Category: Wireless

The Health Protection Agency is going to examine WiFi networks (BBC link) to see if they are going to affect our health. Are they also going to examine TV, radio and mobile phone broadcasting stations as the transmitters on those babies reaches for dozens of miles rather than the hundred or so feet of the WiFi transmitters. And we’ve been exposed for much of our life to TV and radio transmissions.

Meanwhile the BBC has inked a deal with wifi firm The Cloud to on the condition of “platform neutrality”, including a download service. They claim to have launched on Windows in order to get the most people. Funny – if they’d used a platform neutral protocol then it would have reached everyone. Youtube managed it quite well.

I especially love this bit where they defend their use of Windows-only proprietary DRM:

The BBC says the DRM offered by Microsoft – which is not available for Linux and has not been licensed from Microsoft by Apple for Macs – is the only solution at present.

Bought and sold. The BBC. By Microsoft.

Where I live, I can detect 6 other WiFi networks depending on where I stand in the house. All of them have wireless signals that extend into my house. Over the last few months I’ve had to change my base station channels because someone bought a new router with a new default channel and accidentally jammed my signal. When it got too much, I did the only thing I could and bought some powerful repeaters. I know for a fact that one individual who broadcasts his wireless SSID doesn’t even have a computer with WiFi.

My contention is that if you decide to use wireless then you should be aware of the technology and, in most cases, be prepared to share. I share my wireless. Why doesn’t everyone? Security? But once you get past your wireless encryption, you’re sending your data, unencrypted out into the general Internet.

Anything really important, like your banking details, is encrypted from the browser even in a wide open unencrypted wireless network.

Your email provider doesn’t provide you with SSL?

Call them now.

The BBC News website has an article about the row regarding data about the placement and use of mobile telephone masts:

The Sitefinder website is maintained by media regulator Ofcom, following a request from the government in 2000. But mobile firms stopped giving data to the site last year after Ofcom was told it must publish grid references of all the masts in a searchable database.

Now, the mobile companies believe this is commercially sensitive material and would allow the different mobile companies to be able to discern the design of their others networks. As a result, they have stopped supplying the data to Ofcom.

While I understand their concerns, I have the following observations:

• I fully support the Government in this – we should have a database, complete with a Maps mashup showing the locations of every mast in the country. Heck, in every country.
• The Government told Ofcom to get the info. The operators refused. Does it not then behoove Ofcom, as the telecoms regulator, to give the various mobile operators a good kicking? What’s the point in having a toothless operator?
• Why the hell is Ofcom appealing against the Government’s decision in this case? Why is this in the High Court? Why is Ofcom doing the mobile operators work?

According to SiteFinder, I have 3 single operator GSM transmitters and 4 single operator UMTS transmitters in my postcode. None of them are Shared base stations with more than one operator or more than one technology.

In my opinion, Ofcom should be demanding up to date information or fining the operators who do not provide it. I don’t care if this is commercially sensitive. This information should be in the public domain. They’re broadcasting in my wireless space, their signals enter my house.

And what is the commercial sensitivity? Surely competing mobile operators will be able to detect the placement of wireless masts much the way we can use tools like iStumbler or Kismet to detect WiFi networks?

Would we find out that their coverage of the country falls far short of what they are claiming? Would their competitors suddenly gain a great advantage from seeing this data? I’m not sure how it could seriously affect their business. And surely they’d get the same competitive gain from seeing other operators networks.

What are they hiding?

Physorg.com reports:

Ambitious plans for big Wi-Fi networks to provide free or low-cost wireless Internet access are being abandoned or scaled back by US cities as the economics of the deals turn out to be more challenging than expected.

In Belfast, there were two efforts I was aware of, going back a few years now.

One was spearheaded by BT. They had the money and the locations for the access points (inside the BT telephone boxes. I mean – does anyone use them for making telephone calls these days???). They wined and dined the City Council and went head with their proposal which is why Belfast is blanketed with BTOpenzone at £6 an hour (yes, you can subscribe and get it cheaper…)

The second was from a much smaller outfit. They proposed a mesh network, almost grassroots in it’s uncommon simplicity and solicited information from the City Council as to obtaining their assistance. As a startup providing their own equipment, there wasn’t enough money in the pot to wine and dine and so their pleas went unheeded.

So, we’re left currently with BT. Brilliant.

“Too many municipalities continue to focus on large, ambitious public wireless projects that have no clear path to profitability.”

I don’t think that government bodies should get into this sector at all. They certainly have no understanding of the complexities of technology and even less understanding of commerce.

I know the second group is still working behind the scenes, having secured some funding from a local company to help them buy more equipment. When I asked them about their business model this time they said:

This isn’t about money. It’s about creating a wireless network in our local city that will better enable people to use online services like those provided by Google, Facebook and other companies. It’s our opinion that the current offering is not only a monopoly but one that is dedicated to squeezing every last penny out of the mobile consumer.