JimGeier
09-12-2002, 05:35 PM
In addition to basic services such as email and web browsing, what other types of network services do you think people could use via public wireless LANs in airports?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Airport applications
yonah
09-13-2002, 02:44 PM
Jim,
In the past, I have researched developing semi-mobile kiosks for selling goods in places like airports that have WLAN access. Essentially all I would need to add a kiosk would be a power cord - but that isn't a consumer application.
Two things that I would like to see offered on Wi-Fi in Airports: A Gate finder service that uses Wi-Fi to triangulate your location and points you in the right direction (more of a PDA app than a laptop one, as I can't imagine anyone running for a plane holding an open laptop in one hand).
On-the fly print services for people who need a hard copy to take on the plane with them.
In the past, I have researched developing semi-mobile kiosks for selling goods in places like airports that have WLAN access. Essentially all I would need to add a kiosk would be a power cord - but that isn't a consumer application.
Two things that I would like to see offered on Wi-Fi in Airports: A Gate finder service that uses Wi-Fi to triangulate your location and points you in the right direction (more of a PDA app than a laptop one, as I can't imagine anyone running for a plane holding an open laptop in one hand).
On-the fly print services for people who need a hard copy to take on the plane with them.
JimGeier
09-14-2002, 01:29 PM
Those are great ideas. I especially like the idea of being able to print documents. I often travel because of my consulting business and could really benefit by printing/faxing signed NDAs and contracts. Some sort of mapping system also makes a lot of sense for people trying to find their way to a specific concourse, taxi stand, restaurant, etc. The ability to easily find a Starbucks would definately help me out!
Anyone else have some uniques applications for airports?
Anyone else have some uniques applications for airports?
agent007
10-09-2002, 09:40 AM
Jim, airport applications are an interesting topic to me. However, I'm not on the consumer application side. There are so many airport operational uses for WiFi that it just ain't funny. Unfortunately, very few WISPs are treading into that space outside of the terminal and onto the tarmac, which is a shame, because there would be a lot less consumer price sensitivity (Even in this market, I can justify higher prices for my service). I imagine that theres some unique challenges to making .11x work in that sort of environment (with all those huge aluminum tubes laying around), but hopefully soon there will be enough demand to make a few ISP's take notice.
JimGeier
10-09-2002, 10:06 AM
Thanks for your response. I agree that wireless at airports would be beneficial on the airside as well. I've been working with Miami International Airport to deploy an 802.11a and 802.11b wireless LAN throughout the terminals, concourses, and baggage claim areas (but nothing on the airside). I think it would also be very beneficial to include access to passengers on-board planes waiting to depart the gate, but I think there are some FAA issues.
agent007
10-10-2002, 09:41 AM
Jim, in your opinion, if a facility such as MIA airport has .11x coverage in the areas that you described, especially gate and baggage areas, is it possible to have a considerable amount of 'spillover' coverage (for lack of a better term) onto ramp areas? I'm only interested in having access in the immediate area where the airplane is parked at the gate, maximum 300 feet from the jetway.
Also, is it just my imagination, or has the WISP rollout at airports slowed considerably? Is the mobile traveller space actually a sustainable market? I'm always curious, because when I'm going thru airports, I just don't see many people with their laptops open, and those that don't seem to be connected. Concourse Communications seems to be laying out alot of moolah to enable entire terminal areas, but they're probably in the best financial position to build the market.
Also, is it just my imagination, or has the WISP rollout at airports slowed considerably? Is the mobile traveller space actually a sustainable market? I'm always curious, because when I'm going thru airports, I just don't see many people with their laptops open, and those that don't seem to be connected. Concourse Communications seems to be laying out alot of moolah to enable entire terminal areas, but they're probably in the best financial position to build the market.
JimGeier
10-10-2002, 09:53 AM
I was able to run some tests aboard an aircraft parked at the gate before my return flight home. The gate I was leaving from was in Concourse H at a gate just adjacient from the Delta Crown Club (which has an existing access point for public access). I was sitting in the first class section (using my frequent flyer miles) of the plane in a window seat in row 8. My AirMagnet handheld analyzer indicated just barely 5 dB SNR (which is very low), and it wasn't possible to associate with the access point via my laptop. As a result, I don't think there's enough spillage to offer connectivity aboard aircraft. Of course the conditions will also likely be worse in the coach section of the plane due to longer distances.
