I am a Pacific Northwest resident who loves the outdoors. And, as you might guess, one who also loves technology.

Wearing both hats, I read with interest a piece in Saturday's Chicago Tribune entitled Good news for campers: more parks wired.

That finding came out of a just-published Intel unwired cities poll.

"One finding this year is that more and more campsites and parks are equipped with Wi-Fi so that people can keep connected even as they commune with nature," Tribune reporter reporter Jon Van writes.

"It is kind of surprising, but people like to have acess to their email and the ability to download photos when they go camping, " Intel consumer education manager Ralph Bond ("Bond. Ralph Bond" is quoted as saying.

I wanted to see how true this is. I went to the website of JWire, which offers a browsable and searchable list of more than 67,000 Wi-Fi hotspots all over the United States, and the world.

There's more than 27,000 Wi-Fi hotspots in the U.S. alone.

One of the more interesting campgound hotspot listings I found was for the Devil's Tower KOA in Devil's Tower, Wyoming. Honest.

Is Wi-Fi access important to you campers out there? Let us know!

Would you pay $29.95 for Wi-Fi Internet access for the entire length of your flight? What about $9.95 an hour?

USA Today reports that United Airlines is already working with Verizon Airfone to test the service. Apparently, it has been demonstrated to the Federal Aviation Administration's approval that yes, this type of technology won't jumble pilot-to-ground communications.

Technically, the service could work. Marketing-wise, I think it is a smash. The USA Today piece says that 38% of frequent business travelers who responded to a Forrester Research survey said that they would use the service even if it were priced at $25 a flight.

The next time you fly, note the number of business travelers working with their stored email files and PowerPoint presentations. I think this is a ready made market. Count me in.

According to CNET News, Apple will be announcing a migration to Intel chips on Monday.

And it looks like they'll be starting with the low-end computers first, gradually working their way up to the high-end Macs.

So it looks like this move was all about the chips and not about WiMAX, as I speculated. Now that doesn't mean that we won't see Intel's wireless strategy change over the next few years. For instance, will Centrino be used in the Mac Minis? If so, where does this leave Apple's Airport gear?

As for WiMAX, I guess we'll see how this IntelApple marriage progresses. I still think something is going to happen along these lines.

PS: Here is the Reuters article.

At first I thought it was a mistake. I was at Kansai International Airport (KIX) in Osaka, Japan waiting for my flight earlier this week when I opened up my laptop to check for Wi-Fi. Normally, what I want to know is how much they're going to squeeze me for per hour. Is it $7.95 or $9.95 or do they skip the hourly rate entirely and just hit me up for a 12-hour block?

But then something very strange happened -- I got free Wi-Fi. And it wasn't a mistake. This was free, airport-sponsored Wi-Fi. I checked email, woke my poor wife using Skype -- I just had myself a little party.

Kansai offers free Wi-Fi: Power outlets, however, are scarce.

It appears that for the past two years KIX has been giving away free Wi-Fi. I've heard of a number of small regional airports offering free Wi-Fi as an incentive to lure traffic, but never an airport of this size.

So, is Kansai the world's largest airport to offer free Wi-Fi? Any users out there know of a larger airport offering free Wi-Fi?

About a week ago I wrote a blog about the possibility of Apple embracing WiMAX. That blog was followed soon after by a MacObserver story.

Needless to say, I've gotten an earful from readers -- some good, some bad, and some a little bit ugly. I should have known that any article that combined lightning-rod topics like Apple and WiMAX would attract attention.

So I wanted to summarize the comments received and make a few corrections. Here goes...

Comment: Apple launched Airport in 1999, not 1997. Apple launched it at the Boston Macworld show, alongside Apple's launching of the iBook.
-> I stand corrected. For a handy Apple timeline check out this site.

Comment: It should be noted that Apple does use Intel chips in its xRAID product.
-> This was one of several comments I received that noted that Apple is already using Intel chips. Some folks also stressed that porting the Mac OS over to Intel would not be a major production, while others said the exact opposite. I'd love to get more input on this as I am no expert.

