Email Delivery

Receive new posts as email.

Email address

Syndicate this site

RSS | Atom


About This Site
Contact Us
Privacy Policy


November 2010
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Stories by Category

Basics :: Basics
Casting :: Casting Listen In Podcasts Videocasts
Culture :: Culture Hacking
Deals :: Deals
Future :: Future
Hardware :: Hardware Adapters Appliances Chips Consumer Electronics Gaming Home Entertainment Music Photography Video Gadgets Mesh Monitoring and Testing PDAs Phones Smartphones
Industry :: Industry Conferences Financial Free Health Legal Research Vendor analysis
International :: International
Media :: Media Locally cached Streaming
Metro-Scale Networks :: Metro-Scale Networks Community Networking Municipal
Network Types :: Network Types Broadband Wireless Cellular 2.5G and 3G 4G Power Line Satellite
News :: News Mainstream Media
Politics :: Politics Regulation Sock Puppets
Schedules :: Schedules
Security :: Security 802.1X
Site Specific :: Site Specific Administrative Detail April Fool's Blogging Book review Cluelessness Guest Commentary History Humor Self-Promotion Unique Wee-Fi Who's Hot Today?
Software :: Software Open Source
Spectrum :: Spectrum 60 GHz
Standards :: Standards 802.11a 802.11ac 802.11ad 802.11e 802.11g 802.11n 802.20 Bluetooth MIMO UWB WiGig WiMAX ZigBee
Transportation and Lodging :: Transportation and Lodging Air Travel Aquatic Commuting Hotels Rails
Unclassified :: Unclassified
Vertical Markets :: Vertical Markets Academia Enterprise WLAN Switches Home Hot Spot Aggregators Hot Spot Advertising Road Warrior Roaming Libraries Location Medical Public Safety Residential Rural SOHO Small-Medium Sized Business Universities Utilities wISP
Voice :: Voice


November 2010 | October 2010 | September 2010 | August 2010 | July 2010 | June 2010 | May 2010 | April 2010 | March 2010 | February 2010 | January 2010 | December 2009 | November 2009 | October 2009 | September 2009 | August 2009 | July 2009 | June 2009 | May 2009 | April 2009 | March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009 | December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008 | September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008 | June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008 | March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008 | December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007 | September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007 | June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007 | March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007 | December 2006 | November 2006 | October 2006 | September 2006 | August 2006 | July 2006 | June 2006 | May 2006 | April 2006 | March 2006 | February 2006 | January 2006 | December 2005 | November 2005 | October 2005 | September 2005 | August 2005 | July 2005 | June 2005 | May 2005 | April 2005 | March 2005 | February 2005 | January 2005 | December 2004 | November 2004 | October 2004 | September 2004 | August 2004 | July 2004 | June 2004 | May 2004 | April 2004 | March 2004 | February 2004 | January 2004 | December 2003 | November 2003 | October 2003 | September 2003 | August 2003 | July 2003 | June 2003 | May 2003 | April 2003 | March 2003 | February 2003 | January 2003 | December 2002 | November 2002 | October 2002 | September 2002 | August 2002 | July 2002 | June 2002 | May 2002 | April 2002 | March 2002 | February 2002 | January 2002 | December 2001 | November 2001 | October 2001 | September 2001 | August 2001 | July 2001 | June 2001 | May 2001 | April 2001 |

Recent Entries

In-Flight Wi-Fi and In-Flight Bombs
Can WPA Protect against Firesheep on Same Network?
Southwest Sets In-Flight Wi-Fi at $5
Eye-Fi Adds a View for Web Access
Firesheep Makes Sidejacking Easy
Wi-Fi Direct Certification Starts
Decaf on the Starbucks Digital Network
Google Did Snag Passwords
WiMax and LTE Not Technically 4G by ITU Standards
AT&T Wi-Fi Connections Keep High Growth with Free Service

Site Philosophy

This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator. Part of the FM Tech advertising network.


Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2010 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.

Powered by
Movable Type

« Wearable Wi-Fi | Main | 802.11 Planet June 25-27 »

May 28, 2003

My Rebuttal to Qualcomm's Strawmen

Jeffrey K. Belk, senior vice president of marketing at Qualcomm, makes many excellent points in his open memo (republished on Alan Reiter's blog) on using wireless data on the road. I want to separate out and rebut some of his contentions, however, as I believe that while his fundamentals are almost always correct, he has set up some strawmen, and has misstated the state of the Wi-Fi hot spot industry.