I think that the deployment of pubic wireless LANs will pickup over the next years. MIA is one of the largest airports in the World, so I believe that it's implementation of an airport-wide system will certainly set a trend that others will follow.
I think that the deployment of pubic wireless LANs will pickup over the next years. MIA is one of the largest airports in the World, so I believe that it's implementation of an airport-wide system will certainly set a trend that others will follow.
scseth
10-16-2002, 04:44 PM
Jim, I work with Roving Planet and we have been working with airports for the last 2 years to provide wireless solutions. We have seen a number of used or requested applications in airports, besides public use. Keep in mind, airports are small cities with travelers, concessions, airlines, maintenance, security, etc.
- baggage tracking; wireless bar code scanners can ID the bar codes placed on the bag at check-in.
- baggage ID match; this is to conform with the FAA's requirement to only allow baggage on an airplane once the passenger has been verified on board.
- mobile kiosks; for both gate agents and self-check in, allows touch screen check-in services. Keeping these mobile allows airlines to move gates, check-in areas more easily (and cheaply)
- mobile hand-held checkin; these are those hand-helds gate agents can use to check-in people who are still in line but their plane is about to leave ;)
- security surveillance cameras; wireless cameras
- hand-held surveillance monitors; allows security personnel to monitor the cameras while mobile
- maintenance tasklists; most airports use walkie-talkies for this, and paper logs by the dispatch. Some airports have moved to a PDA format, but it requires synching which of course is a headache.
- multiple roaming partners; instead of just 1 ISP, the choice for whichever ISP you currently have an account with
- wireless inventory management; for concessions
Im sure there is more, but quite frankly that was all off the top of my head. Just to give in a plug (of course) at Roving Planet we have built a solution that uses a single common-use infrastructure to allow all those multiple groups/applications to be utilized securely and effeciently.
Seth
CTO@Roving Planet
- baggage tracking; wireless bar code scanners can ID the bar codes placed on the bag at check-in.
- baggage ID match; this is to conform with the FAA's requirement to only allow baggage on an airplane once the passenger has been verified on board.
- mobile kiosks; for both gate agents and self-check in, allows touch screen check-in services. Keeping these mobile allows airlines to move gates, check-in areas more easily (and cheaply)
- mobile hand-held checkin; these are those hand-helds gate agents can use to check-in people who are still in line but their plane is about to leave ;)
- security surveillance cameras; wireless cameras
- hand-held surveillance monitors; allows security personnel to monitor the cameras while mobile
- maintenance tasklists; most airports use walkie-talkies for this, and paper logs by the dispatch. Some airports have moved to a PDA format, but it requires synching which of course is a headache.
- multiple roaming partners; instead of just 1 ISP, the choice for whichever ISP you currently have an account with
- wireless inventory management; for concessions
Im sure there is more, but quite frankly that was all off the top of my head. Just to give in a plug (of course) at Roving Planet we have built a solution that uses a single common-use infrastructure to allow all those multiple groups/applications to be utilized securely and effeciently.
Seth
CTO@Roving Planet
agent007
10-17-2002, 10:32 AM
Seth,
I remember seeing a release from Concourse Communications that said that Roving Planet products were in use at MSP airport. Is there outdoor 802.11x coverage on the aircraft ramp areas or anywhere else for that matter? I'm interested in shared WLANs.
Thanks,
Andy
I remember seeing a release from Concourse Communications that said that Roving Planet products were in use at MSP airport. Is there outdoor 802.11x coverage on the aircraft ramp areas or anywhere else for that matter? I'm interested in shared WLANs.
Thanks,
Andy
scseth
10-17-2002, 11:06 AM
Andy,
You are correct, Concourse is using our equipment at MSP. Unfortunately, Concourse's network there is currently limited to the interiors of MSP.
Northwest had put in a network prior to Concourse, and that does have some exterior services. There is a plan that will consolidate the two networks and create a single common-use environment, but that has not been deployed yet.
--Seth
You are correct, Concourse is using our equipment at MSP. Unfortunately, Concourse's network there is currently limited to the interiors of MSP.
Northwest had put in a network prior to Concourse, and that does have some exterior services. There is a plan that will consolidate the two networks and create a single common-use environment, but that has not been deployed yet.
