Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

The really short answer is that a cloud (the typical term) of Wi-Fi provides ubiquitous access to a high-speed network connection, higher at the edge (nodes can operate at full Wi-Fi speeds) than from the edge to the core or Internet (because of current backhaul limitation).

This can enable peer-to-peer transfers at very high speeds. 802.11n will offer 100 Mbps or higher of real throughput on a given node, but no municipal network enabled peer-to-peer transfers (for a variety of security reasons and denial of service reasons).

The flip side is that because of the use of unlicensed frequencies, it's very easy to have accidental or purposeful interference that could reduce utility in spots or disable the network.

Prime benefit of ubiquitous coverage as opposed to many, many hotspots is VoIP. Most cell phones beyond basic models are now being designed with Wi-Fi. There are something like 80 phones worldwide now that incorporate cell and Wi-Fi.

Thanks, Glenn.

Agreed that the first thing we'd get is VOIP. But, wouldn't this stimulate a market for cellphones that do more than make calls and lets us buy the content the cellphone companies want to sell us? An open market for innovation on handheld platforms? What might we do with such devices? What effect might it have on how we work, play, behave as citizens, etc.?

(PS: I purposefully chose "blanket" instead of "cloud" since a cloud can be local, e.g., a wifi cloud over Philadelphia, whereas I'm curious about the effects of a genuine blanket over the entire country.)

Good point. My issue with ubiquitous network (not necessarily Internet) access is -- what can someone due beyond simple entertainment (receiving broadcast or narrowcast content) or phone call replacement?

I've been thinking about how having a digital camera that stamps images with coordinates, and that never has to store images locally -- it uploads images as they're taken -- would represent a vast change in how we document our experiences. That's possible, but we need more bandwidth across these larger networks.

Cameraphones just don't have the resolution or flexibility of full-blown digital cameras, even though they can (slowly) upload images as taken.

I shudder to think of the immediate results in non-urban areas with no public transportation. A fully, constantly connected citizen will be a hazardous driver. But, aside from that, will find himself living more in the cyberworld than the meat world.

"Fully connected" will lead to the change from the laptop and PC to cyberspecs and virtual reality suits; tracking, projected "terminals" except for formal I/O (i.e., creative projects like text and art); forced popups and ads in public areas (on the cyberspecs and suits); roving cyberhackers and saboteurs; and increasingly smarter devices, including vehicles and houses.

Will it increase wealth and productivity? Who knows. Will it make us all "goldfish"? Maybe. Certainly gummints will use it to track those they don't approve of. The trend in blogging to inform people of when one goes to the bathroom could blossom into a literal ability to join someone in their every activity via cam nets and wearable devices.

Vernor Vinge would love it!

.ılılı.wipps.ws.ılılı.™

Hopefully it won't be available under a network neutrality regime. It would be cool for a low-bandwidth application, like remote medical monitoring, to be able to get higher priority bandwidth than kids in the back of Escalades downloading unreleased movies from BitTorrent. Heck, I bet people would even pay for priority if it meant staying out of a hospital or rest home!

A wifi blanket would lower or remove the barrier to adding useful information interfaces to things that don't currently tend to have information-oriented interfaces, e.g., a car or refrigerator.

I think this would extend the benefits of the web and email, in that people would use their increased access to information to make more informed decisions, and to connect with others to find creative solutions to problems that affect them.

So, for example, a community might better understand its school needs by getting information on the performance of its school buses. Kids might conduct science experiments using that same information (e.g., watching changes in engine efficiency while riding on the bus on a way to a field trip).

A Twitter account for every streetlight!

I wish you would expand this discussion to beyond the USA. I am trying to organize charitable projects in Kenya and keep finding Internet access in Kenya to be "down." Most of my communication (other than expensive phone calls) isn't via email or voice over Internet. Rather, I am conducting major business via text message. It boggles my mind to consider blanket Internet access in developing nations.

Ofcom, the UK's regulator, commissioned a study last year of the economic value of license exempt spectrum. An overview of the study, and links to the final report can be found here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/technology/overview/ese/econassess/.

One of the LE applications studied was public access WiFi. The Net Present Value of hotspots in the UK was estimated at 101.6 billion pounds, during the twenty years between 2006 and 2026. At today's exchange rate, that's about US$200 billion. NPV represents net contribution to the economy, not just how much hotspot operators or WLAN equipment makers are expected to earn. But in fact, the methods used to estimate NPV are very crude, and the benefit of widespread public access is slippery to price.

For comparison, another Ofcom study put the economic value of the whole radio spectrum - not just the license exempt bands - at 42 billion pounds during 2005-6. That's about US$80 billion.

Note to Brad Hutchings,

I agree that there could a reason for priority packets on the net there is also a net access issue. All of the carriers have a particularly burdensome process to get their applications on their networks. This process is a real economic cost to any company that wants to provide network application.

I forsee this becoming more of an issue once WiMax starts to roll out in full force.

I meant to say:

"get applications on their network" instead of"

"get their applications on their network"

Sorry if that created any confusion.

Brad, violations of Net neutrality - that is, giving priority to particular types of content - become less obnoxious (in my opinion, of course) when they are not chosen by those who profit from them. So, if we as a society decide to prioritize medical info, I'd complain much less than if we decide to let the carriers decide what to prioritize. And, having heard the cable company execs talk about this at their conference last month, their stated reasons weren't to benefit the public weal but to maximize their revenues. That doesn't necessarily coincide with the public good. I don't trust them to make the best decisions. So, I favor Net neutrality.

Great article, thank you!

Regards,

Web Tasarim - New Media Creation