We Heart WiFi

Comments (Archived):

1. #becauseawesomePublicly available like roads

   1. back to back awesomeness at AVC yesterday and today

      1. #becauseawesomeinfinite feedback loop #singularity

      2. #true

   2. What about security? Public WiFi will always be insecure unless you use a VPN. Just like roads, you want to keep the WiFi safe too.

2. A new better way.New2me Fred and feels just like the right thing.Staying away from SXSW so when do we get it here in NYC?

   1. I’m with you on all fronts here.

   2. i want to do a NxNe. With snow, of course

      1. i am basically doing that right now – snowed in at Logan on my way to sxsw!

3. Cool. Signed the petition.

   1. I just did as well – thank you for the call to action

      1. Momentum

4. It’s refreshing to see TV white space positioned reasonably — backhaul links. Too often, it’s positioned as a replacement for today’s Wi-Fi, which I think is unreasonable. The challenge as a business will be the inverse relationship between TV white space need and TV white space availability. (Fewer empty channels in more-populated areas.)If “We Heart Wi-Fi,” we should respect the trademark. Wi-Fi is a registered trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance and the term “Super Wi-Fi” is not an authorized extension of the brand. The Wi-Fi Alliance discourages its use.I’d like to see technical details of the demo if they’re available.

   1. i think the word wifi should be in the public domaintrademarking wifi would be like trademarking oil or water

      1. “i think the word wifi should be in the public domain”I agree with Steve Crowley on this.There happens to be value in the brand and restrictions on the use given any restrictions make sense:http://www.wi-fi.org/certif…The public (because of the alliance) has put a certain trust in products and services which are associated with the trademark. This is really similar to many situations. For example we are ICANN accredited and can use that trademark. (A reseller can’t use it the same way although they can game that a bit with creative word use and ICANN isn’t enforcing it.)If your car is serviced you want to know when you are at an authorized dealer or when you are staying at a Marriott vs. someone who is merely using the Marriott brand. To me it doesn’t get any clearer than this. Wifi is what is is today not just because of engineering but because of what the alliance has done to instill consumer confidence. [1]To wit, look at the companies who support this:http://www.wi-fi.org/about/…[1] Fwiw my normal stance is anti trademarks, ip etc (because of the abuse) but I don’t see a restriction like this as an example of that at all.

      2. I think you could make the case that wifi is in the public domain. Wi-Fi most certainly is not. As you know, I’m wholly against patents and think copyright too broad, but trademark is the goldilocks of IP law.

5. Used overseas?

6. I’ve been negative on smartphones and tablets mainly because of this problem. I see people right now like junkies, every time someone comes over to my home or were at a cafe, first thing they do i set up the wifi. This is because of money, period. People are afraid of using their bandwidth.A few years back Google and some other company (can’t remember which one) came into SF and offered to install free wifi for the City. Of course because of politics and $$ it never came true.Unfortunately cities have used utilities (i’m calling this a utility) as a revenue stream. Pay us upfront needed $$ and you get to sell your product to our city. They’ve been doing it to cable companies for years. Basically another extension of letting elected officials do as they please with our lives.If someday wi-fi does come into the orbit somehow, yes then smartphones are the play. Right now, they are apps, doing a small pct. of what they could potentially do. It would make the internet rule again though, at least in investors minds..

   1. “Google and some other company (can’t remember which one) came into SF and offered to install free wifi for the City. Of course because of politics and $$ it never came true.”Because it doesn’t work that way. There were companies that had the idea to put up bus shelters with the understanding that they would be able to sell advertising. Just because it was their idea (let’s use this simply as an example I don’t have the play by play) doesn’t mean that the correct behavior for the city is to say “great idea just do it you can start next week”. They have to study it and compare it to other alternatives as well as allow others to bid on the same idea and get all the stakeholders to agree as well (access to the poles, power, other things). And maybe some residents don’t want bus shelters?How do you expect it to work? You approach a city give them an idea and they just say “sounds good go ahead!”.”Basically another extension of letting elected officials do as they please with our lives.”Don’t agree. (Not that many policiticans suck but that’s another topic.) It’s not trivial to jackhammer sidewalks and by navigating the application and approval process the companies show commitment and resources to actually make and maintain what they have built. It’s a barrier to entry and there is no guaranteed outcome. This is not a few guys putting something together in a hackathon over the weekend eating pizza.