--Seth
JimGeier
10-18-2002, 07:48 AM
Seth, You mentioned the use of wireless for security cameras. Wouldn't it be fairly easy for someone to jam the radio signals and knock out the security video? Most people know that 802.11 WLANs are easy to jam with a single 802.11-equipped user device and some simple software (by sending continal 802.11 traffic such as CTS frames, probes, etc).
Also, have you implemented public printing at any of the airports? How does that work?
Also, have you implemented public printing at any of the airports? How does that work?
agent007
10-29-2002, 08:41 AM
I'm confused.......why is it that I would be able to use a cell phone (PCS) on an airplane...while it is on the ground at the gate, that is...but I wouldn't be able to maintain a wireless link with 802.11b. The cell phone has excellent TX/RX anywhere in the plane, and I do mean everywhere. My limited knowledge of RF theory led me to believe that bandwidth and signal strength were inversely proportional.
agent007
11-08-2002, 04:50 PM
Ok, I guess this one is all RF theory. If metallic objects create a shield like barrier and 2.4Ghz can't get thru (this is in reference to the airplane project), if I use a higher gain antenna can I 'somewhat' muscle the signal thru it? For the extremely short outdoor distance that I'm trying to cover, I'm wondering of a high gain sector antenna would bounce the signal off enough surrounding structure to get it thru airplane windows, etc.
dbuss
11-08-2002, 09:38 PM
Andy,
Yes, if you have enough signal strength the signal will penetrate the airplane. But, I think it would be difficult to get enough signal strength taking into consideration the low power of the transmitters.
Dick
Yes, if you have enough signal strength the signal will penetrate the airplane. But, I think it would be difficult to get enough signal strength taking into consideration the low power of the transmitters.
Dick
Sumaryo
11-09-2002, 08:22 AM
Andy,
Your PCS Cellphone still working inside aircraft on the ground because the cellphone still have enough energy to penetrate aircraft wall and surrounding structures.
Typical PCS Cellphone transmit up to 600 mWatt over 30 kHz analog bandwidth, giving power density of 20 mWatt/kHz bandwidth.
Meanwhile typical WLAN transmit only about 20 mWatt over 22 MHz analog bandwidth, giving power density of less than 0.001 mWatt/khz bandwidth.
In this relation, PCS Cellphone have sinyal density (power density) twenty thousand times (20,000 x) higher compared to WLAN signal. In both cases, average white noise are about the same. It is understandable that PCS Cellphone signal could travel far beyond WLAN signal ...
Your PCS Cellphone still working inside aircraft on the ground because the cellphone still have enough energy to penetrate aircraft wall and surrounding structures.
Typical PCS Cellphone transmit up to 600 mWatt over 30 kHz analog bandwidth, giving power density of 20 mWatt/kHz bandwidth.
Meanwhile typical WLAN transmit only about 20 mWatt over 22 MHz analog bandwidth, giving power density of less than 0.001 mWatt/khz bandwidth.
In this relation, PCS Cellphone have sinyal density (power density) twenty thousand times (20,000 x) higher compared to WLAN signal. In both cases, average white noise are about the same. It is understandable that PCS Cellphone signal could travel far beyond WLAN signal ...
agent007
11-09-2002, 11:08 AM
Thanks for all the replies everybody. This board is great for separating real world situations from marketing hype.
Andy
Andy
JimGeier
11-11-2002, 11:56 AM
This likely means that you'd need to install a wireless LAN access point inside the plane to provide adequate coverage. This then becomes an FAA issue in addition to FCC.
agent007
11-11-2002, 12:11 PM
You are so right Jim. Thats what I was trying to avoid, installing a $600 AP and having it cost $25k per airplane. I wish there was a way to push 750Kb-1.5Mb thru the airplane.
hans
11-11-2002, 07:30 PM
I always thought WLANs made sense in planes - users would communicate wirelessly to single gateway which in turn is connected to the Internet via something like a satellite link. (Similar argument for cars).
But now I wonder if it would make more sense to have ethernet to the seat. Here are my thoughts:
1- I don't think mobility is a big deal for passengers.
2- Airlines and the FAA would probably feel more comfortable with a wired solution - certainly would not have to answer to the public as to why WLANs are ok, whereas cellphones aren't.
