Starbucks Clashes With WiFi Hobbyists Over Airwaves 329
fobbman writes: "Portland Oregon's Pioneer Square (the heart of downtown) has had free WiFi access provided since February by Personal Telco, which is a local group of computer hobbyists. Now Starbuck's is planning on offering the same service on the same band in the same area for $29.95 a month, according to this story in the local fishwrap. Without regulation or licensing, and with WiFi growing, this could become a common problem."
Starbucks T-Shirt (Score:3, Informative)
How to change a Starbucks T-Shirt into something filthy [everything2.com]
Can't do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure that I've seen that somewhere...
Re:Can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. Those public free users are obviously Evil Terrorist Commie Content Pirates(tm), and should be kicked off in favor of the Good American Patriotic Capitalist(tm) company!
Re:Can't do that? (Score:4, Informative)
And currently most chipsets support frequency hopping to aviod cluttering.
The problems are coming in becuase Telco's are trying to make it east for themseleves by sticking to one channel. This saves on equipment costs and stuff.
In the long run this causes problems.. but remember thats how most people operate.... Find a solution only when problem comes... if preplanning was the norm the level of chaos would be much less.
The 802.11b standard is beautifuly designed but most people do not implement all the features to cut costs
Who was there first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who was there first? (Score:5, Interesting)
Free vs. commercial shouldn't even enter into it. The real issue here is that companies are flooding a portion of the radio spectrum that has been set aside for general use and then clamouring for regulation after the fact in order to prop up their business model and turn "users" into "customers".
Re:Who was there first? (Score:2)
No one is clamoring for regulation. Read the article. Starbucks doesn't even know about the Personal Telco link. If anyone is clamoring for regulation it's the Personal Telco people and posters like you.
Re:Who was there first? (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody, especially personal telco, wants regulation, and nobody's saying that they chose channel 1 maliciously. But, there's a problem. Staying on channel 1 will hurt their quality of service just as much as ours, if not more, since people expect more when they're paying for it.
More links (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More links (Score:2, Informative)
The Personal Telco Project - PTP Homepage [personaltelco.net] and the PTP mailing list Archive [personaltelco.net]
Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:5, Informative)
The T-mobile installers talked to several PTP members in Starbucks as they were installing the hardware. They were made aware of the PTP node, and which channel it was on, as well as how long it had been installed (since February 2001).
T-mobile uses channel 1 on all their sites, so this is actually not an intentional act on their part, but either laziness or "corporate policy".
Channel 1 is used by these companies because software searches for an AP from channel 1 upwards. Obviously, they want to be found first.
A TV news spot (link can probably be found on the PTP site soon, I captured/encoded it and let others mirror on faster machines) was also shot today at the square, with a half-dozen PTP members sitting there trying to surf. The clip shows the tmobile and www.personaltelco.net AP's flashing in and out, as they stomped on each other. Performance of both network (we presume, no one has wasted $30/mo on a T-mobile account) sucked badly.
And for the curious, the Pioneer Courthouse Square Starbucks node is fed by a *satellite* connection, meaning horrendous latencies. The PersonalTelco node at the same location is fed by dual T1's. Do the math on bandwidth and latency, and tell me if you want to spend $30/mo for T-mobile....
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the news article was an intentional advertisement -- but it may serve as one nonetheless.
-Sou|cuttr
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:2)
This is probable. Virtually nobody is aware of the service down at Pioneer Square. The only reason I found out about it was a short blurb on the news a few months ago.
Re:Legitimate concern or disguised marketing? (Score:2)
You'd think the installers would check when they did the install. The other possibility is to have a system designed with tranciever stations which attempt to avoid frequency conflicts automatically.
Typical Starbucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally they buy out old coffee houses, or promise the landlord of these existing cafes higher rent. Get an entire area filled with starbucks, then once the area is associated with coffee, they start closing up their shops, until they only need one in the area.
So it's only logical that they would take the same approach with WiFi.
Pioneer Square? (Score:2)
Now, what we really need is free WiFi on the Max and the Portland Streetcar.