Throughout his comments, he fails to separate the financial model that might underlie Wi-Fi hot spot deployment and its actual technical limitations. This is partly due to the ubiquitous, slow-everywhere mindset that he's coming from.

The crux of Belk's contentions begin with this statement:

Because we all know that although we have 56kpbs modems, we don't get 56kbps, we get 30-45kbps. So, if I were to travel on a one week trip in the US, say going from San Diego to San Francisco. Then from San Francisco to Chicago to New York and home, I could access use my Wireless Wide Area PC card and be productive---anywhere I have wireless coverage, anywhere I can make a phone call. As much as I need a fixed rate of $80 per month.

This $80 per month is a rate for 1x CDMA2000 through SprintPCS and Verizon Wireless through Qualcomm's corporate rate. This statement seems more or less correct and fundamental: anywhere, he can get something approximating a modem call with no hidden charges. That's his starting point.

London is Falling

I checked into the One Aldwych hotel in London... Unfortunately, he appears to have chosen one of the very few locations in the world that requires its own software and a weird setup to activate. Only locations that have chosen to only work with Boingo Wireless's system have any comparable bar to entry, and Boingo's software is superior to Windows in managing Wi-Fi configurations -- and it doesn't have to be uninstalled later, as Belk notes is critical with the software One Aldwych is using. The problems with One Aldwych have been documented extensively elsewhere, including in columns by travel writers Joe Brantcatelli ( and Joe Sharkey (New York Times's Business section).

The service is also ridiculously expensive, running eight pounds for two hours in the trial and 16 pounds for 24 hours after the trial was over. By comparison, most US-based Wi-Fi hotel service is $7 to $10 per day with a few exceptions; even in most countries, nearly $30 for 24 hours access is egregious.

Rebuttal: strawman. This is an unintentional strawman because Berk chose this hotel specifically because of its vaunted Wi-Fi service. The service is both difficult to configure and expensive, and not part of any network. Most US hotels use a simple gateway page, work with Boingo's client, or use a room-based authentication system (for wired). Most are also not expensive, and most are part of networks. This will also happen worldwide as international hotel chains with significant US presence roll out more consistent pricing or loyalty programs worldwide.

Stockholm Success, Helsinki Pricing

Belk has no real complaints about Telia HomeRun, although its pricing is, again, a little high: roughly $15.26 for 24 hours access. Regular Swedish travelers can get a monthly rate, of course, and Telia is associated with other Scandinavian networks for roaming.

Again, not a bad service, the user interface was well implemented, except for the location directory... Unfortunately for Belk, most Swedes are carrying phones that allow them to get hot spot locations through a pretty simple interface, which might explain why the Web interface isn't as good as those for countries that have to rely on it to direct users.

In Helsinki, he was going to be charged $58 (50 euros at the time) for 24 hours access on Sonera's network, which I believe everyone everywhere in the world would agree is insanely high.

Rebuttal: fair. Pricing is inconsistent, and probably too high. Part of this reflects an emergent market without the competition that's starting to appear in the US.

Los Angeles for Less

Beck returns to Los Angeles now and checks into a hotel. On the desk, a sign for "High Speed Internet Access". Now, this was wired Ethernet. Cost $9.95 for a 24 hour period. ...I did not use this, as being back in California I was able to fire up the trusty Thinkpad with my CDMA2000 card and get my mail...

Rebuttal: great example of tradeoff, but ignores monthly subscription. This is a perfect case of using the all-inclusive (but slower) cell data system instead of an expensive Wi-Fi solution for that kind of spot traffic. I use my 9600 bps GSM connection all the time to avoid $10 per day charges when I just need a little connectivity. However, Belk isn't at a point where the Wi-Fi networks are broad enough that he would have had a flat monthly subscription (at probably $50 per month) that would have allowed him a "free" connection to the hotel at probably T-1 (1.5 Mbps) speeds.

Some Speciousness and Real Strawmen

Belk now tries to analyze apples and oranges, and here's where I really kick in. He totals his potential cost in Europe at $127 for five hot spots, even though he sent back the $58 card and used a cheaper service.

He then says that a similar trip in the US would have cost only $13.30 as a prorated part of his 3G service.