Of course, WLANs will probably be much cheaper than wired ethernet...
But now I wonder if it would make more sense to have ethernet to the seat. Here are my thoughts:
1- I don't think mobility is a big deal for passengers.
2- Airlines and the FAA would probably feel more comfortable with a wired solution - certainly would not have to answer to the public as to why WLANs are ok, whereas cellphones aren't.
Of course, WLANs will probably be much cheaper than wired ethernet...
JimGeier
11-12-2002, 09:17 AM
I agree that the immobility of passengers on an aircraft could lean the solution toward wired Ethernet. However, airlines may not be willing to run wires to all of the seats. That could be a mess to support based on the vibrations that an airplane experiences. There's also the issue of where to install the Ethernet connector. It's probably not practical to install the connectors in the arm rest because of other items already there. Also, wireless LANs would provide a more cohesive solution since airports are in the process of installing pubic wireless LANs. For example, a person is sitting at the gate waiting for the airplane while working from an airport wireless LAN system. If the plane supported Ethernet, then the user would need to swap the wireless LAN card for an Ethernet card.
agent007
11-12-2002, 09:44 AM
I have an aircraft maintenance background, and yes, a wired ethernet infrastructure in each airplane would be not only a pain in the ass from my perspective, but it would probably be econonmically unfeasible. One would have to take into account, among other things, the FAA certification of the actual wiring for fire resistance standards, the additional cost of aircraft downtime for installing each LAN, the inevitable obsolescense (sp?) of CATx wiring, the weight gain, and a host of other issues that would make it unattractive. Couple all the obstacles of a in-aircraft wired LAN with the current financial state of the airline industry, and you have a project that will never get off the ground. Pun definitely intended.
hans
11-12-2002, 11:07 AM
but then again, I have seen several planes with a personal video monitor for each seat, even in economy. Could it be that there are conduits to each seat that would facilitate adding wires to each seat, including ethernet? Moreover, for those planes that already have video monitors, could that "infrastructure" be leveraged in the same fashion that broadband Internet access is now available over cable TV?
Also, new laptops are increasingly being equipped with built-in ethernet AND 802.11. I am not sure how many people will have the need to carry both PCMCIA cards a few years from now?
But I agree that the ethernet outlet would have to be in the arm rest (can you imagine having to unplug the laptop each time someone has to go to the restroom), which brings me to the point that ethernet would be incovenient to the passenger because of the wiring:
1- It's tight enough as it is in those seats, without getting tangled up in an RJ45 wire.
2- They may not have to carry a PCMCIA card around, but definitely they will need an RJ45 wire.
All in all, WLAN has several advantages over ethernet: cost, wiring etc. But 802.11 may be a problem because of radio signals.
Didn't Boeing and airbus recently announce offering Internet service in their new planes? Wonder how they are going about it...
Also, new laptops are increasingly being equipped with built-in ethernet AND 802.11. I am not sure how many people will have the need to carry both PCMCIA cards a few years from now?
But I agree that the ethernet outlet would have to be in the arm rest (can you imagine having to unplug the laptop each time someone has to go to the restroom), which brings me to the point that ethernet would be incovenient to the passenger because of the wiring:
1- It's tight enough as it is in those seats, without getting tangled up in an RJ45 wire.
2- They may not have to carry a PCMCIA card around, but definitely they will need an RJ45 wire.
All in all, WLAN has several advantages over ethernet: cost, wiring etc. But 802.11 may be a problem because of radio signals.
Didn't Boeing and airbus recently announce offering Internet service in their new planes? Wonder how they are going about it...
scseth
11-12-2002, 11:11 AM
Here is a link to a recent press release on Boeing's Connexion service: http://www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/story/17670.html
This talks more about the connection from the plane to the ground (via satellite) but no mention of the network in the plane.
In this much older article, they do discuss ethernet jacks at the seat.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20001114S0016
Seth
CTO@Roving Planet
http://www.rovingplanet.com
This talks more about the connection from the plane to the ground (via satellite) but no mention of the network in the plane.
In this much older article, they do discuss ethernet jacks at the seat.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20001114S0016
Seth
CTO@Roving Planet
http://www.rovingplanet.com
tlf2002
11-13-2002, 02:30 PM
T-Mobile recently announced a deal with American, Delta and United where T-Mobile will install and operate WLAN service in the clubs and lounges for these airlines, and in the gate areas of airports. This service is to be rolled out across the country, and should provide the first truly national WLAN service.