Regardless, I still cannot help but think that the wireless folks within Apple aren't at least a little intrigued by the business potential of WiMAX. Intel bet big on Wi-Fi a few years back and certainly did well as a result; any potential partner and OEM is taking Intel's WiMAX gamble very seriously.

Comment: WiMax would not be affordable for an everyday technology. Heck, Alvarion, one of the largest players in the game does not hardly sell anything less than $1000, with the exception of their low-end access units.
-> Alvarion has been selling proprietary fixed wireless gear in low quantities, hence the relatively high costs. WiMAX gear, produced in large quantities by multiple vendors, will be affordable. And Intel isn't going to be the only player making WiMAX silicon. Everyone currently producing Wi-Fi components is either already investing in WiMAX or keeping a very close eye on it. Wi-Fi wasn't particularly cheap in 1999 either.

Comment: Just because WiMAX is a "new" technology, does not mean Apple will adopt it, especially if it is the wrong tool for the job.
-> Agreed. But my point here is that there are new "jobs" that wireless technology will be expected to perform in the years ahead and WiMAX might be a very good fit for those jobs. Not all jobs. I don't believe Wi-Fi is threatened in the least by WiMAX.

Finally, a number of people made it clear that WiMAX is a "last mile" technology and not a "last hundred feet" technology. While I agree that this is how WiMAX is being positioned, it is by no means the only way that WiMAX may ultimately be used. Wi-Fi certainly wasn't originally envisioned as a technology for unwiring city blocks via a mix of mesh and MIMO technologies. I think we're going to see all kinds of unintended applications emerge from WiMAX.

Anyway, that's it for me. Keep those comments coming...

So I have a few thoughts on why Apple is talking to Intel. First, let me quote this Reuters article to provide context:

"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.

Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."

So I'm going to assume that porting the Mac OS is not a high priority at Apple these days. What I think is a high priority is wireless. Apple launched its Wi-Fi-power Airport way back in 1997. Here we are eight years later and Wi-Fi is everywhere, particularly in the home.

There have been lots of speculation about Apple launching an A/V equivalent of iTunes. Now, connecting the cable or DSL modem to the TV is a hurdle we're seeing lots of companies tackle, with limited success.

I've spoken to a number of techs who see WiMAX as the next-generation home wireless technology. That's because only WiMAX can stream multiple streams of HDTV content in difficult RF environments to all ends of the home.

Apple is also rumored to be getting into the smart phone business. I'd certainly love to see how they could simplify my Palm Treo 650. But what wireless technology are they going to support if and when they do get into this business? I wouldn't bet on EV-DO and I don't think they want to bother with EDGE or HSDPA either. Apple likes to lead with wireless technology, not follow.

I think Apple sees a lot of opportunities with WiMAX. And I think Intel sees a lot of opportunity in getting Apple to support WiMAX. Because the applications that WiMAX will support don't really exist yet. Sure, we're going to see wireless last-mile proliferate using WiMAX, but that's the easy part.

Perhaps all that Apple and Intel are talking about right now is processors. But I have to believe that there are people on both sides of the room thinking WiMAX.

The other day I was thinking how far hotels have come in providing Internet access for travelers.

Wasn't all that long ago that you would find hotels that were so freaked out their guests would steal the phone itself that they bolted the instrument to the wall. Unfortunately, that precluded easy compatibility with the laptop computers of the time. Anyone remember acoustic couplers?

Then, in the late 1990s, it was rare to find a hotel that didn't at least let you run a cord from the back of your laptop to the back of the phone. Whether or not your laptop's dialing software was compatible with the hotel's PBX was a matter of doubt.

That lasted a couple of years. Soon, by the turn of the millennium, hotels started to offer second lines for data. In most cases, that meant you could talk and be online at the same time. The only bummer: in most cases, speed was limited to dial-up.