This is specious in two directions: first, a similar trip wholly in the US would have cost him probably no more than $50 and possibly as little as $25 for Wi-Fi service in the same locations. Second, he can't prorate his $80/month service: he's paying for the full month. If he only travels five days, the service costs him $80 per month. If he uses it every day, then, of course, the utility is divided by that.

Belk now sets up what he expects the "Wi-Fi" rebuttal to be, although I'm not sure who he means by Wi-Fi: Hot spot operators (wISPs)? Aggregators? Community networkers? Manufacturers? It's hard to say "Wi-Fi" and mean only one of those, but he almost certainly is referring to individual networks, like Wayport.

Backhaul. Belk notes on a Hotspot service, ALL Wi-Fi connections speeds are limited by the backhaul (i.e. the way the Access Point is connected to the Internet). Likewise, however, backhaul can be easily increased. If a location has 512 Kbps fractional T-1, they can, for a fee, generally easily upgrade to full 1.5 Mbps T-1. Cell data is highly limited by spectrum availability, cell locations, number of simultaneous users, and other factors. He can get tens of Kbps right now, and generally will be able to, but cell data will be highly susceptible to non-point-to-point backhaul/carrying capacity factors.

Because he's vaunting the 50-80 Kbps speed of his 3G subscription, anything that's wireless-to-backhaul has to offer him a significant improvement, in the hundreds of Kbps to over a Mbps to anchor him to a specific location. That's perfectly reasonable.

But he starts to fall down when he says that hundreds of Kbps is what he gets from hot spots not 11 Mbps. I agree that hot spots may advertise 11 Mbps networks, and that's overstating the case. But 512 Kbps is not 50-80 Kbps. It's 10 times faster. For many people, working on 512 Kbps is like working in an office, while 50-80 Kbps is sucking at a straw. It changes your behavior, which is why broadband users don't act like dial-up users.

Locations. Here's where Belk really starts to confuse ubiquity with utility. My axiom on this is: Ubiquity's advantage fades in direct proportion to its speed relative to nearby faster service at a comparable price. If I can get 80 Kbps for $80 per month everywhere, but find myself within short walks (or on top of) 1 Mbps for $50 per month in certain places, the right answer might be a subscription to both services. They're not exclusive. Most modern business travelers need bandwidth. Another axiom: The need for high-speed access is directly in proportion with the speed of a company's business relationships. Thus speed can equal money, and a lot more speed can be worth much more than its marginal cost.

Belk sets up and knocks down all the locations he isn't interested in using data services, which form the majority of the hot spots in the country: Starbucks (because he gets it delivered to his house), Borders, McDonalds. Let's tell their tens of millions of customers each month that nobody goes there; a sort of reverse Yogi Berra statement.

He then knocks down the 300 foot diameter claims for Wi-Fi. Of course, that's line of sight service with built-in antennas. He's really knocking down the claims of certain providers, not claims of the industry as a whole or any reasonable person in an IT department deciding on how to deploy it.

Belk takes the potential area served by all the hot spots expected to appear and comes up with a laughable number. But it's laughable only if you expect ubiquity. Ubiquity, speed, and cost are three dependent variables: turn one up or down without adjusting the other, and your model thrives or fails. Keep speed low, cost medium, and ubiquity at 11 (yes, Spinal Tap joke), and you have 3G service today. Turn ubiquity down and speed to moderate to high and you have Wi-Fi; the cost number might be at all kinds of settings today, but moderate to low tomorrow.

Here's the final strawman in this section: However, folks go to a pub to socialize and drink pints, they go to a bookstore to browse and buy books, and they go to McDonald's to eat. Belk is conflating current behavior with future behavior. I still doubt that businesspeople will use McDonald's for Wi-Fi, but then I'm told that millions of business travelers, like salespeople, use McDonald's as their temporary offices every day. Belk is saying that because he can't see the use today, it won't happen tomorrow. But then again, where does he expect 3G users are using their data service? It's in McDonald's. And everywhere.

Hotel ubiquity. Belk hasn't kept up with announcements. By June, many US hotels will have added Wi-Fi where none existed. Hotel-based services like Lodgenet will add Wi-Fi access points to their in-room entertainment centers. Conference rooms, public areas, and other locations in hotels will get Wi-Fi.