Re:Pioneer Square? (Score:2)
Obligatory Onion Article (Score:4, Funny)
Breaker 192.168.0.19, breaker - breaker (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how long it will be before someone starts selling 100W 802.11 amplifiers
Problems with Unregulated (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that Big Brother is our enemy in Slashdot, but it's hard to do anything constructive in unregulated space. Imagine the chaos if FM wasn't regulated.
Re:Problems with Unregulated (Score:4, Insightful)
Pirate Radio (Score:2)
When you have people using FM spectrum for free you get a much wider variety of music played by people who really care. No ads, and no endless soft rock (unless the DJ wants to play soft rock...)
check out Pirate Radio [dmoz.org] for more.
Re:Pirate Radio (Score:2)
Re:Pirate Radio (Score:2)
-Rob
Re:Pirate Radio (Score:2)
Isn't this the sort if thing Starbucks are up to. Even if they don't have the "biggest transmitter" in terms of RF power they are trying for this in terms of publicity.
Re:Problems with Unregulated (Score:2)
It says a lot for some people's attitudes that they would make threats rather than work out ways to coexist. Especially since it would probably cost the university far more money to pay lawyers, for a case which would probably get laughed out of court, than to have the university's techies work out solutions.
No Problem (Score:2)
Its what the enterntainment and phone companies want. So its what we'll get.
Well, it depends on how the regulations are writte (Score:3, Interesting)
No regulation means no monopolies, but so does 'good' regulation. The problem is all this 'deregulation' stuff isn't actually deregulation, but rather changing the regulations in order to let greedy people game the system for $$, usually at the expense of other people.
Re:Well, it depends on how the regulations are wri (Score:2)
Re:Well, it depends on how the regulations are wri (Score:2)
An alternatibe way to regulate would be to say "you cannot transmit more than X kW." Then it's your choice if you operate a few big stations or a lot of small stations.
Re:Problems with Unregulated (Score:2)
Re:Problems with Unregulated (Score:2)
That is probably more a problem with bad regulation. Also IIRC this situation came about as a result to relaxation of regulation.
Starbucks has little to do with their WiFi (Score:2, Insightful)
The short of it is, Starbucks has practically nothing to do with TMobile [tmobile.com]'s WiFi access. The managers and employees know next to nothing about the Internet access except for the fact that it exists, and that if customers want to use the access they should call up Tmobile. That's it, so don't jump down Starbucks throat over this.
Why Tmobile can't simply change their channel is beyond me; I imagine that nobody at Tmobile with any technical knowledge has been alerted to this yet.
Common Problem (Score:2, Troll)
If they can't resolve the frequency coordination, and it devolves into a shouting match, Starbuck's is gonna win. They will have access points located within their premeses (sp?) and will no doubt have the maxium legal power and antenna structures allowed by the FCC. If the private guys can punch thru that signal, they're doing it using illegal power levels or antennas.
Also, a corporate sponsored setup would have the potential to have a higher speed backbone in and out of the shop, and ultimately be able to provide better service than the free guys.
Re:Common Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, a corporate sponsored setup would have the potential to have a higher speed backbone in and out of the shop, and ultimately be able to provide better service than the free guys.
Not really. T-mobile has hooked up this node (and quite a few others from what I've heard, for cost reasons) to the 'Net with a satellite connection. That means ~400Kbps downstream and horrible latency.
The PTP node on the other hand is directly connected to two almost entirely idle load-balanced T1's.
Re:Common Problem (Score:2)
They'll have to provide superior service for pay than their customers can get for free already. In areas where there is no existing free service, they can probably get away with the service class you mentioned, because no one there knows better or has an alternative.
Also, somwhere it was mentioned there was no difference in QOS between the free service and the corporate one, so if that's not an issue, then signal strength (read: throughput speed) becomes the only one - which do you get better? Most likely, the closest local signal (i.e. the one originating inside the shop).
