 is still faster than the Athlon though, becuase it has a higher clockspeed. Oh

    • Re:Centrino (Score:1, Troll)

      by jo_ham ( 604554 )
      Wordy McWord.

      I have been laughing at those Intel Centrino adverts with the desks in the middle of empty stadiums and in the middle of fields full of cows.

      Even if they do get 802.11 to connect at that range, that speace heater CPU will eat your battery for breakfast, and burn your penis as a bonus.

      I'll just sit here with my iBook, which did what this Centrino bollocks does, but 3 years ago, and with a 5 hour battery life.

      Intel Inside: the world's most commonly used warning sticker
    • So, the Centrino is all new, using three year old technology pioneered by Apple and using a 4 year old processor that still manages to work over our all new Pentium 4.

      Since when does Apple manufacture wireless chips? Apple was one of the first of many manufactures to include built-in wireless via a mini-pci card, but they didn't do anything to pioneer wi-fi besides offering a compact base station. PC manufactures have been including built-in wireless for over 2 years now, Intel is just trying to brand s

    • Its just plain shameful to see such a large number of contradictions in such a short time.

      >> For instance the new Pentium-M is an all new from the ground up processor that at 1.6 Ghz, outperforms the Pentium 4 at 2.8 Ghz. The Pentuim 4 is still faster than the Athlon though, becuase it has a higher clockspeed. Oh, and the Pentium-M is a Pentium III using a Pentium 4 bus and 1 mb of L2 Cache.

      "Pentium-M is al All New Processor .... Pentium-M is a Pentium III using a Pentium 4 bus and 1 mb of L2
      • Exactly, I was being cynical.

        I was showing the difference between Intel's marketing and what they are actually delivering.

        You caught on to the contradictions but not their purpose.

        Sort of like buying a brand new certified pre-owned bmw.

        For god sakes, if someone drove my new car for a few years before I got it, it sure as hell is not brand new.

        Did you mean: Athlon [google.com]

  • In a word: better access devices and content (Score:3, Interesting)

    by budGibson ( 18631 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:44AM (#5668525)
    Wireless was heavily hyped toward the end of the dot-com bubble. We were all supposed to browse html sites on 1x2 inch mobile phone screens. Or we were supposed to lug around large laptops.

    But things have really changed with the arrival of high performing wireless PDAs. An adequate screen that can handle html. Further, browser technology has improved to the point where the browser will actually simplify the html for you.

    The next step is to go beyond content provision in presentation-dependent formats (e.g., get away from sites designed in purely html, wml, etc). Some might have thought this a pipe dream just a few years ago, but that too is already happening. Look at blogs with rss feeds and various sites with rss content syndication. Individuals and non-profits are already taking advantage of these media. It is something that looks much like the early stages of html.

    The issue will be corporate participation. The minute you provide your feed in a presentation neutral (read non-proprietary) fromat, how do you retain control? This will inhibit many corporations.

    However, the good news is that there will be plenty of free service providers, likely enough to achieve the tipping point.

  • There won't be a boom bust... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:48AM (#5668544)
    ... if the media would keep out of things they don't understand.

    I'm convinced that the media played a huge and extremely irresponsible roll during the dotcom boom and bust.

    They fuelled things up out of all proportion, attempting to report on technologies that they didn't understand one iota.

    You watch if Google goes for an IPO. The tech media will go absolutely f****** crazy. Tech journalists will reach blood pressure levels bordering on fatal. And the worst thing is, it will not just be themselves that they kill. It will be Google.

    I sincerely hope the media will cover the next "big thing" responsibly - with a cool, calm and collected head.

  • not a bubble (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@nOspam.ivoss.com> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @11:55AM (#5668564) Homepage Journal
    There may be some lemons getting invested because of WiFi but this is not a bubble or something that will affect the overall health of the market. $650 million dollars is probably equivalent to what VC's invested in online pet food stores from 98-00.

  • Boom and bust already.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcdade ( 89483 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @12:19PM (#5668643)
    This is old news.. i've been watching wireless for a while, and the business model sucks ass till you invest billions to control whole population areas, so people could effectively use the wireless anywhere in their area, so your broadband becomes your wirless connection.. One ISP provider gives it all to you.