The primary service to be offered is web access (including web-based email), and corporate intranet access via VPN. It will really open up this market to the frequent traveler.
The primary service to be offered is web access (including web-based email), and corporate intranet access via VPN. It will really open up this market to the frequent traveler.
agent007
11-15-2002, 10:05 AM
Linksys is releasing a wireless signal booster that supposedly increases the gain of an AP to near the FCC limit (I'm told):
http://www.linksys.com/Products/product.asp?grid=22&prid=478
If this works as advertised, why are other manufacturers (Linksys as well) selling products with such minimal output? It seems to me that they would all want to have the best range, the best signal strength, etc.
http://www.linksys.com/Products/product.asp?grid=22&prid=478
If this works as advertised, why are other manufacturers (Linksys as well) selling products with such minimal output? It seems to me that they would all want to have the best range, the best signal strength, etc.
JimGeier
11-19-2002, 05:20 PM
I believe that part of the problem is that users can exceed FCC EIRP limitations by using a combination of high transmit power and high gain antennas.
max802
12-06-2002, 12:06 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by scseth
)
- multiple roaming partners; instead of just 1 ISP, the choice for whichever ISP you currently have an account with
I am interested in how it is working today between different ISP.
Why can not a user just use any ISP on the site, otherwise how an user know his ISP is avalable on the site?
)
- multiple roaming partners; instead of just 1 ISP, the choice for whichever ISP you currently have an account with
I am interested in how it is working today between different ISP.
Why can not a user just use any ISP on the site, otherwise how an user know his ISP is avalable on the site?
dbuss
12-06-2002, 08:20 AM
Max,
The Wireless ISP industry is very new and I like it to the cellular phone industry. If you remember back when cellular 1st started it was difficult roaming between carriers until they got their roaming agreements all in place. Today we can roam almost seamlessly with our cell phones across the country.
The Wireless ISP's are just now getting their roaming agreements in place. As more agreements are in place roaming will become available in more places.
There is a lot of emphasis among the various WISP's to make roaming convenient and practical.
:)
The Wireless ISP industry is very new and I like it to the cellular phone industry. If you remember back when cellular 1st started it was difficult roaming between carriers until they got their roaming agreements all in place. Today we can roam almost seamlessly with our cell phones across the country.
The Wireless ISP's are just now getting their roaming agreements in place. As more agreements are in place roaming will become available in more places.
There is a lot of emphasis among the various WISP's to make roaming convenient and practical.
:)
scseth
12-06-2002, 10:13 AM
Max, Dick is right, both the underlying agreements and the business models have not been completely worked out. I have seen multiple ISP installations so far work 1 of 3 ways:
1) The worst way (IMHO) different physical networks in the same building. One network for 1 ISP, the second for the other, etc. I dont think I need to explain how this quickly becomes the most unfeasible and expensive solution, but unfortunately may be the most common to date.
2) The site uses a service selection gateway (SSG) that physically changes your route to a pipe owned by that ISP. So, if I choose AT&T I am routed to a pipe owned by AT&T from the site's SSG, etc. Although, this doesn't address true roaming partners, companies like Boingo who dont actually own infrastructure, they just own accounts.
3) The site owns the network through amd throughout, you choose your ISP and the site records your usage, and charges the ISP for your use of their network.
Do any of you know of other business models being tried with muliple ISPs/Roaming Partners at the hotspot?
Seth
CTO@RovingPlanet
http://www.rovingplanet.com
1) The worst way (IMHO) different physical networks in the same building. One network for 1 ISP, the second for the other, etc. I dont think I need to explain how this quickly becomes the most unfeasible and expensive solution, but unfortunately may be the most common to date.
2) The site uses a service selection gateway (SSG) that physically changes your route to a pipe owned by that ISP. So, if I choose AT&T I am routed to a pipe owned by AT&T from the site's SSG, etc. Although, this doesn't address true roaming partners, companies like Boingo who dont actually own infrastructure, they just own accounts.
3) The site owns the network through amd throughout, you choose your ISP and the site records your usage, and charges the ISP for your use of their network.
Do any of you know of other business models being tried with muliple ISPs/Roaming Partners at the hotspot?