Just two or three years ago, hotels that offered guests in-room high-speed Internet access were still somewhat of a novelty. Those properties that did provided such services offered it by means of an Ethernet cable that a guest could plug in to their own laptop computer, or a keyboard guests could use to control a basic-featured broadband Internet browser on the in-room television.

While in-room high speed wired Internet access is still growing, a relatively new feature has been coming to guest facilities in the last year or so: wireless high-speed broadband. I am talking about Wi-FI throughout the property, not just in the lobby, business center, or in-house restaurant but down to the farthest reaches of each hallway.

Most often, these services are offered for free. Although hotels have to pay wireless Internet companies for these services, they eat the cost to guests. After all, the type of guest who would use this amenity is likely to be tech savvy, a decision-maker. These are folks who, if pleased, would book you again - and recommend that their colleagues and peers do the same.

The growth of high-speed broadband has coincided with the rapid expansion of Wi-FI (Wireless Fidelity), a technology that allows laptop computers and other mobile devices equipped with an appropriate card to access the Internet directly over the air.

The widespread availability of these services in high-volume traffic locations such as airports, coffee shops and bookstores has convinced computer makers to offer laptops with the built-in ability to access the Internet via wireless broadband. So, with plenty of conditioning and marketing about the convenience of this technology, business travelers have been asking hotels if they provide the service.

Hoteliers report installation is inexpensive and with the use of wireless Access Points to relay wireless signals, the technology relatively easy to enable throughout the property. Plus, if a guest requests Wi-Fi, they are already likely to use the technology - making detailed training of front-desk personnel in Wi-Fi unnecessary.

Hundreds of properties are offering the service. In the next year or two, expect thousands.

I cannot recall ever using my Wi-Fi enabled laptop in a public library. Reasons: I never take my laptop there because most libraries don't have suitable connections. So,when I am on the road and not in a hotel with high-speed access, I either have to hook up my laptop for dial-up or find a hotspot.

If I were traveling in Maine, though, I'd have another option. Suupported by a $120,000 grant from the Maine Telecommunications Education Access Fund, the Walk In Wireless project has turned dozens of library branches in that state into free, Wi-Fi hotspots.

You have to bring your own laptop. For that very reason, true, we're not looking at feel-good-bridge-the-Digital-Divide stuff here. Still, my overarching reaction is that, OK, if I was (pun alert) a Maine man, and was out and about with my notebook, I'd have another choice. I wouldn't have to subscribe to a fee-based Wi-Fi service. I could just walk into a local library and surf the Web and check my e-mail.

I have an idea to make this service even better, though. Some of the first laptops to have built-in Network Interface Cards for Wi-Fi are starting to age. Library systems ought to have programs where you donate your used Wi-Fi laptop and get a tax credit for the current value of the laptop. Then, the laptop could be configured to work at a library with a hotspot capability funded by a service similar to the Maine Telecommunications Education Access Funds

Qualcomm is the Microsoft of the telecoms industry, for better and for worse. People in the telecoms industry typically either love the company or hate the company.

I lean toward the latter, so please keep that in mind as you read this brief review of The Qualcomm Equation by Dave Mock.

In this book, published earlier this year, Dave does an excellent and meticulous job of documenting Qualcomm's against-all-odds rise to the top of the telecoms industry. I did not realize the degree to which Qualcomm relied on government business in the early days and also did not realize just how close the company came to missing the cellular boat completely. Back when Europe set in place one standard and many in the US wanted to follow suit, Qualcomm stuck to its guns.

And I think that the US is better off for it.

By and large, the mixed-standards "mess" that we have in the US has turned out to be a pretty good thing. Because of competing standards, we have EV-DO, which is a much-faster technology than single-standard Europe has to offer. Competing technologies keeps everyone on their toes, and Qualcomm has certainly kept the GPRS vendors on their toes. Dave Mock documents this drama and makes sense of the very complex technical standards and jargon.

