Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will.
It looks like it's going backwards....
If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to
happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
network that they signed in July.
> Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
> and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will.
>
> It looks like it's going backwards....
> If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to
> happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
>
> The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
> Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
> still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
> according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...licon-valley-s
> talls.html?netht=110907dailynews1&&nladname=110907 dailynews
>
> As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
>
> Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
> agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
> network that they signed in July.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...ll-joint-wimax
> -project.html?page=2
"Oxford" <colalovesosx@verysmart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-34FFBB.17490309112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
>> and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER
>> will.
>>
>> It looks like it's going backwards....
>> If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going
>> to
>> happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
>>
>> The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
>> Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
>> still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
>> according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...licon-valley-s
>> talls.html?netht=110907dailynews1&&nladname=110907 dailynews
>>
>> As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
>>
>> Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
>> agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
>> network that they signed in July.
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...ll-joint-wimax
>> -project.html?page=2
>
> go educate yourself:
>
> http://www.fon.com/en/
>
> -
Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
also.
> > go educate yourself:
> >
> > http://www.fon.com/en/
>
> Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
> No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
> also.
ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
Ness Net wrote:
>
> "Oxford" <colalovesosx@verysmart.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesosx-34FFBB.17490309112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
>>> and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER
>>> will.
>>>
>>> It looks like it's going backwards....
>>> If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER
>>> going to
>>> happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
>>>
>>> The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
>>> Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
>>> still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
>>> according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...licon-valley-s
>>>
>>> talls.html?netht=110907dailynews1&&nladname=110907 dailynews
>>>
>>> As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
>>>
>>> Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
>>> agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
>>> network that they signed in July.
>>>
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...ll-joint-wimax
>>>
>>> -project.html?page=2
>>
>> go educate yourself:
>>
>> http://www.fon.com/en/
>>
>> -
>
> Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really
> are.
> No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
> also.
>
> And having a good laugh - at your expense.
>
I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very well?
> I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
> alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very
well?
>
> Amdy
How is cellular a "rip-off?" In cellulars' neaely thirty years we've
seen rates fall from $1/minute to 5-cents or less, as well as the effect
competitive pressure from cellular has had on landline rates- lower
rates, unlimited long distance plans, packages that include calling
features like Caller-ID, voicemail, etc.
Cellular is cheaper than ever, plus has done more to control landline
rates than VoIP ever has.
"Rip-off?" Sorry, I don't see it.
The free market is an amazing thing- if an effective, profitable, and
cheaper alternative to cellular was currently possible, a large tech
company unable to break into cellular would've launched it already.
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing.
Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants
cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine
why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are
powered by Peanut Butter...
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the
same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
is the producers incentive to produce?
FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me
FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually
spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi
from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of
net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:07:25 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
And there is a security problem with it, too. I wonder whose door
they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn
through *your* open AP?
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article <fha8hn$ksd$2@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
>> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
>>
>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
> Exactly correct! Well put, also!
>
>> Socialism has the
>> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
>> is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
Socialism would be the state owning all of it and running it badly so it
was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their
own high-bandwidth access. Socialism has as much to do with caring and
sharing in the real world as Christianity has to do with love and tolerance.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
>You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
> > The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature.
If
> > all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long
before
> > five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
In the "FON" model, yes. However, my dear Oxfiord, you've only been
flogging FON recently. Prior to that you were pushing free open access.
> > Socialism has the
> > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally,
what
> > is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Socialism has nothing to do with it.
You're right- it's more like good old Amway-style multi-level-marketing.
You get "paid" with free access in return for buying the $49 "sales kit"
and conning everyone you know into doing the same.
If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
profit opportunity"!
> > You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>
> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
(including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
cancel my cell service!
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become
an
> iBrick?
Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable.
True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
$40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
> When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
"floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
oxygen...
> > And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
But if Apple does it, you'll have 1000's within a few months, plus the
1000's of open wifi spots already in Denver.
> > What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> > using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> > Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become
> an
> > iBrick?
>
> Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
> available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
no, it comes with a range extender for that $40, so you'd have 300 feet
or so of coverage. 1000's of feet with other antennas.
> > This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable.