It's not necessarily inevitable, nor is it cheap. But as a hotel consultant told me, hotels spend a few million dollars on carpeting every few years. A few million on a long-term Wi-Fi investment will happen if the competition among hotels requires that Wi-Fi be installed to keep visitors staying loyal.

He also notes, the Hotspot environment, in the U.S. and Europe will be fragmented, with lots of different providers. This means lots of different log-on methods, lots of different usage experience, lot and lots of different pricing policies, and lots and lots of Big Bills! In fact, the reverse is rapidly becoming true. Roaming convergence with single cell/Wi-Fi bill (T-Mobile) or single login/aggregated service (Boingo, iPass, GRIC) is becoming a matter of course, not the exception.

3G and Unlimited Bills

Beck now actually makes a number of arguments in favor of offloading data to Wi-Fi. He points out that GPRS networks are already congested for voice, and that adding data will cause even more problems. (This is marketing as well as fact: their technology is competitive with GPRS.)

So Wi-Fi and GPRS makes sense as a package, because cell carriers want to offload their expensive data traffic onto Wi-Fi networks which are relatively cheaper and allow them to continue to carry huge amounts of voice traffic on the expensive cell spectrum. (See my InfoWorld story which quotes Sky Dayton of Boingo saying the same thing.)

Then he says that UMTS providers will experiment quite a bit and offer all kind of plans and options because they'll have the spectrum available for it. We'll see. I think he set up one strawman here -- scarce voice spectrum -- that can't be so easily knocked down.

The finances just don't make sense. If it costs a small fraction of your cost of licensed spectrum and cell towers to build or buy into a national network that offers substantially higher speeds at partner locations, why not preserve that licensed spectrum for higher-cost services?

Where the Wi-Fi Roams

And WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS GENERATED will not be people traveling to a Pub, McDonalds or Starbucks to connect.

I'm afraid he gets it wrong here. It's a combination of people who already use the spaces that will have Wi-Fi and people who will migrate to spaces that offer it. It's not a mass migration.

Schlotzsky's Deli put in free Wi-Fi in a small number of Texas stores. They said they now have six percent of their customers to those stores coming because of the free Wi-Fi. And then buying drinks and sandwiches which they estimate will add as much as $100,000 in revenue per store per year.

Likewise, I don't know any early adopter who doesn't check out the locations of local Wi-Fi from Starbucks to community networks to sticking their laptop out the window before traveling. High-speed connectivity at broadband speeds not fast modem speeds are now a necessity, not an option, for many travelers. Current 3G can't fulfill that; Wi-Fi is the only option that does.

Belk contends that Wi-Fi will continue to be fragmented, available in limited places, and expensive. All trends point towards unified roaming at a fee that will probably be no more than $50 to $75 per month for unlimited usage, and maybe less with some exceptions.

Given a unified T-Mobile network that offers $30/month (one-year commitment) unlimited service, and Boingo (incorporating Wayport, several airports, etc.) for $50 per month, you could make a case that we already have an $80/month plan that covers virtually all major population centers in the country. And it's only getting denser.

The real closer in this gap is airports. When we hit the top 35 airports in the country having significant Wi-Fi presence, which I still predict as 25 of them out of 35 by the end of this year, then you'll see business travelers make a massive uptake.

Would I choose a few Mbps in an airport for $8 (or $50 per month) versus 10s of Kbps in an airport as part of my prepaid flatrate fee? You can bet Mbps wins -- when it's something I expect and it's available in significant locations.

Belk isn't looking at the time people spend in one location: hotel, airport, other venues. He's thinking about the time in transit. 3G spans that transit time as a modem replacement; Wi-Fi fills in those long static times for broadband.

(Side note: And does anyone remember MobileStar? MobileStar was the Wi-Fi Hotspot service provider that went BANKRUPT and was purchased by T-Mobile as the basis for their Starbuck's Wi-Fi network. MobileStar's business model had all kinds of problems, and T-Mobile bought MobileStar's assets, not the business. They're a strawman of all strawmen because they spent what I estimate as $90 million without having an adequate tracking model for costs or revenue.)

Belk closes with a good analysis of the upcoming potential for 3G data and with a couple of practical experiments for you to think about the differences in 3G and Wi-Fi.


I don't believe a compelling model for profit has yet emerged from the hot spot world. Revenue remains low. Customer price sensitivity is still being tested. The crossover from massive home and business deployment of Wi-Fi networks hasn't resulted in a nation of roaming mavens.