Mock is perhaps too kind to Qualcomm, particularly in the latter years, as the vendor transforms from David to Goliath. For example, the company has been in an all-out war with Wi-Fi and WiMAX over the past three years, and it is only recently that we now see the company starting to co-opt some of the same technology underlying WiMAX. Qualcomm recently ditched its much-hyped EVDV technology when it became apparent that carriers want IP and big pipes, something WiMAX was designed to address from the ground up.

I find Qualcomm to be a little lost these days, as if it is searching for another big bully to take on again; the trouble is, Qualcomm is now the big bully and it's taking on the types of innovators that it once was.

That said, anyone in the telecoms industry who wants to know how Qualcomm got to be Qualcomm should read this book.

"Trading Without a Wire," which appears in this week's Business Week, has a lot to say about QuoTrek.

A stock price-quote server for mobile devices, QuoTrek has just been upgraded to be a stock trading facilitator for Wi-Fi-enabled laptop BlackBerry, Palm PC and Windows Mobile handhelds.

Given that stockbrokers as well as individual investors are always on the go, I'd say the potential for this technology is golden. As the article mentions, nearly 10% of all trades on Schwab.com are completed wirelessly.

No reason something like QuoTrek cannot help but push this percentage even higher.

If you've purchased a Treo recently from Cingular and are having problems, read this post...

Two weeks ago I took the plunge and purchased the Treo 650 from Cingular. I don't have to repeat the many glowing reviews this device has received. What did it for me was knowing that there would be a Wi-Fi plug-in available later this year. Here's one that's on the way.

The first week with the Treo was mostly positive. Syncing is a challenge with any device, particularly if you are a Mac user. PalmSource gave up supporting Macs last year, so I had to go to a third party to get software to sync my calendar and contacts. As a Mac user, I'm accustomed to these little exercises.

After about a week the troubles began. I would go to dial a number and the phone would reset on me. Just like that. The screen goes black and then it boots up again. For a moment there I had a flashback to my Windows Me days.

To make matters worse, the voicemail phone number would change on me randomly, displaying everything from international numbers to a string of zeros.

So I went to the Cingular and PalmOne Web sites and found nothing of help. There was clearly a software glitch - perhaps a conflict between the SIM card and the Palm OS. This is in many ways the worst possible problem, because it falls in between the cracks of the device manufacturer and the carrier. In fact, when I finally did get ahold of Cingular, they initially told me that I had a faulty device and that I should return it.

Then I discovered Treo forums here and here. And I quickly realized that I wasn't alone. Between the forums I estimate that I have found close to a hundred people who have buggy Treo 650s. Granted, it's very hard to tell what's a legitimate bug or software conflict or naive user, but based on reading these countless postings, I can't help but think that Palm and Cingular rushed out this handset a bit too quickly.

One user goes to Cingular the other day and finds that corporate has sent an email to all dealers telling them that the SIM card is causing problems. The dealers have been sent a stack of Axalto SIM cards to exchange with the existing Gemplus SIM cards.

So once I heard this I went over to my local dealer and was met with a blank stare, until I found the manager who just happened to have read the same email that morning. They swapped the cards and the problem went away, sorta.

I had to go home and do a hard reset, that is, erase all the settings and software I had set up, and the phone worked again. Needless to say, I was relieved, until I ran a sync operation and all the old files and settings were pushed back onto the Treo. Suddenly, the same old problems came back to life. Once user on the forum said I need to reinstall my backup software as well (which for me meant reinstalling two applications all over again). Instead, I tried to remove just the backup files and this seemed to do the trick.

It has been three days and I've only had on random reset.

I've been in touch with PalmOne PR and hope to have more information soon. What I want to know is this:

1. How severe is this problem? How many people need to be changing SIM cards?
2. Why didn't PalmOne and Cingular notify everyone the minute they discovered this problem? How many people right now are waiting on hold with Cingular cursing their Treos?
3. Did Cingular pull the Treo off its Web site yesterday because of this problem or because of supply shortages? They'll probably say it's because of shortages, but I can't help but wonder.