Frequency coordination (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, he with the better license wins. Since 802.11b is FCC part 15 in a band that Hams occupy, get a licensed amateur to set up a station in that band, running max legal, and simply STOMP Starbucks out. Since a ham operates under FCC part 97, which trumps part 15, when Starbucks complains the ham can say "Sorry, but you have to ACCEPT all interference from my system - you are part 15, look at your license. Also, you are CAUSING interference in my system - stop immediately, as you are in violation of part 15."
While this sort of thing is frowned upon by the Amateur Radio Relay League, this may be what is needed to drive the message home to the companies that CASH does not make RIGHT.
They're ALREADY stomping each other out (Score:2)
Re:They're ALREADY stomping each other out (Score:3, Interesting)
You jam them off the air, accepting that you won't be able to use the frequency either. You then demonstrate to them that this is the classical Prisoner's Dilemma - if we both are nice, we both win. If we both are nasty, we both lose. If one is nasty and one is nice, nasty wins.
The long-term winning strategy is "Nice first, the whatever the other guy does." PT started out nice, Starbucks started out nasty. So PT goes REALLY nasty. If Starbucks goes nice (by moving to a different channel), then PT goes nice.
Of course, since PT is providing a better service than Starbucks, Starbuck's cannot win playing nice UNLESS they shift their paradigm - perhaps co-operating wit PT in this one area to provide better coverage (e.g. Starbucks pays PT for a share of their T1 bandwidth in exchange for allowing Starbucks users in. Sure, in that locatilty you can get in free, but in other areas you cannot - so if you are a traveler you are better off subscribing.)
This just goes to show the flaw in all business thinking now-a-days - everybody treats the world as a zero-sum game ("For me to win, others must lose") rather than looking for non-zero-sum solutions ("Here's how we can ALL win"). Starbucks could have easily made this a win-win situation ("We'll kick in for bandwidth, you let our customers in, but also let anybody else in too.").
Re:Frequency coordination (Score:4, Informative)
Further any Ham operator causing willful interference can be ticketed by the FCC. Even if they are interfering with secondary services, if it can be proved they are doing it just to cause harmful interference, they can be fined heavily for this.
And finally if you can find a Ham low enough to try this, you've found the exception, not the rule. Most hams would be outraged (as I am) at the mere suggestion we use MIGHT to make RIGHT.
If you modd'ers want to find a good Troll, check the parent of this message. Bah.
Re:Frequency coordination (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you forgetting SSIDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
I set up something similar at work. We have 2 sets of wireless APs. One is for VMUs, (Vehicle Mounted Units) while the other is for laptops. Both are on channel 6 (had to be for other reasons) and both have different SSIDs. The laptops will not connect to the VMU APs, even if there is no signal from the Laptop APs. My Zaurus' Wireless card is set to "any" so it works on both of these networks, and will "hop" between them with no problems.
Read the article... (Score:2)
i.e. range and speed are now greatly reduced for both premises.
I think the SeattleWireless people should start up a donation fund to pump their AP up to legal-limit power.
Starbucks will be forced to change that channel or get complaints from people trying to use their system.
It's the commercial service that has to move along (Score:3, Interesting)
"These community-based wireless networks are wonderful, but these will never take the place of actual wireless systems deployed by carriers or companies such as T-Mobile," Ameri said.
They will exactly TAKE THE PLACE. What's left, is providing something special on that SHARED place. It will not take very long, when there's an international network of open gateways, and services that are provided commercially now (such as easiness to log-on anywhere you are). The share of the commercial companies will get smaller. IMHO, the commercial companies cannot provide much extra - they can do it first, but if it's useful these free services will adopt it.
Once they can license or otherwise guarantee the bandwidth, the situation changes. Like, if they can provide GPRS or some other means when the quality of the WiFi goes below certain limit (although I don't see any reasons why this could not be done by anyone else than the GPRS provider too) :)
(*note* this might be partly a troll, but I would still like to have comments on these :)
Re:It's the commercial service that has to move al (Score:2)
I know, I did it again, but read this [englishplus.com] before starting the possessive possessive thread again :)
Stick to the standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stick to the standards (Score:2, Informative)
the problem is that the IEEE defined 14 channels, or sequences of frequency hops, 11 of which are legal to use in the US. only 3 channels don't overlap at some point. Those channels are 1, 6, and 11. In Pioneer Courthouse Square, before t-mobile, there was a weak AP on channel 11, and personaltelco on channel 1. Logically, you would assume a for-pay service interested in providing quality would use channel 6. Even the most cursory of site surveys would've detected these competing signals.