>
> True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
> $40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
> ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
ah, they have a hell of a lot more than 1000's of these, FON is spanish
and they are mainly in Europe. but if Apple latches on, people like
Dell, Linksys, Netgear and HP will quickly copy them and make the party
even wider.
their partner list is rather incredible, so something BIG is about to
happen. Sequoia Capital alone says it all...
> > When
> > Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> > go away.
>
> Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
> "floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
> I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
> oxygen...
3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
States, if not there will be a better solution that Apple will be the
first to use on a wide scale. Just like they were the first to use
802.11 on a mass scale.
> If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
> could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
> All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
> course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
> the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
> profit opportunity"!
you can already do that on the Mac... without FON...
Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
in other locations.
Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
In article
<colalovesosx-E766EC.01412012112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
> speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_kee...ple_share_WiFi
>
> someday, you'll catch up with me...
Oxford, you have invented and made broad claims.
No one has to catch up -- it's all imagination.
There is no reality there.
Now, instead of making wild broad claims about what you GUESS might
happen, someday, you _could have been_ discussing the directions
companies were taking, the ways technology could make it happen, the
ways businesses were changing their plans to work within a 'new
paradigm.'
But normally, you just make vast insipid statements.
No, there's nothing to 'catch up' to.
Most people have to slow down ad back up just to see if you really made
the latest silly claim.
In article <bob-4737FB.14285812112007@news.supernews.com>, Bob Campbell
<bob@bob.bob> wrote:
> > Socialism has the
> > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> > is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
>
> Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's
> use.
Not me. The problem I have with it isn't that I would be sharing.
(Seriously, why would anyone object to that?)
The problem I see with it is that it doesn't do ANY of the 'free' part.
> Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
> pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
no, all you do is buy a router with a range extender for $40, then you
get FREE access to all other people doing the same. It's a one time cost.
> Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
> or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
no, you aren't understanding the concept. it's FREE to use any of the
others if you have a fon router yourself. so for $40 bucks "one time",
you have access to all other fon routers worldwide.
it's the shape of things to come, especially if Apple does it on a much
larger scale.
> > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
>
> That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
> > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
>
> So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
for what? there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
> > them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
> > States,
>
> There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no
> one is using it now!
well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
from the pc to the mp3 player, now the multi-touch cell phone, apple led
the way that became the standard.
Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article <fham4j$ti9$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>
> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? Do we have the
> Ministry Of Open Networks monitoring my AP?
>
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an
> iBrick?
If you're really interested why don't you find out instead of displaying
your ignorance here?
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
>
> Bob Campbell
The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>
> IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
> you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
>
Are you really that thick? If you're away from home you can't access
your router over wi-fi.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Nov 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Bob Campbell wrote:
>
>>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
>
I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
systems and nothing else.
Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:25:45 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>>>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>>>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>>
>> IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
>> you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
>>
>
>Are you really that thick? If you're away from home you can't access
>your router over wi-fi.
Todd's scenario, to which you replied, mentioned nothing about being
away from home, you dolt.
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
> >
> > That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
>
> at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
> thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
> a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
> > > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
> >
> > So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> > when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
>
> for what?
For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
> there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
them it wasn't you.
> I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
> numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
> bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
> past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
"moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that so it's going
to be fun to watch as Apple takes over the cell market. They are just
ONE download away from releasing a VoIP product (iChat) on all existing
and future iPhones. Yes, steve is waiting for the right moment to kill
off the cell phone industry, we ALL know that... but his extreme
interest in FON spells everything out very clearly.
The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost /
High Quality products... something they've never had to experience. AT&T
is just a pawn at this point in the game.
> Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
> their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
> systems and nothing else.
Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
any value to the market place. Their technology is obsolete... The
public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
Well, it's as about as unlikely as a kid named Steve Wozniak invents a
powerful, extremely low cost computer and creates massive social change
on the order of the Light Bulb.
FON is quite similar if you think about it... a one time $40 cost to
share VoIP to 250 more people that ALSO have massive bandwidth "tied up"
since nobody knows it's possible to break the rules and win.
The FON concept is interesting and something can be done on a mass scale
if / when Apple plays their cards.
Hey Oxford - more reality 
Linear Mode