      1. really? you don’t think it has anything to do with status quo protecting their interests? This is going to be done but it’s going to have to bee hackers. Established businesses won’t want to risk their existing business but hackers have nothing to lose.Much like the car sharing sector. I wouldn’t expect Hertz to enter this business UNTIL it gets the go ahead.BTW: It wasnt’ bus shelters..http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

         1. “really? you don’t think it has anything to do with status quo protecting their interests?”The fact that someone is protecting their interests is find with me and is expected human behavior. It’s given. It doesn’t make the thing they are trying to protect wrong and it doesn’t make any other reason that the event happen not important. It’s up to the trier of fact to see through all of that. If a salesman comes in to sell me a machine and tells me something about his product vs. the competition I don’t hate on him for doing what you would expect him to do which is to try and make a sale and say and do what is in his best interest. He’s not a trusted professional he’s not my doctor he’s not my professional non biased advisor. He’s in business to make money and acts consistent with that.”BTW: It wasnt’ bus shelters..”I know it wasn’t bus shelters. I was making a point of a similar thing that happened. Here’s the reference (from the UK but same in US as I remember when this happened)http://joemoransblog.blogsp…Specifically this which is the point I was making:The idea behind the new firm was simple: Adshel would supply bus shelters to local authorities for nothing, in return for the right to display advertising on them.”Established businesses won’t want to risk their existing business but hackers have nothing to lose.”Key is “nothing to lose” not “hackers have nothing to lose”.What does this have to do with hackers at all? It has to do with people who aren’t cannibalizing on a existing business model. That could be Starbucks a large corporation deciding to offer donuts at a reduced price (where they have nothing to canabalize) vs. the current offering of Dunkin Donuts. Or McDonalds going after Starbucks coffee business (which they did). It has nothing to do with hacker in particular.I’m not sure I fully understand the disdain that people have toward businesses wanting to protect what they have. It’s not as if people act any differently in their self interest when trying to protect what they have (ever hear the expressions “last man over the bridge” or “not in my back yard”. You don’t see union members agreeing to give up their highly paid jobs in favor of non-union who offer to do the same work cheaper do you? Companies and people do what is in their self interest and try to protect it. The other side tries to defeat them on that point. That’s the game of business.On your other parent point:”Unfortunately cities have used utilities (i’m calling this a utility) as a revenue stream.”One of the reasons the electric grid is as reliable as it is (and POTS phone lines) is because of the monopoly they were given with assured profitability. It allowed to spend whatever money they needed to to insure great reliable service. You see what happens with deregulation many times as has happened with airlines which are now more like bus lines.

            1. I really don’t understand your argument at all. All I can say is that if Mayor Newsom’s plan would have gone through and there would have been fee wifi in SF almost a decade ago, SF wouldn’t have been the epicenter of high tech. It would have changed EVERYTHING. SF would have been light years ahead of everyone else.The ONLY reason it didn’t go through was exactly my point. The status quo didn’t want it. Cable companies and politicians weren’t going to do business as usual. The people lost.

            2. ” SF wouldn’t have been the epicenter of high tech.”” The people lost.”From my understanding of that issue (and please feel free to correct me) the “people” that lost were poor people in neighborhoods who had to go to libraries and wait for wifi. Not people who would be considered a part of high tech. Guess what? It sucks to be poor and to be born into poverty. SF also had budget issues with this as well.http://www.sfbg.com/39/44/n…And yes it was opposed by the incumbents because afaik it was intended to also offer service in areas where people paid money to those providers for service. So they would loose business. Why wouldn’t they oppose it? And it infringed on existing contracts that gave certain rights to those incumbents as well.I don’t think SF has anything to worry about compared to, say, Camden NJ, Newark NJ or even Oakland CA. Those cities have real problems to deal with that go way beyond whether someone has free wifi access or not.

            3. “poor people in neighborhoods who had to go to libraries’. Enough said. That statement is so wrong in so many ways that I don’t even know where to start.First off, I lived in the City when this was offered. It was being given to the city. Access is power. Even poor people have purchasing power in case you didn’t know that. Every kid I know today LIMITS what they use their smartphone for in regards to broadband since they go over their limits all the time. Do kids not have purchasing power?WalMart has made a fortune selling to the middle and lower classes. To say that SF lost a major chance back in 2004 to open the internet to everyone is an understatement.Camden and Oakland? How is this even comparison? The point of this discussion was/is free wifi. So your saying the only people that this would benefit are poor people going to libraries..Google builds their business model strictly on access. I[m sure they thought it out as to why they wanted to offer this to City.

            4. “Even poor people have purchasing power in case you didn’t know that.”I know many entrepreneurs that operate in poor areas of the city and make a very good living. In many cases they prey on the poor but that’s a different story. For lack of a better way to put it they rip people off. So yes I know they have purchasing power. They also steal as well btw.”Every kid I know today LIMITS what they use their smartphone for in regards to broadband since they go over their limits all the time. Do kids not have purchasing power?”What are these kids buying that they need to limit their usage because they have to pay for over usage on their smartphone? Or is this merely for entertainment value “Hey – where are we going to meetup later”. Give me specifics of what you refer to that is being limited that can’t be done by another method that they need “free wifi” from their cell phones for. I’d like to know specifics. Not generally “oh it would just be better if..”. As an aside smartphones are fairly recent. I would call them a luxury not a necessity at this point in time.”WalMart has made a fortune selling to the middle and lower classes.”WalMart actually preys on the lower class by selling them things they don’t need and enticing them to buy things that they shouldn’t be spending their money on. “Hmm. let’s see I can’t pay for my diabetes meds or I can buy that plasma TV this month”. Walmart is cheaper on many items but in the end clever merchandisers like Walmart actually get someone to spend more money than they should. That’s fine for a person with not money but devastating for someone that is poor.”So your saying the only people that this would benefit are poor people going to libraries..”I’m quoting literally the only story I could find on Newsom and this issue.I said:From my understanding of that issue (and please feel free to correct me) the “people” that lost were poor people in neighborhoods who had to go to libraries and wait for wifi. Not people who would be considered a part of high tech. I then gave a link to the article.And it was in response to you saying:SF wouldn’t have been the epicenter of high tech. It would have changed EVERYTHING. SF would have been light years ahead of everyone else.