What the standard really says (Score:2, Interesting)
The confusion probably arises from the original 1 Mb/s IEEE 802.11 WLAN standard, which actually had three physical layers--Direct sequence spread spectrum (on the same channels as Wi-Fi), frequency hop spread spectrum (on 79 channels between 2402 and 2480 MHz in the U.S.), and infrared (IR).
The value in using Channel 1 for a direct sequence system is entirely due to the law of unintended consequences--most WLAN software does a simple channel scan from the bottom to the top of the band, and T-mobile wants to be discovered first. Had the software designers realized the built-in marketing advantage they were giving to Channel 1, and the ensuing free-for-all that would result, they might have randomized the search, to give all channels equal access.
Interesting how much economic effect can result from a computer language syntax feature like "ChanNum++".
For those whining about no regulation... (Score:2, Flamebait)
I can see how it would help the people who want a barrier to entry against free competition in an area where they'd like to charge money... well "boo hoo". The air waves belong to the public, and the free service was there first, and all your paid customers can get service from the free service anyway. So Go Away, Please.
The way I see it escalating is this: the free service doesn't move and the paid service doesn't move and both services suck, so they both lose users, only the paid service loses money because of that, and the free service doesn't. Upshot: If you are the paid service, and you don't want to lose money... move. Case closed.
-- Terry
802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:5, Informative)
iwconfig wlan0 mode Managed essid starbucks
udhcpc --interface wlan0
or
iwconfig wlan0 mode Managed essid free
udhcpc --interface wlan0
For more efficient transmission, you can even program your access points to use different frequencies. There are twelve overlapping frequency bands used 802.11b, which provide for three or four completely independent networks.
Attempting to associate with a network named "Any" or "" will usually result in associating the network with the strongest signal, depending on your driver and card. This is also true in other operating systems.
Perhaps it's more of a plug than a disclaimer, but I should mention I'm involved in LANRoamer [lanroamer.net], an open source system that you can use to sell passers-by access to your wireless network and other participating networks.
Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but the point of the story is that Starbucks (deliberately ?) chose to use the same frequency as the free guys.
And yes, the networks do manage to coexist, but with significant performance drops due to them sharing the same frequency.
Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:2)
The way I see it, if Personal Telco refuses to change frequencies, as the FCC puts it, they must accept any interference... I don't see anybody being at fault here, except maybe Personal Telco being a bit standoffish. I don't see 11 wireless channels filling up any time soon, and even if there's that possibility, why make a stand at channel 1? C'mon, guys, give a little!
PS: You don't see news articles about Starbucks complaining about how their performance is degraded by Personal Telco, do you? Y'all are hypocrites. You drink their coffee, get all hyped up with caffeine pumping through your blood, and then go typing all willy-nilly about how evil they are!
Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:5, Insightful)
If it isn't their fault, then whose fault is it?
Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:2)
Heck, they almost shouldn't advertise the fact that there are 11 channels on wireless equipment.....
Re:802.11b supports overlapping networks (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying it is right to do since the other group was there first but their policy does make sense.
To those who've never been there.. (Score:5, Informative)
"Representatives of Starbucks and T-Mobile owner VoiceStream said they were unaware of any other wireless Internet presence in the square and had no comment on Personal Telco's objection."
Let me tell you something about Pioneer Square: Nobody's walking around with wireless devices screwing around on the web. To tell you the truth, the only way you could have found out this service was even availble was a quick blurb on the news. It doesn't surprise me at all that Starbuck's didn't even know it was there. Heck, it was sheer chance that I even found out about it. I go by Pioneer Square nearly ever day, I can honestly say I have never ever seen anybody doing wireless stuff there. (Not saying they don't do it, just saying that it's not visible.) I don't think more than a handful of people are aware of the 802.11 cloud present there.