Anyway, I hope this isn't a big problem, though it certainly has been a big one for me. And I'm still wondering if I should just return the thing the get on with my life (I've wasted a good 10 hours on hold, at the dealer, and futzing with the device). But, most of all, I hope other frustrated Treo users out there read this post and get to their dealer if they're having problems.

I've been putting the new Canary Wireless Wi-Fi detector through its paces and it is clearly a big improvement over other Wi-Fi detectors. Still, I think it's just a bit too bulky to find its way into my pocket on a regular basis.

It's quite a bit bigger than it appears here:

A close-Up of the LCD screen:

It does provides a great deal more information than any other detector, like signal strength and SSID. And the device does a nice job of turning itself off to conserve power.

But the size is a sticking point with me. And the LCD screen desperately needs a backlight; and because the LCD is recessed you'll need direct overhead lighting to read the display properly.

Waiting for cellphones to offer Wi-Fi detection
The HP iPAQ provided the first glimpse of a handset that could function as a decent Wi-Fi detector. But we need more handsets to begin supporting Wi-Fi, despite carrier reservations. I was disappointed at CES to find that Blackberry still has no projected date for a Wi-Fi-enabled device. And although the Treo will have an "official" Wi-Fi plug-in later this year, I'm not hearing much enthusiasm from the Palm people regarding embedding the technology. Benq demoed a device at CES, but it wasn't ready for prime time.

So I'll keep waiting and, until then, will occasionally carry along my Canary Wireless.

Another hotel chain has announced that it would offer free Wi-Fi. Microtel Inn & Suites said it will offer free Wi-Fi in all hotel rooms, along with free domestic local/long distance across all 275 locations. Despite what the hotel's press release says, this is not a "first" in the hotel industry. Far from it, this is a global industry trend that continues to gain momentum.

Hotel GMs know that people are making hotel choices based on Internet access in general and Wi-Fi in particular. And GMs are learning that it is easier to bundle "free" access into the room rate than try to nickel and dime the guests. I can attest to that; I recently stayed at two business hotels in Japan, both of which offered free in-room Internet access and free Wi-Fi in the lobbies.

The higher-end hotel chains (Four Seasons, Fairmont, Ritz) continue to hold their ground on paid Internet access, but I don't believe even this will last.

As reported in the WSJ last week, a group of California Verizon Wireless customers are suing their carrier for selling them a "disabled" Motorola V710 handset.

So let me get this right, the first "Bluetooth-enabled" handset that Verizon Wireless brought to market was disabled?

That's right.

The lawsuit rightfully contends that when a carrier advertises Bluetooth support that is must support the degree of Bluetooth that consumers come to expect. In other words, just leave the technology alone and let it work as it was intended.

Verizon wants customers to use Bluetooth only for wireless handset capabilities, not for syncing their handsets with their computers or, worse, downloading ring tones and other "premium" content from outside Verizon's walled garden. As one customer said, "It's like buying an SUV that can't go in the mud."

This is a timely lawsuit and should serve notice to all service providers who believe that consumers will passively consume what wireless features they are fed. Thanks to Wi-Fi and other wireless devices, consumers are growing both savvy and demanding about wireless technology. They know what Bluetooth is capable of and they're going to be pretty upset if anyone stands in the way of that functionality. The same goes for Wi-Fi, which is gradually making its way into carrier portfolios.

Cellular carriers want to think of themselves as cable operators, who charge a monthly fee for "basic" connectivity plus make a bunch more money from "premium content." But the walled garden only works when there are walls, and thanks to a new wave of fixed wireless upstarts and newly motivated incumbents, like SBC and BellSouth, no carrier (wired or wireless) will win by walling in their customers.

The carriers of the future will tear down the walls between wired and wireless, TV and computer, home and work. The carriers of the future will function as personal systems integrators, selling services and not pipes. Verizon Wireless and Vodafone kid themselves in thinking they can control the handset manufacturers and, as a result, the consumers; it is a stopgap measure at best. Every disabled device represents a disabled business model. The walls will fall down.