The success of free networks, both commercial (like Schlotzsky's) and community (library, groups, etc.) has shown that people will use Wi-Fi when it's available without a hassle or a cost attached.

The real question in Wi-Fi's future is not whether it's a complementary technology to 3G even when deployed in as few as 10,000 hot spots. The real question remains whether the hot spot operators will find enough users fast enough in the next year, and overcome industry nonsense to develop effective flat-rate roaming agreements while rolling out additional airport service.

For-fee hot spot service should have a future, but exactly what that will look like is unknown. But point-based high-speed service represents something that people want and use. Broadband has rapidly replaced dial-up service in people's home because of the convenience of having that big pipe and always on connection. Likewise, Wi-Fi niche in a cellular world will continue to be a narrow but deep one that becomes an increasingly important hand-in-hand partner to developing cell data service.

3 TrackBacks

Excellent analysis from Glenn Wi-Fi Networking News: My Rebuttal to Qualcomm's Strawmen : Jeffrey K. Belk, senior vice president of marketing at Qualcomm, makes many excellent points in his Read More

3g wifi discussion from stuck-on-mobile-e-com ;-) on May 29, 2003 8:22 AM

via reiter's wireless data web log check out the qualcomm paper on wifi versus cdma 1x by jeffrey j, belk and the ongoing discussion started by glenn fleishmann ... nice point from legging behind europe wifi which i hope swiss and european mobile opera... Read More

In a single entry, Alan manages to capture some of the most important discussion and debate that rages about whether... Read More


Nicely done. Very strong analysis of a very biased email. If only the world were what we wished it would be.

Good rebuttal. I think Qualcomm is wasting their time trying to talk people out of Wi-Fi. It really comes down to two issues: how fast 3G services roll out, and whether hot spot operators can make money. If, and it is a big "if", CDMA2000 1xEV-DO is rolled out nationwide within the next 24 months that wide area service starts to look like a mobile cable modem. But the biggest problem confronting Wi-Fi is a series of "Catch-22" issues: the more sites you deploy, the more cells you have that can't pay for the backhaul. The more retail hotspots the less reason customers have to go to Schlotzsky's Deli... when almost any deli will do. Plus, cellular carriers already have all of the customers hotspot operators want. In the end, I see integrated Wi-Fi and cellular, with Wi-Fi limited to a relatively small number of heavily traveled sites (mainly airports and hotels). Jeff is right that users don't want to travel to the service, they want service while they travel. But you can't talk people out of something they like--you have to offer something better.

Wi-Fi is here. 3G is not. Hell, if it takes this long to get wi-fi in the convention capital of the world (Vegas), how long will it be for 3G? Ever? Dump qualcomm stock now. Wi-Fi ubiquity (or lack thereof) has been my pet peeve for the last 2 years. 3G is 10x, nee 100x worse.

What drives me batty (and scares Qualcomm to death I bet)! I walk out the door in Manhattan, it's FREE access, I go to my local coffee shop, it's FREE access. I stop off at the park, it's FREE access. I go home, sit down for dinner, hop on the Net, it's FREE. (hmmm, I guess one of these days I have to find that neighbor!)...

Face up to it! It's FREE!!!!!!!! Now what?

- ed

Check out Shirky's Permanet, Nearlynet, and Wireless Data. Much of it is instructive to this debate.

Qualcomm is afraid of WiFi...

Belk actually has some very sound arguments about the lack of WiFi ubiquity (relative to 1X), the mish mash of WiFi pricing (gouging?) relative to the ease of simply using an all-you-can-eat 1X WAN service.

What Belk has failed to mention in his article is the hardware economics of an open standard vs. something more proprietary. Expensive 1X hardware doesn't compare to *cheap* WiFi gear. (And this comes from someone that is writing this email and accessing the net currently over a 1X wan session!)

For example, in Canada, it costs approximately $600 CDN (~$400 USD) to buy a 1X Sierra Wireless aircard. Compare that with WiFi. Getting a WiFi card is less than $100 CDN. With so many suppliers, it makes it *cheap* to try out WiFi. Not many folks are going to try out a 1X WAN card if they continue to stay so expensive.

Carriers exacerbate this price divide because all WAN cards must be approved to run over a public (but controlled) 1X network. Given the challenges of certification, it makes sense only to certify one, maybe two suppliers.

