What Happens When WiFi Goes Away?
Moconews posed an interesting question this morning: will wifi go the way of the public phone booth? Their premise was that public wifi (i.e., at conferences, or busy coffee shops) is often slow and hard to use, while mobile broadband is more reliable. Further, mobile broadband is spreading like wildfire and becoming more ubiquitous. As that happens, is wifi in danger of becoming no longer useful?
There's no question that wifi is great for certain things. For a home network, it can't be beat. But for larger scale deployments, such as at conference, it can be slow and maddening to use. While I love the coffee shop atmosphere, most days I generally work from home because I can't take the slow speeds on coffee shop wifi for more than an hour.
There's also a problem of congestion. In densely populated areas, as more and more people set up home networks, throughput is dropping as the airwaves get cluttered. David Heinemeier Hansson posted today about noise on his urban wifi connection, and judging from the comments his post received, it's a common problem. The solution? Perhaps mobile broadband.
Moconews pointed to Ericsson’s marketing chief Johan Bergendahl, who said mobile broadband will supplant wifi hotspots as the preferred method of on-the-go web access. "Hotspots at places like Starbucks are becoming the telephone boxes of the broadband era," he said. Moconews also pointed to a report that mobile broadband uptake is on the rise, and another report that city-wide wifi deployments are also growing -- perhaps indicating that wifi isn't ready to go away yet.
But let's just suppose that mobile broadband does become the dominant method of connecting to the Internet. Let's pretend that high cost, limited service territories, and speed barriers are overcome. What would the result be?
Perhaps the most interesting result would be that cellular voice networks would be forced to give way to VoIP, and services like Skype or JAJAH might be well positioned for a mobile broadband dominated world. With fast, reliable, and ubiquitous mobile broadband access, cellular voice plans would be irrelevant given cheaper VoIP options. We've already seen some voice-over-IP services target mobile users, such as JAJAH's iPhone optimized version.
That would be mean less costs for consumers -- no more free public wifi (presumably), but a slimmer cell phone bill and a single broadband connection that could cover mobile phone, web access, and landline telephone. Throw in a VoIP television service like Joost (which is starting to test live streaming this month) or Livestation, and the future might be one connection that covers all of your media and communication needs.
That simple future is a ways off, though. Mobile broadband isn't cheap, it isn't as fast as wired broadband, and it doesn't have the coverage necessary to be a truly reliable alternative to wifi hotspots (let alone voice networks). But is that future coming? Probably. HSPA+, which may arrive late this year, will offer speeds of up to 42 Mbps down and 11 Mbps up, which is significantly faster than my 20/2 Mbps cable line, and astronomically faster than the iPhone's current EDGE network (which is around 240 kbps down).
There are a lot of barriers to overcome -- not least of which, how to handle billing consumers when roaming on other networks and how to make the various competing standards play nice (or get networks to conform to a single standard). But once those issues are solved, fast, cheap, ubiquitous mobile broadband may be on the horizon.
When do you think mobile broadband will be fast enough, cheap enough, and ubiquitous enough to supplant wifi? Will that ever happen? If it does, what other side effects will we see? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
ShareRelated Entries
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3556
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Hi, nice article. I was actually asked the same question a few days ago. Mobile broadband is definitely the way to go as WiFi's most important problem is its limited range. Mobile broadband however will be available almost everywhere with reception.
Cheers,
Alpay
http://www.unofficialmac.com/
I think that WiFi is in no danger of going away, but the ubiquitous web access is already on our doorstep and it's called WiMax (everyone, chant with me: Xohm. Xohm. Xohm.) The future of web access will be 802.11n in the home and office (assuming it ever gets out of draft!) and WiMax everywhere else.
That said, Xohm is being designed explicitly for the embedded market, so it is possible that our toasters, TVs, and car keys will ultimately be WiMaxed instead of Wified. It really depends on the pricing model, and thats something we just cant predict how will play out yet. WiFi will probably always have an advantage in cost.
I tend to think of wifi and wimax as complementary technologies, however, in much the same way that commuter rail is complementary to a subway system. One is a heavy mover, with high capacity over long distances. The other is a short distance, low capacity transport. The analogy holds pretty well when you look at WiFi and WiMax as well.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of WiFi's demise are premature. I too reacted to Ericsson's Chief Marketing Officer's comments, although my take was somewhat different. See Why does everyone want to kill WiFi?.
