more on Mobility - Special from Financial Times]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [IP] Mobility - Special from Financial Times
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:00:09 -0800
From:   Phil Kos <PhilK () quardev com>
To:     David Farber <dave () farber net>



Dave -

Perhaps it's just a Monday thing, or the fact that I'm what some of your 
more imaginative readers refer to as a Luddite; but I was quite a bit 
unimpressed by Dewayne's Financial Times forward.

The FT makes the same error that characterizes most wireless marketing 
hype -- although at least they stake their reputation on it rather than 
littering this cheerleading with weasel-words like "might" or "could."

> WiFi networks... assure the digitally addicted of a permanent and 
ubiquitous connection to the wider world.

Some very unequivocal language here, making some very interesting 
claims.  Let's just analyze the three absolute terms they've used in 
this one sentence: "assure," "permanent," and "ubiquitous."

"Ubiquitous," at least in my dictionary, does not mean "only where the 
connectivity provider you're in thrall to has deigned to put a 
transciever you can actually use."  Verizon's attitude towards coverage 
seems typical of the industry, and Seidenberg has even stated it loud 
and clear, on the record (as forwarded to I-P by Steven J. Davidson on 
17 Apr 2005): "Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would 
work in your house?"  To steal Seidenberg's own phrase: why in the world 
does the FT think that Verizon will treat data any differently?

And even if a patchwork crazy-quilt of interlocking providers (cf. the 
current situation with cellphones) manages to provide even nominal 
ubiquity, what in the world would encourage those providers to do 
handoffs to "assure" that ubiquity?

Finally, I'm going to presume that I'm speaking to an audience that 
understands faults and failures, so that I don't have to explain how 
"permanent" is more than a little beyond anything that should be 
promised with consumer technology.

To me, the only statement in the excerpt that rings true is the 
observation that some of us are "in the grip of these new networks."  
But notice who's gripping whom here: wireless users are not controlling 
a new communications network, but vice versa.  (Can you say "WAP"?)

This seems yet another instance of the tired old promise of "seamless 
roaming" that has been going around for years, and that will not be 
implemented as long as the infrastructure is owned and operated by 
companies that live by balkanizing their customer base.  I'm starting to 
think of it as the 21st-century equivalent of the personal aircar, which 
iconified an earlier age of technological hype.  While such projects 
might be technologically possible, successful implementation would 
require revolutionary changes to the way telecom executives think and act.

If any of the big urban wireless projects ever get anywhere -- and with 
Comcast, Verizon, SBC, et al. working as hard as they can to make sure 
that never happens, I'm not holding my breath -- we might see a 
different picture; but only on a proof-of-concept scale, with no real 
ubiquity (and probably as little permanence).  Maybe after several more 
generations of technology come and go, we'll start to approach the 
connectivity utopia this article is talking about.


Phil Kos
Skeptic and possible Luddite
Issaquah, WA

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/