Seth
CTO@RovingPlanet
http://www.rovingplanet.com
max802
12-07-2002, 12:47 AM
Seth and Bull,
Thanks for the information.
I am think a model like we use our credit card: One use can
use the network oneed by an IPS where he gets the access.
The user has an account could be charged by any IPS. Tehcnically
there is no roaming, only roaming in accounting sense. I wounder
if that's already in the place. If not really I am thinking of do some
management software for that model. Is that ...?
Thanks
Thanks for the information.
I am think a model like we use our credit card: One use can
use the network oneed by an IPS where he gets the access.
The user has an account could be charged by any IPS. Tehcnically
there is no roaming, only roaming in accounting sense. I wounder
if that's already in the place. If not really I am thinking of do some
management software for that model. Is that ...?
Thanks
dbuss
12-08-2002, 10:55 AM
Max,
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure. In most cases, I doubt that if one ISP owned the infrastructure other ISP's would be very anxious to subscribe to infrastructure owned by another ISP. This brings in the idea of a "neutral host" that would invest and own the infrastructure and then lease the infrastructure to any ISP that wants to offer service on the infrastructure. The "neutral host" would pay the facility owners/management a monthly fee.
This neutral host could then offer software such as you described. Allowing the user access to whichever ISP the user chose that was on the system.
A clearing house that would handle all the roaming accounting may also be needed to be sure that each ISP and user is credited and charged the correct time of useage.
Just some thoughts.
Dick
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure. In most cases, I doubt that if one ISP owned the infrastructure other ISP's would be very anxious to subscribe to infrastructure owned by another ISP. This brings in the idea of a "neutral host" that would invest and own the infrastructure and then lease the infrastructure to any ISP that wants to offer service on the infrastructure. The "neutral host" would pay the facility owners/management a monthly fee.
This neutral host could then offer software such as you described. Allowing the user access to whichever ISP the user chose that was on the system.
A clearing house that would handle all the roaming accounting may also be needed to be sure that each ISP and user is credited and charged the correct time of useage.
Just some thoughts.
Dick
max802
12-08-2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by dbuss
Max,
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
I see the infrastructure much like sales machines in the public places. In most case ISPs put them in the places they think
that makes business sense. In some cases, if an owner has a brandband access himself, he wouldn't share if he can let a portion of the pipe bring hime some revenu if some software allow him (like in a cafeteria or a resaturant). Unless (I'm not usre
any regulation prohibits it.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure. In most cases, I doubt that if one ISP owned the infrastructure other ISP's would be very anxious to subscribe to infrastructure owned by another ISP. This brings in the idea of a "neutral host" that would invest and own the infrastructure and then lease the infrastructure to any ISP that wants to offer service on the infrastructure. The "neutral host" would pay the facility owners/management a monthly fee.
This neutral host could then offer software such as you described. Allowing the user access to whichever ISP the user chose that was on the system.
A clearing house that would handle all the roaming accounting may also be needed to be sure that each ISP and user is credited and charged the correct time of useage.
Just some thoughts.
Dick
Max,
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
I see the infrastructure much like sales machines in the public places. In most case ISPs put them in the places they think
that makes business sense. In some cases, if an owner has a brandband access himself, he wouldn't share if he can let a portion of the pipe bring hime some revenu if some software allow him (like in a cafeteria or a resaturant). Unless (I'm not usre
any regulation prohibits it.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure. In most cases, I doubt that if one ISP owned the infrastructure other ISP's would be very anxious to subscribe to infrastructure owned by another ISP. This brings in the idea of a "neutral host" that would invest and own the infrastructure and then lease the infrastructure to any ISP that wants to offer service on the infrastructure. The "neutral host" would pay the facility owners/management a monthly fee.
This neutral host could then offer software such as you described. Allowing the user access to whichever ISP the user chose that was on the system.
A clearing house that would handle all the roaming accounting may also be needed to be sure that each ISP and user is credited and charged the correct time of useage.
Just some thoughts.
Dick
max802
12-08-2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by dbuss
Max,
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure.
Dick
Sorry I mess up my last post. Here again
Dick,
I see the infrastructure much like sales machines in the public places. In most case ISPs put them in the places they think
that makes business sense. In some cases, if an owner has a brandband access himself, he wouldn't share if he can let a portion of the pipe bring hime some revenu if some software allow him (like in a cafeteria or a resaturant). Unless (I'm not usre
any regulation prohibits it.