Now, Starbuck's is right there on the square. They could set up a nice little antenna (heck, they could probably just use a $150 gateway, serious.) and it'd work just fine. This has nothing to do with trying to wipe out another service like it, it's just geography, it's just a coincidence.
Re:To those who've never been there.. (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't surprise me at all that Starbuck's didn't even know it was there.
Except for the part where several PTP members happened to be at Starbucks the day the T-mobile installers came. As I mention in my comment above, they talked for quite a while, with the T-mobile installers being made aware of a) the PTP node, b) how long it had been installed (some 6+ months by then, longer in testing), and c) what channel it was on.
As far as people not knowing about it, that is a problem we're trying to solve. If you saw the noon or 6:30 KGW news today you saw a piece about the node at the square and T-mobile's arrival. A week or two ago a half-dozen PTP members spent several hours handing out freshly-printed full-color trifolds explaining how to get online. Stickers are quite frequently placed at various locations, and promptly removed by Starbucks employees, but since it's not actually a public square, there's a limit to how much we can do legally.
Re:To those who've never been there.. (Score:2)
Time to break out the chalk, dude!
Re:To those who've never been there.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I see no problem with Starbucks wanting to offer a service. This isn't ham radio they are using, so they can certainly charge money for it. The issue is whether they should use the same channel as a previously existing service. Before they were aware of it, they could have planned to use a particular channel. But, a prudent planner would have checked to see what was active in the area by simply checking out the RF in the area using WiFi equipment.
But Starbucks/T-mobile knows about it now. So they have to decide whether they want to continue to share the channel and have degraded service and impose degraded service on others, or whether they move to another channel and have good service without bothering others (until there are more services than channels available to accomodate). Even if they decide to stay, I won't call Starbucks as evil, because channel sharing is inevitable. However, if they demand that others move off the channel, then they are evil. We'll see.
Re:To those who've never been there.. (Score:2)
Not to point out the obvious, but just because Joe Installer chatted with some PTP members doesn't mean anyone knew anything about the network. The average installer doesn;t know anything about corporate policy, doesn't care about corporate policy, and doesn't want to get involved in corporate policy. This guy was hired to install everything on channel one, and that's what he did. He didn't worry about who else was on channel one, because he doesn't get paid to do that.
Re:To those who've never been there.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh common. Starbucks is not going to be happy if someone is offering free wireless service that could undermine the Starbucks for-profit service. According to one of the posts above yours (and posted earlier), Starbucks knew there was already wireless equipment in the area, and they chose to ignore it. Sure, they're just trying to make a profit, and while "evil" is probably too strong a word, they are being jerks about it.
This has nothing to do with trying to wipe out another service like it, it's just geography, it's just a coincidence.
This has everything to do with trying to wipe out another service like it, of course it's geography, and it can't be coincidence if they were aware of the other service before they put in their own.
SBUCKS is temporarily blocking the inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, Starbucks has gotten used to making a very, ahem - overly generous share of the profits for a beverage - what is it, something like 1200% gross margins? - so, now, they're just doing what comes natural, taking another market segment over in which they can jack us all up for the convenience of using our own property, our computers, while inside their location.
It will probably become the case that they will use some sort of technology to over-ride the ability of Personal Telco to provide free access anywhere near a Starbucks location. Then, those who want to even go near the place will be forced to pay Starbucks a damn subscription fee just to try and use what they once where able to use for free. Starbucks will, essentially, highjack the air in and near their retail locations.
So, seems to me that if everyone who was smart about this and committed to maintaining free access, they would cluster as many free access points around every Starbucks as they can.
Let's look at a parallel situation for comparison (Score:2)
The next morning, the trailer manager arrives at work to discover the community service group has pushed the trailer down the street. So he runs them over again. This goes on for an extended period of time, during which no one is getting lemonade because the corporate jugs tipped over as the trailer ran over the card table which held the free jugs. Yet this goes on day after day with no end in sight.
It seems to me that the company is so bent on profit (from a market where the product to be sold is already free) it is willing to engage in a spending race with the non-profit, betting that the cash-strapped non-profit will go home if it can't distribute its product. Most non-profits would rather spend their money on something else if their efforts are for naught.
In this situation, I see one of two things happening:
- The non-profit makes use of its local connections to inform the local populace of the situation, and ask them to stop patronizing the corporation's other businesses until it stops trying to take away their free lemonade. The non-profit needs to make a point of explaining that the corporation wants to force consumers to pay for something that's already free.
- The international corporation lobbies Congress for a new law which effectively gives for-profit corporations sovereign squatting rights over non-profit entities. That's best for the economy, they will claim, because it creates jobs and keeps money circulating instead of stuffed under mattresses.
My money's on Starbucks paying a political action committee to lobby Congress to "do the right thing for the economy in these troubled times" and "bring order to the wild Wi-Fi frontier."Re:Let's look at a parallel situation for comparis (Score:2)
Replace "lemonade stand" with "operating system".
Does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
The company [comwavz.com] providing this service had constructed a rather large (several hundred feet large, dwarfing an AT&T microwave relay station a few hundred yards down the road from it) tower near my house.
I guess I should mention that the landscape around here is flat. Like a ruler. And completely devoid of obstructions.
I had no trouble at all getting 500 kBps downloads using the Aironet 350 AP and Pringles can-looking antenna they provided and installed from this massive tower 2.1 miles away.
The point of this text? They cover, probably with some degree of success, a very significant portion of Northwest Ohio with just ten of these towers.
Cell phones don't get that kind of range.
And even -handheld- cell phones are good for up to for 600mW of output (in the US, per FCC rules). The Aironet is about half of that.
Old-school bag phones had output of up to 3W. Which -might- have been as good as Comwavz -appears- to be doing with plain old 802.11b.
I never got rain fade, or snow fade, or any fade at all while I used it, even when conditions rendered visibility to zero. My microwave didn't phase it, and waving my 2.4GHz spread spectrum Uniden cordless phone directly in front of the antenna didn't make any measurable dent in latency. An arc welder used directly below the antenna didn't make a difference, either.
Things worked almost as well after an hour or two of sustained 50-70MPH winds kicked the loosely-mounted antenna so that it was at 90 degrees to the aforementioned towering wonder of bandwidth - the least efficient way I can imagine for that type of antenna to work.
I was able to also communicate -directly- with a few other of their customers. Those which I was able to identify were often several miles away, none with antennas pointed at mine (nor mine at theirs). Speeds were slow in this ad-hoc arrangement, sometimes in the range of 30kBps, but often were on par with my (current) 2Mbit cable modem.
I am led to wonder, thus, precisely what the problem is. It seems to be a remarkably durable way to communicate, and I have difficulty believing that Starbucks, of all places, can put a dent in anything controlled by people with motivation to make it continue working.
(I did have some downtime, once or twice, but each time that happened I was able to use binoculars to spot a guy wearing a toolbelt, jacking his way up that towering steel phalus. I attributed the temporary loss of bandwidth to safety of his (obviously brass) balls, not to any enviromental or interferance issues.)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
you get an insane loss of reliability and signal.
personaltelco would be fine with moving our AP to another channel, but we're loathe to establish a precendent.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:2)
How does the community group pay for itself? (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy (Score:2)
At the moment, the 802.11 traffic likely isn't much of a negative impact on whatever they're doing up there.
Re:How does the community group pay for itself? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's donated by local ISPs. This is how all of the PersonalTelco sites in Portland are set up. The only exceptions are folks who set up a wireless node to share the bandwidth they pay for. And according to Adam Shand, one of the founders of PersonalTelco, the extra traffic acquired by doing this is negligible to the sharer.
However, PersonalTelco has taken the position that if your provider forbids sharing your connection, you shouldn't either. In other words, if you get your internet conenction from someone like AT&T Cable, you shouldn't set up a wireless node.
Everything PersonalTelco has been doing so far is on the up-&-up.
Geoff
This is stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Moving again and again? (Score:3, Informative)
Will Personal Telco have to move again after the next commercial service comes along? How many times do they have to move until there are no more channels to move to?
Channels are finite and this is an unlicensed spectrum anyone can use. Both parties have to live with that. Starbucks/T-Mobile was just stupid by not planning better. It isn't hard for a planning engineer to whip out the WiFi and just check to see what's there on what channel.
It would be smart for Starbucks to move over to another channel. Surely there will be fewer users of their service than of the free one, so they can certainly offer a service based on better bandwidth availability.
But this won't last long. The spectrum is limited, and there is no licensing or frequency coordinators to manage it. Part 15 rules [gpo.gov] include the fact that users are subject to interference from other legal users, including microwave ovens. Basing a paid service on such rules is foolhardy. But one direction is that it's success could be used to get the FCC to open more spectrum, and a licensing structure, for just such kinds of services. It will probably have to be on all new spectrum, perhaps up at 10 or 24 GHz.
It's a matter of life or death . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
For the users of Personal Telco, anyway.
If it's true that Starbucks wants to capitalize on the presence of WiFi users in Pioneer Square and is doing so by jamming the incumbent channel (as well as degrading the access of their own users), Personal Telco's moving to a different channel may not help.
Starbucks could simply migrate their services or, more likely, establish presence on that channel as well. Starbucks, it would seem, is intent not on occupying Personal Telco's space as much as assimilating Personal Telco's users
No?
Re:It's a matter of life or death . . . (Score:2)
In this case though I just think some clueless guy with some skills (not a CCNE by any means) who gets paid 8 bucks an hour got told to install this and had a printed list with all of the settings. Once installed, he fires up a laptop or handheld, verifies connectivity and leaves. It's probably their standard install that the home office folks at T-Mobile came up with. The guy probably didn't know or care about others already operating there. Personally, if I was the guy doing the setup I would at least give the guy a copy of Net Stumbler so he can see if there was someone already there. That way the instructions can say pick another channel or SSID if someone is already there on that channel or SSID.
It's Part 15 unlicensed.... (Score:2)
Re:It's Part 15 unlicensed.... (Score:3, Informative)
Read even more details about Part 15 rules here [gpo.gov].
Who owns what... (Score:2)
T-Mobile owner Voicestream
Err... no. T-Mobile is the cellular branch of Deutsche Telekom, which bought Voicestream last year. So T-mobile owns Voicestream.
Let me explain 2 gig wifi to you..... (Score:2)
WiFi everywhere (Score:2)
What is making WiFi so popular? Incredible price reduction?
Re:WiFi everywhere (Score:2)
Simple really. How fast is the average *INTERNET* connection? 1Mbps? 2Mbps?
While WiFi at 11Mbps isn't suitable for connection multiple machines on a network, transfering large files, it's more than suitable for connecting to an internet connection on. Even at 11Mbps the bandwidth limitation will be the speed of the internet connection.
WiFi and Mr. Buck's (Score:2)
Even after doing that, I've run into a couple of cases where people have had cards with the same address as one or both of mine, and I've been locked out of my own personal wireless network due to conflicts. And with Wireless, there's no easy way to resolve the issue as long as the boneheads at Starbucks keeps his laptop/PDA on. And before you say "Imposssible!", let me tell you that it's more than possible, it has happened at least a half dozen times.
Any experienced IT guy will have run into a case or three where they've gotten a batch of NICs, all with the same MAC address...
OTOH, it's fun to take my spare LinkSys router down to Starbucks set up to give IP addresses, and just plug it in. Just into the wall, with no WAN connection. Most of the time, people there will harvest an IP address from my router intead of the one at Starbucks, and be unable to surf the web.
Re:WiFi and Mr. Buck's (Score:3, Informative)
They are doing it on PURPOSE.