    There has already been a company that went under trying to do wifi setups, look at metrocom or what ever that pole top wireless was out in Cali.. they went under, as with the company that was to provide the wireless to Starbucks, they were stupid though, trying to put a T1 to every location to feed these AP's, when you could use a 3mb dsl for 1/10th the cost. That company already went under and was taken over by someone else with the same idea.

    Someone related wireless to be similar to fax machines.. It was either Fedex or UPS that spent millions outfitting locations with faxes, so that anyone could send a document around the world same day.. they didn't realize that the fax network was going to build it's self, people would buy low cost fax machines and send their documents themselves for pennies instead of spending dollars at the delivery company. Wifi is sort of like this.. unless they up the power for providers or something the range sucks ass, you would need cells of wifi that cover area like phone signals..which doesn't seem to happen. You think that cell phone coverage sucks.. imagine needing a wifi tower like ever 300 ft.. not going to happen.
    • It was either Fedex or UPS that spent millions outfitting locations with faxes, so that anyone could send a document around the world same day.

      It was FedEx, and the business was called ZapMail. Here is a link to the article [shirky.com] you may be thinking of.

    • Wifi is sort of like this..

      Not really, or... not until Wifi hardware is mesh-capable out-of-the-box.

      As it is, you have to count on the AP you're directly connected to, to be wired to the net at large, since it's not smart enough to be a relay.

      --

    • Metricom is alive and well, known now as Ricochet. You are mistaken if you think that you need a tower every 300 feet. The problem with WiFi is that it is a LAN technology, not a WAN technology. It is foolish to confuse the wireless trend and its relevance with misapplied technologies like WiFi. As long as the frauds don't create too much of a bubble, high-data-rate wireless connectivity can succeed.

  • Tomorrow the World? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Enkerli ( 554033 )
    Interestingly enough, the article makes "WiFi" sound like a local/regional phenomenon. Sure, it's a Seattle publication, but it makes one wonder. After all, wireless networking clearly depends on the network effect and the ranges are still short enough that the technology's better suited for high population densities. And even then, you need a concentration of mobile users.
    Personally, I've been waiting for 802.11* to take off "globally" before buying a card. And I might have to wait.
    I'm a Montrealer now liv
  • It has to do with the rush that comes from having 'Internet Everywhere'. And 3G just doesn't cut it. Read this recent /. journal entry [slashdot.org] where I talk about 'Internet Everywhere', Ricochet, 3G and how cool WiFi-enabled coffee shops can be.

  • Wi-Fi and WPA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by craenor ( 623901 ) on Saturday April 05, 2003 @01:34PM (#5668898) Homepage
    A good amount of the short-term success of wireless networking is largely going to depend on WPA or "Wi-Fi Protected Access". This is the new version of encryption which should hit devices this summer and will be taking over for WEP.

    This method of encryption supposedly covers all of the encryption holes and exploits available for WEP, using a series of revolving encryption keys.

    While wireless networking is already very popular in thousands of homes and many small businesses as well, the real money in computers is in medium and large businesses. With encryption that actually works (assuming it does), the viability of using wireless networks in almost any setting becomes real.

    Is wireless networking going to take over the world? No, but it's mainstream now and it's not going away for a long time, which is fine by me. I'm a Senior Wireless Networking Technician at Dell, job security = good.

    Craenor

    • Re:Wi-Fi and WPA (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Security to the base station isn't actually very interesting. Security and encryption should be end-to-end.

  • Build a sound business model first (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday April 05, 2003 @02:04PM (#5668993) Homepage Journal
    Why is it so difficult for people to understand that in order to make a profit, a company has to have a MEANS OF MAKING A PROFIT!

    You won't make money if people don't want to pay for what you're bringing to the table, no matter how "cool" it is. And if it costs you more to deliver your product or service than people are willing to pay, then you still lose.

    The VC community is such an amazing bunch of lemmings. I've been involved in several roundtable discussions with VCs, and one thing I took away from those meetings is that VCs rarely go against the grain. It's a hive mind.