   2. If you look further, Google came into Kansas City and did it via the customer pays for the installation (I think it’s $300) and they have access to the city wide WiFi. I’d have to ask my son what the time period is (more than a year?) of this service.

7. Fred – can you amend the post – with a Call to Action – click through and sign the petition.It was not until I read Jim’s comment that I knew there was a petition to add my name to.

8. here’s the comment i left on albert’s blog which i’m copying over here:this is great and certainly a cause worth supporting, though in the grand scheme of things in a world where everything is a networked device, the only real solution is spectrum anarchy (meaning the entire spectrum is an unlicensed free for all) with the responsibility being on each computer to filter out interference. its related to the IPv6 issue, both these things do little more than buy time (and the more i read about IPv6 the more it seems to me it won’t buy much time at all). i view the transition to this world as extremely chaotic, likely a multi-decade process, but ultimately inevitable.

9. Signed and Tweeted.

10. Great initiative. What spectrum range are we talking about here exactly?Canada is about to open a new range 700Mhz which will improve Wi-Fi apparently and allow it to exist in all nooks and crannies. http://www.theglobeandmail….

    1. I too would like to know what frequency bands Super Wifi is intended to work on – and what frequencies and equipment is being used for this at SxSW. Wi-Fi currently travels over 2.4 Ghz (and some over 5 Ghz). The higher the frequency the lesser the range of the signal (and the more power you need to broadcast it).

11. I am so excited to hear about this, and it is so needed. Wifi is a total mess right now — I’m on the road all the time and constantly futzing with passwords, dealing with slow networks, and getting ripped off by hotels, all so I can be productive and connected. I’d be really excited if this went international — just because I’m out the country doesn’t mean I should have to pay through the nose to check my email.

12. This is pretty awesome.I can already see big opportunities for countries overseas (Latin America, Africa) where internet access isn’t very dense.I stumbled on a world map showing internet density from cities around the world. Very cool visualizations. http://www.chrisharrison.ne…(source: http://chrisharrison.net/)Props to the USV team. You guys have a hand in everything.

13. where have the fun fridays gone ? lately, all of the postings seem to be related to USV investments ?

    1. this post has nothing to do with a USV investmentthis post is about wifi and our wireless futurefun fridays will be backbut this is my blog and i am not getting locked into anything other than what i want to post here

14. what does 4G do to Super wifi?

15. This looks awesome and more than anyone I would love for more spectrum to be dedicated to this type of thing.But I think there is a problem with the We <3 WIFI messaging. The past accomplishments are impressive. But the justification for opening up more spectrum is:’Just think of what we could accomplish if we let this grow even bigger!’How would I think of what we could accomplish? I don’t really know anything about the subject. They need to tell me what might happen. How would it benefit me? Will I possibly get access to incredibly fast wireless bandwidth anywhere I walk? I realize that it’s a little hard when the entire point the project is to allow for new innovations, but I think a list of possibilities is within reason.One of their selling points is: “Recent studies calculate the economic contribution of the “open wireless” sector at $50-100 billion annually”That means nothing to me. I just don’t care about macroeconomic statistics about economic value; in fact I tend to believe they are lies.Give me something to dream about!

    1. point taken. I worked on that language and will think about revising

       1. I kinda liked it actually, but the explicit line breaks interrupt the flow making your case seem incoherent.

16. Pinger is a great use case for this. Turns any device into a phone.

17. What would be awesome is if we could get someone innovative to turn @theGigCity into the @WifiGigCity. #ChaWifi

18. Fred, am I understanding this right, there’s a regular wifi that folks can connect to, presumably something like a router supporting standard old 802.11b/g/n, where the uplink uses “SuperWifi” so that the router itself wirelessly connects up to backbone?Can you say a little more about the SuperWifi piece — like, what’s it’s range and bandwidth?

19. I’m glad you’re doing this. I posted a reply to someone down below regarding Google in Kansas City. The offer they make is a good one. If we move forward from different angles, we can get what is needed done. Of course it has to start with folks (like you guys) who know talk is cheap.

20. Wireless freedom for all. Glad to see people pushing the conversation on spectrum.

21. upto I saw the paycheck four $9688, I have faith…that…my neighbours mother was like they say really bringing in money intheir spare time online.. there best friend has done this for under fourteenmonths and recently took care of the morgage on their place and purchased abrand new Alfa Romeo. we looked here, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT