Live data from Hacker News

We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

gigaom.com

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#41
Carriers realize the value in WiFi - it's present everywhere, cheap to deploy at scale and already exists on most mobile devices. There's precedent for WiFi offload - particularly in dense urban areas - and the industry is moving to support that model even further with Hotspot 2.0 and Passpoint certification.

That said, WiFi's not a panacea. Technologically it's subject to interference, the protocols allow for NO control over the handset (at present), and its range is limited. Speaking from experience running several large muni WiFi networks, the protocol does not handle power asymmetry well - your phone's WiFi needs to be roughly as strong as the AP or performance is terrible. Compare this to licensed cellular technologies which can pull in a tiny weak handset signal from miles away.

From a business perspective, there's a breakpoint between licensed and unlicensed use - at the point that WiFi's shortcomings have less impact than the cost of deploying licensed spectrum, it gets used. There's plenty of talk about small cells in the industry and I think we'll see a hybrid deployment style emerge over the next few years, with WiFi handling the densest of deployments. Carriers want to offer plentiful data but they want to do it in a way they can control, for good reasons - people are paying them and expecting a service in exchange.

From a good-of-all-mankind perspective, what I'd like to see happen is a transition to all-IP on the handset, seamlessly decoupling every feature from the cellular network. Apple showed the potential here with iMessage, which works well if everyone's on an iPhone. SMS and voice themselves need to be carried over IP in a device-independent manner. When I can send an SMS from my Android phone to my iPhone over IP, and call a POTS number over IP, I'm truly carrier-independent and effectively paying them to be a WISP. That gives me (and the market) opportunities to build a service tailored to my needs.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding (I signed up for their beta but opted not to sign a contract) is that their service switches over to cellular network when wifi isn't available. I seem to remember them saying that they could maintain a telephone conversation through that switch, but I've not used their service so have no real-world data. In a car, I'd assume you'll be using a cellular network (Sprint if I remember correctly). They u…

I'm pretty sure they switched their stance on "too much" termination. Also, I believe while on a call you can transfer off of wifi, but not on to it.

"I'm pretty sure they switched their stance on "too much" termination."

Here's the most recent statement on that matter, I think: http://republicwireless.com/blog/unlimited

(Also, I think they made the wrong call, and they should have "stepped back from unlimited". It won't be unlimited, they shouldn't call it unlimited. But I'm not planning on abusing it either way.)

I'm sitting in their Wave G, patiently waiting. I refuse to pay for both a nice home connection and a cell data connection, so I still have a dumbphone. Buying a smart phone that primarily uses local Wifi (which I am in about 90% of the time) but can use cellular networks as a backup when there's no Wifi, and thus only charges for that "backup" contingency, is something I'm willing to pay for. I'll recover the cost of purchasing the phone in something like 6 months, even ignoring the fact it'll be a much better phone in the meantime.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#43
post #3

Because Wi-Fi kinda sucks at roaming? It's fine if you need a network connection at arbitrary end-points. But IME it's not so fine when you need a sustained connection while moving. (excluding on-train/on-plane wifi and the like , natch)

You're right except that by 'kinda sucks' you actually mean that it doesn't support base station hand off at all. You can kind of simulate one ubiquitous wifi network by using the same SSID everywhere. Then, when a user moves out of range of one access point, they'll attempt to reconnect and pick up the new one that's in range.

Wifi and cellular radio are massively different technologies, and wifi does not fit the use case that we currently use cellular for from a technical point of view.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#44
post #7

I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…

The cost of charging an iPhone 3G for AN ENTIRE YEAR is about 25 cents.

(Source: Electric Power Research Institute http://bit.ly/NV287P).

Granted, they charged it every other day but with even the heaviest Wi-Fi use, you couldn't more than quadruple it, which still leaves you at an inconsequential $2 a year.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#45
post #31

> “For example a cellular picocell costs from $7,500 to $15,000 whereas a much higher capacity carrier-grade Wi-Fi access point costs around $2,000,” Thanki wrote. “The cost of a Wi-Fi chipset for a consumer device is around $5, whereas 3G cellular chipsets costs around $30. Won't a cell tower cover at least a couple orders of magnitude more area than a wifi access point? Is this analysis silly or am I missing someth…