    So they've decided that WiFi is cool technology that will become ubiquitous in some fashion or another. They've therefore opted to invest in companies that offer WiFi products and services. But how many of these companies actually know how to turn a profit? How many of them have a bona-fide business plan that goes beyond, "get WiFi out to the masses and hope we somehow make money off it."

    In the mean time, VCs are shutting out a lot of good ideas that don't have the "sexiness" (I'm serious, a lot of VCs actually talk like that) of WiFi. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "this VC system needs an enema!"

  • because for once we have a technology that's accessible to everyone, and doesn't cost a lot to roll out, and the spectrum is more or less open.

    Yes, if everyone and their dog has their own wifi access points, we are going to get a lot of interference.

    Yes, you might think it's unfair that companies are moving in where you thought private citizens should be.. but in the end, nobody has more right to that bandwidth than anyone eles.. and cooperation will be key. If the services an ISP offers via 802.11b satur

  • Sure, wi-fi has the potential to finish that last-mile problem for Internet access, especially to rural areas, but there are greater applications for wireless technology such as home automation, moving your favorite songs to and from your car, or creating community networks (and I'm sure endless others...I'm just not that creative!).

    Wireless hasn't penetrated the mainstream like the dot-com bubble has so it has a long way to go before the bubble pops, if it even becomes a bubble at all. Wireless is a grea

  • Its also putting a nail into the 3G telco spending boom coffin. These telco's are freaking out, they paid BILLIONS for 3G licenses and now a disruptive technology has emerged that threatens to make those investments nearly useless in the short to mid-term which is all the market cares about in these troubled times.

    In Europe the big 3G telco license owners are frantically trying to find a way to either control the genie or put it back in the bottle. It will be interesting to see what occurs.

    • Wifi ought to just be the first beginning, and 3G ought to be just the first end.

      Remember something called Interactive TV? It delivered a high-bandwidth interactive experience - but to deliver a service over it you had to negociate with the likes of Time-Warner. If you don't remember it, that probably has to do with its eclipse by the Internet - a net that you didn't need *anyone's* permission to offer a service over. (And yes there was a bubble, but a huge amount of valuable activity happened among all t

  • Of course most of the start ups will go under. For what new industry is this not the case? Venture money takes a shotgun approach - they know the odds. Also remember that getting bought out is not failure. Come on people, start thinking like capitalists again.
  • Clay Shirky puts forth an interesting thesis in "Permanet, Nearlynet and Wireless Data" [shirky.com] that many of the wireless venture's models of "Build It and They Will Come" are just dumb. Interesting reading.
  • The Wifi revolution is not about money. It's not about changing business models and new ways of selling stuff etc. It's about a fundamental infrastructure change. Trying to map the dot com bubble onto Wifi doesn't make any sense ... people might think it will make a difference if there's overinvestment or whatever but that's all water under the bridge for people who really grok what wireless data means at commodity prices. The real revolution will happen anyway, as the shape of the network changes (and beco

  • Please Please Please (Score:1, Redundant)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 )
    People Please have a real busness model to work with. The economy is shity as it is, we do not need you to do the same thing that happened in the dotcom time frame to do more harm to the economy. What I mean just don't start a WiFi company and expect that you will become rich with out doing any work. First look at the market you are looking at and see if the market will support the company, not all places will generat enoph revenue to justify the startup of a WiFi company. Also remember you will have t
  • I think T-mobile is looking for fast returns on it's investment. They billed my account $400 last month on bogus charges!

    The problem that I see here is that most of the access to these services will be free, or very low cost. Look for the cost of broadband to asymptotically approach zero.

    The Starbucks/t-mobile alliance has already cut prices %25 for it's services, and done away with many of it's earlier access limitations. Once the cometa network begins to give them more competition, the price will b

  • I am glad wireless is taking off. Unlike the shortlived free ISP's in 1998-9, free Wi-Fi may come her to stay. If you live in New York City, they just offered to add 9 more hotspots in downtown Manhattan by May.

    http://www.nycwireless.net/ has info on NYC hotspots. I love the chance for free access. I wonder if my old laptop is worth a new wireless card. Bryant park and Battery park already enjoy people who hang around. Some City University Colleges also have limited access. It's possible to share wireless

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close