This tendency to limit supply creates barriers to competition, and many 1X WAN products remain priced "high" because there are few authorized suppliers. The likes of Sierra Wireless have a virtual monopoly on the provisioning of 1X WAN adapters for the Verizon, Sprints and Bell Mobility (Canada) of the world.

Now imagine if Qualcomm applied the embedded test to its argument. How many laptops come equiped built-in with 1X? Absolutely none. Now, how many laptops will come with WiFi? Well undoubtedly Intel will ensure just about everyone within the next couple of years. And even if your laptop doesn't have it, it's pretty darn cheap to buy an PCMCIA adapter.

So, if Qualcomm and/or carriers could help introduce greater supplier competition to help driver lower cost WAN cards (to levels similar to WiFi), then perhaps Qualcomm could truly displace WiFi and the hotspot phenomena.

Bryan Pilsworth
Montreal, Canada

Short Qualcomm! They sold the cellular industry a bill of goods with CDMA. The overall CDMA capasity is actually less than the old TDMA (North American TDMA is 3x analog AMPS, CDMA is ~2.7x). CDMA was too much of an unknown at the time and having Irvin Jacobs ringing the bell clouded the carrier's judgement. CDMA is now a known entity. Everyone who is a bit technology saavy knows that CDMA is suboptimal (no good) for broadband data. 1XRTT/EV-DO (or whatever it is called this week) turns CDMA into TDMA. WHY MESS WITH IT. Qualcomm, I know your bread and butter are your CDMA patents (worthless in a few of years), but change your stance or go the way of Smith Corona. Your current motto "If you don't have, confuse" is not a long term sustainable strategy.

Good comments. The hotel comments in the original paper were wrong on several counts:

Needing "hundreds or thousands of access points" costing "....millions of dollars" is ridiculous.

You can cover 40 hotels of 100 rooms (industry average) for about $1M. Average cost of a hotel is in the 20K range, which offers positive ROI in 18 months depending on pricing strategy. Our customers need broadband NOW. Will 3G be ubiquitous in 18 months?

And you could cover the downtown area of a major city with 1000 amplified access points. Not the consumer-grade stuff for your house, but enterprise quality. There is a big difference.

Several other misconceptions and self-serving comments were in the Qualcomm piece also, many of which were addressed in the rebuttal.

Glenn, you need to modify your comments section so it is clearer which author wrote which comments. Except for the first and last posts, it's very confusing with the author's name below the dotted line instead of above.

The business case for hotspots is not quite as good as some of you think. We published a study on this nearly two years ago and found that the average hotspot costs about $20K (as someone else suggested) PLUS $1,500 per month to operate. There are also costs associated with marketing, roaming, and billing. Many a service has died because they didn't get the billing right... We concluded two years ago hotspots could only succeed on a large scale in conjunction with wide area service, not in competition to it. As for the gratuitous remarks re: Qualcomm, I remember the early 1990s when people said CDMA would fail and Qualcomm would crash and burn. That was 150 million users and tens of $billions ago! I like Wi-Fi, but it is a *tiny* business in comparison, and the hotspot business case is far from proven. Some of the best applications (like streaming audio and short videos on demand) make no sense if restricted to airports, hotels, and Starbucks.

Nice piece Glenn!

1) Do not forget that the US currency has depreciated som 40% versus most European currencies during the last two years..... imagine what it does to price comparison!
2) In a free market a voucher can be sold at a price well over the recommended face value. Thus the operator may not be the right party to blaim.... but the vendor e.g. the hotel

3G folks saying that Wi-Fi operators have a poor business model is certainly a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Last I looked the 3G operators paid hundreds of billions for licenses that are a money pit, have started writing billions in investments off their balance sheets, lack a clear usage model, and are held hostage by the poor quality and high price of network gear. Also any particular amount of user generated traffic requires the same amount of backhaul. Are the operators saying backhaul is cheaper for them because it can be shared with voice. Au contraire mon ami, most operators have dedicated data backbones. Do they benfit from economies of scale?I doubt it will be very profitable to backhaul to the low-usage areas promised by 3G ubiquitous coverage. They just hide the costs better in their multi-billion dollar network operations (and not that well since most 3G operations lose money). Even successful CDMA operators in Korea have started Wi-Fi initiatives. Wi-Fi ... fragmented, no roaming, unproven business model, only high end business users...sounds like cellular 20 years ago, except that end user devices are cheap and available- a critical difference. Qualcomm...thou doth protest too much...

