On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Ken Chang wrote:
> >>- both are designed both in-door and out-door, local and public
> >
> >WLAN, if you're talking about 802.11 (you really should be more
> >specific), is most definitely *not* designed for public use.
>
> actually I was thinking airports and car parks as outdoor ;)
Well, let's just forget about indoor vs. outdoor, because it's
really not all that important. The point is public vs. private use.
> I agree that billing is a problem but even in the mobile world,
> the billing records, agents, and clearing houses are one of
> the areas of the least standardized. in the worst case, all
> the providers build their own access points and that's at least
> not as bad as PHS.
It seems to me far, far worse than PHS. Please explain to me, in
detail, what happens when five different WLAN providers decide to
provide public 802.11b service in the area around Shibuya station.
How do they avoid RF conflicts? How do they make sure that their
own customers easily get on to the correct network? How do they
deal with other customers who are not subscribers to their network?
Now add several private users' office networks to the situation
and what happens?
> less than 3,000 yen a month (plus electricity), anyone can provide
> a WLAN hotspot, doesn't that sound scary? ... and you have to keep
> drinking while working with your notebook, then why should we mind
> billing at all?
Who says people will keep drinking? When I go into a cafe and buy a cup
of coffee, I drink it and leave. If I've got 802.11b Internet access,
though, I'll stay for longer using it, though I won't buy another cup of
coffee. Thus, this investment has made things worse for the owner, not
better.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs_at_cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
Received on Wed Jul 10 07:03:41 2002