THe hardware address of all network cars are unique when they leave the factory. If there is a conflict it is likely someone changed theirs intentionally.
As for the 'batch of NICs', I know it happens, but it does NOT happen often any more. It is likely they are snooping yours. Do yourself a favour and enable encryption.
This is kind of funny. (Score:4, Informative)
Starbucks can't do anything about it -- the antenna is located in a privately owned building across the street, and it's been there for a while. It's just bad luck for Starbucks, in my opinion. If they can open a shop across the street from a local coffee house, why can't a few well intentioned geeks set up a public wireless node in a nearby building?
My only beef is that I didn't get comp'd to sit there and show off the goods. I still keep in touch two people who went out and bought Airport enabled iBooks after talking with me about how great it was to surf the 'net while sipping a latte on a rainy Portland day.
Sadly, there isn't the same sort of presence here in Christchurch, New Zealand. Or at least, one that I can find. There's some projects in Dunedin, Wellington, and Auckland, but nothing that I can find in my home town. If anyone's heard rumors, please let me know! Thanks.
Unregulated is good (Score:2, Insightful)
In cell phones, TV, AM and FM radio -- all regulated markets -- corporations dominate like pavement on a road. Only in the unregulated areas can amateur and non-profit efforts spring up like grass in the cracks. We are better off where there is no recourse mechanism through which corporations can direct their monetary clout to stamp out everyone smaller than them.
In a regulated space, Starbucks would be the least of our worries.
I smell a lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, they can inadvertently connect to the Starbucks paid service.
I predict that starbucks will go to the courts about how people are "stealing" their service... It's probably only a matter of time before the lawyers will be on this. If this does end up happening, imagine the precedent. That means no more free WiFi. Although, on the other hand, perhaps Personal Telco could start charging a donation of $5/year or something so they can claim the same from Starbucks customers.
Does it bother you? Jam them (Score:2)
I'm not advocating any of this, but jessums, it's one of the few unregulated bands because it's largely too noisy for much useful stuff. If you want to have a band all to your self, there are plenty of ways to go about that.
This is a non issue.
Beating Starbucks (Score:2)
*splat* Goodbye Starbucks, unless they move off-channel.
Simple Answer (Score:2)
My answer is: if you want to sell service or do any for profit commerce at all, buy a license and use your allocated spot. The rest of us are free to use the other area of the band freely (as in beer AND speech).
The catch here is that the FCC would need to allocate only a couple channels for commercial use and leave the rest open. I suppose they'd probably get greedy and sell all but one channel to the highest bidders... which is why I have a rather large thorn in my side when it comes to the FCC.
Vortran out
My idea (Score:2)
Choking on the FUD (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its amazing how many people (in the UK at least) treat the local Starbucks as their company's extra meeting room.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Starbucks finally read the holy doctorine of... (Score:4, Informative)
Story:
source [thestandard.com]
Re:Regulation (Score:2)
The spectrum rules are generic for any use of RF, including microwave ovens. WiFi happens to be a standard that, since there were no government service licenses, and because it was intended for very local (home, office) usage, did not plan for this.
That said, it is clear that now we know there is a market for a licensed, possibly frequency coordinated, service in this category. As popular as it is expected to be, a lot of bandwidth might be needed. You'll probably not find that anywhere below 24 GHz in the spectrum. Also, licensed services won't work out in the Part 15 spectrum. To make this happen, the FCC would have to study what spectrum could be used, and set up rules to establishing a licensing. Surely there will be geo-spectral auctioning in the process. It's not unlike other services from broadcast to cell phones. But don't expect that only a handful of businesses will want to get into this. Hundreds probably will. Dividing spectrum by frequency isn't all that good, either, especially for digital. Spread spectrum sharing is what is going to have to happen, and even that will reduce bandwidth to each as total usage increases.
I do believe the FCC needs to designate part of the spectrum (by frequency) for non-commercial free services (but also shareable between overlapped free services), with reduced licensing requirements and no auction.
Re:Jamming for fun and profit (Score:2)
Re:am i missing something... (Score:2)