Your comment about the slowness of WiFi is far more likely to be a result of the fact that your local coffee shop connects all its customers on a single ADSL line or your conference organisers blithely assumed that they could connect 200 users to their existing Internet connection.
In fact, WiFi has quietly gone from 10Mbps to 300Mbps. It's cheap and it's in every device imaginable.
If the spectrum is crowded, it's because WiFi has been relegated to two narrow bands. Freeing up a little spectrum for WiFi might allow grassroots connectivity to flourish.
- Steve Song
More important is how the FCC auction of 700 MHz will affect both mobile braodband and wifi/max. Will the winner be a competitor blunting the growth of those two methods or will it be one of the usual suspects who will just sit on it and do nothing? Major supermarket chains are known to sit on vacant properties just to deny competitors a good location. Use the analogy. Google injected its philosophy by signing up though probably will not be a winner, so we will see how far the openess provision goes once the lawyers fine comb it.
I like the thoughts on this, and the comments. I agree with @steve that it's cheap and its everywhere...
What's unfortunate about WiMax and competing technologies is that cellular companies already have both the infrastructure *and the PAYING consumer-base* to make it a reality. I don't even think about wifi anymore thx to my cellular card.
Of all the things the cellular companies in the US are doing wrong (restricting services, lengthy contracts, poor handset options) they do and have innovated FAST where there is money to be made. You can't argue they filled a niche... fast. Meanwhile many other technologies are still wobbling on their toddler-like feet.
But, I pay a horrendous chunk of change each month for all the voice & data I consume. I'd love to consolidate my broadband needs to one provider... I really don't care if it comes from my broadband provider getting me free "roaming" access or my cellular provider stepping up to thick-band home-based services.
As a mobile broadband user I have found there are few things I can do on mobile. I have realized that the experience of other things is way better for some stuff. For instance on weekday's when I don't have a lot of time I usually read the news on my smartphone. On the weekend, if I have time, I prefer to read from a newspaper. The tangible experience is way superior, for me, to use than the small screen on my smartphone.
I have been thinking about what type of use cases would be superior for a mobile phone, so far I am having a hard time for things other than email and simple news.
http://throughthefog.typepad.com/
As much as I like mobile broadband, it's still very expensive.
And with mobile broadband, you don't have a choice. You're stuck with one provider and one provider only. If you want to switch, you have got to go through the whole hassle of switching providers.
With WiFi, you get the choice. Sure, the network at Starbucks might be congested with people hogging free WiFi bandwidth, but ultimately, you have a choice. Don't like this Starbucks? Go to the Starbucks opposite (or ).
I'm not switching to a massive usage of mobile broadband. It's too much to pay $10 for watching a YouTube video (well, I wasn't on a plan yet at that time). Until such a time where mobile broadband becomes free, I'll stick to looking for free public WiFi, because personally, the cost is not worth it.
@Gabe: You can use your phone as a BT modem/gateway for internet to your laptop you know... abit slow though.
In the UK, where HSDPA mobile broadband coverage is already available for a significant proportion of the population via a couple of carriers, you're starting to see quite a number of little 3-branded dongles hanging out of laptops where you might previously have seen a wifi card. At £10 per month for 1GB of up to 3Mbps data transfer, it's not quite there yet, but it's further advanced than the USA. WiMax also looks very promising, with a number of cities (including my home town of Stoke on Trent) proposing free-to-use city-wide networks with a focus on education and providing connectivity to disadvantaged areas. It has to be more useful in the real world than lots of tiny hotspots that you've got to be careful not to wander out of!
I have to say when I am somewhere there is no wifi I just connect to my phone via bluetooth and use my 3g phone as a modem.
I am in the UK and with three, my only concern is the speed of 3g. I might use a dedicated card for it if it gave me more speed.
I think when 4g networks appear the wifi in public will have to move on a lot else no one will use it.
saying that sometimes I get better speeds from my phone than I do from tmobiles crappy wifi spots in starbucks in the uk.
I am using a nokia e61 with a mbp if anyone is interested.
Guys
Great post and here's another take on it. I live on a little chink of rock floating somewhere in the South Pacific - I believe RWW's founder also spends time here from time to time ;-) and our reality is different from that stateside methinks.