Just got a Verizon PC3220 card and their $80 per month data plan. Installed it OK, activated OK, and it worked. Data rate - 100KB according to CNet download page. I'm sort of surprised because the cell companies are generally not that good. I'm sure the $80 turns into $95 when I get my bill due to taxes/fees/etc.

I like WiFi, have it at home and office. When in hotels I go for the wired high speed if they have it. I hate analog dialup becasue of speed, cost, and the screwing around to get the phone to work right and all that. Plus the hotels screw you big time on charges. They want to do that with broadband, too, but right now I'll pay $10 per day for broadband.

I can't find WiFi very many places. Not all of us work and live in NYC, LAX, or SFO by the way. Out in middle America you take what you can get. If its CDMA then I'll take it.

I tend to agree with the people who see these as complimentary technologies. Zealots are picking and choosing their data and experiences to confirm already held views. At the end of the day its about cost and service. We'll see who wins. Don't discount any of the players messing it all up because of greed and stupidity.

Learn from the free community wifi networks. Wireless backhaul works (802.11a/b/g). There is no reason for every cell to have hardwire backhaul.

Frank Lee, you raise a couple of good points but let's put them in context. 3G operators in Europe paid >$100 billion for 3G licenses because their 3G standard (W-CDMA) requires new spectrum. CDMA2000 1x, 1xEV-DO, and 1xEV-DV work in existing spectrum. At last report there were 45 million CDMA2000 users (and only about 0.45 million W-CDMA subs), and the CDMA2000 business model appears to be working. You say most cellular operators have dedicated data backhaul (dedicated *bandwidth* or separate links?), but the point is that one EV-DO cell could blanket an area with dozens of Wi-Fi hotspots. The Korean operators who have "started Wi-Fi initiatives" are simply experimenting; I spoke to a leading PC card manufacturer yesterday who told me they have developed a CDMA/Wi-Fi combo card but so far there is no market because operators can't make their minds up. In any event, the Koreans have become leaders precisely because they pioneered CDMA and they test all related technologies as part of a concerted effort to stay on top.

I remember the early 1980's when everyone found out you could get free TV without commercials and almost 200 channels if you just bought an 8 foot dish and aimed it at a satellite. I said, "that ain't gonna last".

Yeah, wifi's bubble is rising fast but in a year or two you data will be very high speed wireless (>500 to 1500 kbps - better than cable modems), it will be nationwide, there will be no unfriendly logins because it is always-on and yes, you will be paying the wireless carriers for this service and guess what... you can even make a voice call if you want with no extra charge!!!

It will never be free - someone has to pay for the gear, installation and the backhaul service.

Big business and the taxes paid to government will never let free spectrum put a hurtin' on them - they'll just change the rules - dude. Has everyone forgotten, "that there's no such thing as a free lunch". Who's convinced enough to trade in their cell phone for a wifi phone or who's at home making free worldwide internet calls? NetMeeting or even using Vonage...that stuff been around for a long time too. Huh?

Give me a break. Nobody needs to buy a $600 wifi card from Sierra wireless to use a wireless WAN. All you need is a recent Kyocera or LG phone and a wireless data cable and you are in business with 1xRTT data in 3G.

The problem is, the service providers are not handing out these cables to encourage wireless data. They are not giving free one-month trials and whatnot. They are still stuck in the last century. When the service providers get smart and finally do this, you will see an explosion of CDMA WAN users to make the 802.11 users look like chicken feed.

The bottom line on this discussion is that 3G uses licensed spectrum and WiFi doesn't. Therefore, 3G providers can upgrade technology indefinitely and offer whatever combination of price and features make the most money, i.e., appeal to the broadest market. 3G will always be more uniform and ubiquitous than WiFi.

WiFi can never offer as much uniformity and consistency of services because anybody who wants can jump into the same crowded spectrum and effectively declare war on every other service provider, and the net result of this over a few years is the kind of "tragedy of the commons" that we saw at Networld+Interop this year.

WiFi providers will never have the kind of control of their spectrum they need to develop a world-class service. They might have if they'd adopted all of Photolink II into DFWMAC, instead of the lame subset that's there now, but they didn't and that's that.

People who want an alternative to 3G for wide-area broadband would do better to look at 802.16 instead.