Max,
I think you have a good idea. Keep in mind that there are a few details that need to be worked out. 1st of all most facility owners/managers have no interest in owning the infrastructure for WIFI. But, of course they do expect and deserve a revenue stream from that infrastructure.
Having said that. One must now determine who's going to invest the $$$ in the infrastructure.
Dick
Sorry I mess up my last post. Here again
Dick,
I see the infrastructure much like sales machines in the public places. In most case ISPs put them in the places they think
that makes business sense. In some cases, if an owner has a brandband access himself, he wouldn't share if he can let a portion of the pipe bring hime some revenu if some software allow him (like in a cafeteria or a resaturant). Unless (I'm not usre
any regulation prohibits it.
dbuss
12-08-2002, 01:52 PM
Max,
I think your correct when it comes to smaller buildings. Most likely the smaller buildings such as the ones you described are not going to be that attractive to larger ISP's. I was referring primarily to larger structures such as airports, subways, and large buildings.
I foresee the smaller buildings being covered by the individual business owner as a convenience to his customers and a possible revenue stream or by smaller ISP's with a network of Hotspots. Several WISP's currently have roaming agreements with each other and I see that process moving forward quickly as it is becoming very obvious that as the number of users of WIFI increases so does the demand for roaming between ISP's.
Dick
I think your correct when it comes to smaller buildings. Most likely the smaller buildings such as the ones you described are not going to be that attractive to larger ISP's. I was referring primarily to larger structures such as airports, subways, and large buildings.
I foresee the smaller buildings being covered by the individual business owner as a convenience to his customers and a possible revenue stream or by smaller ISP's with a network of Hotspots. Several WISP's currently have roaming agreements with each other and I see that process moving forward quickly as it is becoming very obvious that as the number of users of WIFI increases so does the demand for roaming between ISP's.
Dick
nemesis26
12-13-2002, 10:55 AM
My $.02:
"Hotspots" are all the rage now, and it will be another year before one can legitimately determine if they are a boom or bust.
The biggest joke is the hotel lobby "hotspot", where Boingo and others expect a business traveler to pay $60 a month (or ~$6 daily) to access email while seated in a traffic-heavy lobby next to Marv, the gigilo/compulsive gambler. In reality, said businessman could (and does) merely set up shop in the comfort of his hotel room, use his existing ISP, and throw on a PPV or HBO. (Besides, broadband is irrelevant in regard to the most critical applications - i.e. email - of your standard business traveler. )
Availablility of Wireless/802.11 data access in aiports, admittedly, is different, for the simple reasons that: 1) people have more "dead" or "captive audience" time on their hands while waiting for flight 345 that is habitually 2 hours delayed... 2) there is really no other alternative to obtain data accessibility - CDMA/GSM cellular is either too slow and/or presents an impractical expense.
However, I personally believe the airport business model is severely flawed when offered as a 3rd-party commercial service to the consumer market space.
Here's why:
Offering 802.11 in Airline Club lounges is just dandy, because frequent fliers always hang out at the same physical location. And, it's usually free. So.... break out that laptop, boy ... order a double scotch.... call the mistress.... check to see if Bob responded to your email regarding golf on Saturday while downloading the latest from Kazaa.
Such an 802.11 access service is entirely practical - since it is offered on befalf of the airline to its preferred customers, and such users always frequent the same 400-ft radius at the airlines' own club/lounge in every airport.
Regardless, such service is free.... the airlines don't have a business model for it - they don't need one. They provide 802.11 accessibility in such places to differentiate themselves from competitors and to offer such conveniences as a perk to their frequent fliers.
What of the business traveller who desires such accessibility, doesn't have the golden key to the Admirals Club, but would consider paying a per-hour or per-day usage fee?
Now, we start getting into political and logistical realities.
Independent, or 3rd party providers are scattered accross 5 different concourses where the limited range of 802.11 is only offered in the vicinity of selected gates. Present security (post 9/11) forces me to wait in longer lines for security checks.