By that argument, you could also just build one extremely powerful tower and cover a vast region. But that would support far less data, because everyone in the region would be waiting for a turn to broadcast at the same frequency. This is why cellular phones are called cellular phones. The key enabling technology was the ability to divide a large geographic area into many smaller cells. Each cell needs to use differe…

Plus, with a single huge tower, your handsets are fighting the inverse square law as they struggle to pump out enough wattage to keep a connection.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#46
post #44
post #7

I almost never use wi-fi on my phone. It drains the battery too much. edit: I'm not familiar with cellular hardware tech. My observation is true for my phone, necessarily, because my 3G reciever is active 100% of the time, and turning on wifi is just turning on another component. If this isn't the case for you, do you turn off your 3/4G while you're in a wifi spot? Does it manager this all automatically? Do you have…

The cost of charging an iPhone 3G for AN ENTIRE YEAR is about 25 cents. (Source: Electric Power Research Institute http://bit.ly/NV287P ). Granted, they charged it every other day but with even the heaviest Wi-Fi use, you couldn't more than quadruple it, which still leaves you at an inconsequential $2 a year.

My problem isn't the cost, its that I have a battery so I can be mobile--which means I can't recharge it just because the battery gets low.

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#47
post #26
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the new 802.11 ac standard would've gone the "battery efficiency" route, rather than doubling the performance. Technically, they could choose either doubling the performance or cutting the power consumption in half, but I'm pretty sure they will go the performance route, which really isn't necessary on a mobile phone right now (500+ Mbps).

802.11ac improves range and performance, but the new Bluetooth specs improve range and battery power.

If you mean Bluetooth 4.0, its bandwidth is like 50kbps IIRC. It can't be used for anything other than heartbeat monitors and stuff like that.

I know absolutely nothing about Bluetooth, but I watched a WWDC 2012 video about it just for fun. It was an extremely well-done introduction to this technology.

Session 703, Core Bluetooth 101 - https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/ (requires a free developer account)

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#48
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

802.11ac improves range and performance, but the new Bluetooth specs improve range and battery power.

If you mean Bluetooth 4.0, its bandwidth is like 50kbps IIRC. It can't be used for anything other than heartbeat monitors and stuff like that. I know absolutely nothing about Bluetooth, but I watched a WWDC 2012 video about it just for fun. It was an extremely well-done introduction to this technology. Session 703, Core Bluetooth 101 - https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/ (requires a free developer account)

Bluetooth runs at ~2 Mbps which is not too shabby. And there's a new (as of BT 3.0) "high-speed" mode which actually sends bluetooth traffic over 802.11, so you can keep your wifi radio off until you actually need to send a lot of data.

edit: I haven't watched your video yet, but thanks for the link :)

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#49
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean Bluetooth 4.0, its bandwidth is like 50kbps IIRC. It can't be used for anything other than heartbeat monitors and stuff like that. I know absolutely nothing about Bluetooth, but I watched a WWDC 2012 video about it just for fun. It was an extremely well-done introduction to this technology. Session 703, Core Bluetooth 101 - https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/ (requires a free developer account)

Bluetooth runs at ~2 Mbps which is not too shabby. And there's a new (as of BT 3.0) "high-speed" mode which actually sends bluetooth traffic over 802.11, so you can keep your wifi radio off until you actually need to send a lot of data. edit: I haven't watched your video yet, but thanks for the link :)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Bluetooth 4.0, which is very low-power and very slow.

These two slides are from the aforementioned talk. Note that 'Classic' means 3.0 and 'Low power' means 4.0:

http://d.pr/i/cRvm

http://d.pr/i/qCHB

Re: We already use Wi-Fi more than cellular; Why not continue the trend?

#50
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluetooth runs at ~2 Mbps which is not too shabby. And there's a new (as of BT 3.0) "high-speed" mode which actually sends bluetooth traffic over 802.11, so you can keep your wifi radio off until you actually need to send a lot of data. edit: I haven't watched your video yet, but thanks for the link :)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Bluetooth 4.0, which is very low-power and very slow. These two slides are from the aforementioned talk. Note that 'Classic' means 3.0 and 'Low power' means 4.0: http://d.pr/i/cRvm http://d.pr/i/qCHB

Well 4.0 includes "classic" and the new low-power mode. But I see on Wikipedia that BT has a 3 Mbps mode (aside from the 802.11 "high-speed" mode), do you know what that would refer to?
Post reply on HN