Sad reality is that we're a sparsely populated, mountainous region with limited urban centres. Broadband is difficult (the subject of much hand wringing and blame laying) given low population and long distance - so the answer for us is well and truly wireless (and when I say wireless I'm mean "without wires" rather than WiFi)
So yes - given an improvement in speed, a decrease in the relative cost disincentive, and surety over RF and security and mobile data is indeed the way of the future
In Copenhagen, Denmark, where I'm placed, mobile broadband coverage is almost at 100%. The speed is up to 7.2 mbit/sec, with my average speed at 3-5 mbit/sec, depending on my location.
The cost? Only about $60/month (300 Danish crowns) for unlimitted use. For the same price you would usually get around 10mb/sec for a landline internet connection = the difference is very small.
It works very well with Skype, streaming video and for all kinds of web surfing. The only real difference I see is a little longer ping time (usually around 150ms compared to the 20-30ms I usually experience with my landline provider via wifi at home).
I guess it will be less than two years before I cancel my landline Internet connection and go completely mobile. And I'm a very heavy Internet user.
I forgot: I also have mobile broadband on my phone, 7.2mbit/sec. Skype conversations on my N95 over 3G is already common practice in my circle of friends.
Another downside to many public WiFi connections is security - sidejacking is a very real danger on unencrypted networks.
I've long felt that the Internet is becoming a utility. In many countries, when we turn on a faucet, we don't wonder for even a second if water will come out. We completely take for granted our access to running water, electricity, etc. If we get thirsty, we don't have to think about where we'll find a drink - water is always available. The infrastructure necessary to provide such services has become transparent to us; when we move, we don't check to see if a potential new house is in an area with running water.
Similarly, the Internet is fast becoming a utility we take for granted and that we can always access. Many people have broadband connections at home, often wireless. Many universities provide wireless Internet, and most companies have Internet connectivity on their workstations. We're now seeing Internet-based services integrated into non-computer devices, such as Apple TV. When someone needs information about a product or subject, they routinely turn to the Internet first.
I'd say that mobile broadband is an inevitable extension of this trend. While we can't provide running water wirelessly, the Internet will naturally become as pervasive as radio and television. Pervasive WiFi would require myriad new hotspots and much more infrastructure; it would also be difficult to use while on the road (i.e. in a moving vehicle). But mobile phone companies already have nearly pervasive networks in place, and are much better equipped to deploy mobile broadband. Yes, it's expensive right now, but so were cellular phones when they first appeared.
We may eventually see a day when "the Internet" is hardly even referred to as an entity, since Internet-based communications will be such a part of our lives. Newer devices and uses will increase demand and drive down costs. Granted, all of this will take time, but I do think it's inevitable.
I doubt it'll ever go away.. but as one of those many mobile broadband users, I can tell you it blows most wifi out of the water. I love it and will never get rid of it.
Spare a thought for the poor old copper wires that have served us so well.
I don't think mobile broadband will compete for speed in the event that BT finally get round to using fibre optic lines for super fast Broadband Internet connections
Ahem *cough* let me add a few points:
1. Is the penetration of 3G chipsets on laptops the same as WiFi? (those jumping at the "yeah but what about mobiles?" phrase bear with me).
2. How many 3G devices offer an awesome web browsing or over-the-air video experience? That's the real question, not over which pipe it arrives. As long as I get a similar browsing experience as the iPhone (to give a non-3G example), I don't care if it comes over a wet string.
3. Have you been able to get decent 3G speeds indoors, if at all?
4. Can you add your own 3G coverage? At my home, I have almost no GSM coverage, never mind 3G. Unless the carrier sees value in adding coverage to satisfy my 3G-lust, I will get none anytime soon.
5. Do you realize that you are not getting 7.2Mbps on your phone (as #12 - Jeppe said), but only a piece of it? The cell's brute capacity is spread between every mobile attached to it, and used for voice, data and signaling, so the more people connected, the slower it will get for everyone. The only reason 3G is still a good user experience in good coverage areas is that it's too expensive for everyone to use.
6. WiFi can still be free in many places, 3G will never be.
7. *Cough* WiMax *cough* is meant of outdoor delivery to fixed locations, it was not designed for mobile use (whatever they tell you). Indoor penetration in any case will be close to zero.
Before declaring WiFi dead, check some facts, or just the sheer volume of devices out there.
Oh, and I also forgot, you mention Jajah as a VoIP application, when it is not - it's a callback application, and the iPhone 'version' is basically an iPhone-tailored web page that you use to tell their servers what number to establish the callback to. This callback takes place over traditional GSM, nothing to do with 3G, WiFi or EDGE.