Suppose I'm interested in the Airpath 802.11 broadband service - or Boingo - and I'm required to fork over $9.99 for a day's worth of usage. Well, *&%$!, I'm on an American Airlines flight, and I gotta trek three concourses over to the "Airpath/Boingo-enabled hotspot area", drudge thorugh security, and find the gate to hang out at where I can bite on signal. But, I can only do so for 40 minutes... because I gotta trek back through security again towards my original concourse to board my American flight.
Really practical, huh?
It is my belief that 802.11 will proliferate and be a viable commercial service offering only for the airlines who 1) maintain the logistical control over their own gate infrastructure 2) have a better means of mass-marketing and commoditizing the service for waiting passengers.
Now, if the *airlines* (and not an independent provider who must deal with politics associated with the airline's gate infrastructure) wanted to throw a few APs around and offer pervasive data accessibility to passengers outside the frequent fliers clubs - and throughout the concourse - @ $9.95 a pop.... now THAT is sustainable.
At least until 3G is made more economically viable, or the 3G operators themselves work out a deal with the airlines (or the Airport facility) to backhaul using 3G and offer point-to-multipoint toll access using 802.11.
"Hotspots" are all the rage now, and it will be another year before one can legitimately determine if they are a boom or bust.
The biggest joke is the hotel lobby "hotspot", where Boingo and others expect a business traveler to pay $60 a month (or ~$6 daily) to access email while seated in a traffic-heavy lobby next to Marv, the gigilo/compulsive gambler. In reality, said businessman could (and does) merely set up shop in the comfort of his hotel room, use his existing ISP, and throw on a PPV or HBO. (Besides, broadband is irrelevant in regard to the most critical applications - i.e. email - of your standard business traveler. )
Availablility of Wireless/802.11 data access in aiports, admittedly, is different, for the simple reasons that: 1) people have more "dead" or "captive audience" time on their hands while waiting for flight 345 that is habitually 2 hours delayed... 2) there is really no other alternative to obtain data accessibility - CDMA/GSM cellular is either too slow and/or presents an impractical expense.
However, I personally believe the airport business model is severely flawed when offered as a 3rd-party commercial service to the consumer market space.
Here's why:
Offering 802.11 in Airline Club lounges is just dandy, because frequent fliers always hang out at the same physical location. And, it's usually free. So.... break out that laptop, boy ... order a double scotch.... call the mistress.... check to see if Bob responded to your email regarding golf on Saturday while downloading the latest from Kazaa.
Such an 802.11 access service is entirely practical - since it is offered on befalf of the airline to its preferred customers, and such users always frequent the same 400-ft radius at the airlines' own club/lounge in every airport.
Regardless, such service is free.... the airlines don't have a business model for it - they don't need one. They provide 802.11 accessibility in such places to differentiate themselves from competitors and to offer such conveniences as a perk to their frequent fliers.
What of the business traveller who desires such accessibility, doesn't have the golden key to the Admirals Club, but would consider paying a per-hour or per-day usage fee?
Now, we start getting into political and logistical realities.
Independent, or 3rd party providers are scattered accross 5 different concourses where the limited range of 802.11 is only offered in the vicinity of selected gates. Present security (post 9/11) forces me to wait in longer lines for security checks.
Suppose I'm interested in the Airpath 802.11 broadband service - or Boingo - and I'm required to fork over $9.99 for a day's worth of usage. Well, *&%$!, I'm on an American Airlines flight, and I gotta trek three concourses over to the "Airpath/Boingo-enabled hotspot area", drudge thorugh security, and find the gate to hang out at where I can bite on signal. But, I can only do so for 40 minutes... because I gotta trek back through security again towards my original concourse to board my American flight.
Really practical, huh?
It is my belief that 802.11 will proliferate and be a viable commercial service offering only for the airlines who 1) maintain the logistical control over their own gate infrastructure 2) have a better means of mass-marketing and commoditizing the service for waiting passengers.
Now, if the *airlines* (and not an independent provider who must deal with politics associated with the airline's gate infrastructure) wanted to throw a few APs around and offer pervasive data accessibility to passengers outside the frequent fliers clubs - and throughout the concourse - @ $9.95 a pop.... now THAT is sustainable.
At least until 3G is made more economically viable, or the 3G operators themselves work out a deal with the airlines (or the Airport facility) to backhaul using 3G and offer point-to-multipoint toll access using 802.11.
wi-fiplanet.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.