The thing that always bugged me about the McDonald's Wi-Fi rollout was the lack of decent coffee. Well, that's about to change; according to USA Today premium coffee is on its way to 13,000 locations over the next 18 months.

Add premium coffee to Wi-Fi, along with plenty of seating, and McDonald's has a nice case for attracting road warriors. The ultimate key to success will be how the Wi-Fi is offered and for how much money. But based on SBC's early actions, I'm betting it's going to be a lot less expensive than what T-Mobile charges in Starbucks locations.

This from the folks at Hotel Online:

"Wireless HSIA continued its meteoric adoption rate, with ever more hotel chains adopting it as a brand standard, usually on a free-to-guest basis. It's not clear how much longer the hold-outs can still charge for the service, especially as they don't seem to provide any significantly better quality, speed or reliability in the connection."

I agree. The "hold-outs" will charge for Wi-Fi for at least another year or two. In doing so, they will slowly lose their loyal customers to upstart hotels who embrace free Wi-Fi as a competitive amenity. When the hold-outs awaken, they will have lost market share in exchange for minimal revenues.

Tech pundit Bob Cringley's annual predictions are always a good read. Here are his wireless predictions:

->WiMax will be a huge story by summer, but widespread adoption of the wireless networking technology will take at least another two years. In the meantime, though, nobody will make money on WiFi, but it will become ubiquitous anyway, especially with the arrival of 802.11n.
( I'm not sure WiMAX can be much more of a "huge" story than it is already. I would add that Wi-Fi will become known more for the applications it supports [see below] than for simply providing Internet access.)

-> VoIP will continue to shatter the telephone industry with the arrival of WiFi phones, which might finally be the killer app for hotspots. Eventually, all the backbone suppliers will figure out that VoIP is their salvation and will either start their own VoIP companies or ally with big VoIP players.
(I agree. Wi-Fi phones [standalone or embedded within PDAs and cellular handsets] are going to give carriers a reason to invest in hotspots; they're a lot cheaper than base stations and can often be partially supported by the venue.)

-> Two thousand five will NOT be the year for UltraWide Band (UWB) networking or Power Line Networking, but both will do really well in 2006.
(After spending time at CES, it's safe to say we'll see commercial UWB products, primarily for wireless USB. However, we will also see a blending of power line and UWB technology for pretty nifty hi-def home networking. But much of this will take until 2006 I'm afraid.)

You can read Bob's full list of predictions here.

If Cisco does buy Airespace, this will be one smart purchase, akin to the Linksys deal. Airespace was making nice inroads on Cisco's market share and really understands how to help enterprises make the most of their Wi-Fi grids.

Daily Wireless reports on the forthcoming Samsung SCH-i730 PDA phone, which will include EV-DO, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. This is the perfect mix of WLAN and WAN connectivity. Now will Verizon Wireless drag its heels on supporting this device or will Sprint be first out of the gate? Either way, I believe that carriers, despite their fretting about lost minutes of use, will learn to love Wi-Fi, for it will give their EV-DO networks some much-needed breathing room.

This could be my next handset.

Dave Mock is a wireless consultant and analyst with currentofferings.com and author of the forthcoming book The Qualcomm Equation. Dave took a moment to answer a few of my burning telecoms questions...

Q: What are your thoughts about a Nextel/Sprint merger? Is this good news for US telecoms industry? Good news for consumers?
A: The Sprint/Nextel combo will have pros and cons but overall I think it’s a move in the right direction for both the industry and consumers. Nextel’s strained network will get relief and Sprint will get some very profitable channels. The different network platforms will slow the integration though – they’ll operate two networks for a while.

Q: What are your predictions about Qualcomm and China? China has been testing the two leading 3G technologies along with a homegrown technology. Any thoughts on how it will all play out?
A: I think China will push TD-SCDMA into the market somehow, with the principle purpose of leveraging a bigger role in the industry. Whether it is successful or not probably doesn’t matter as much as what it buys them. I think arguments of Qualcomm’s assertion of IPR in the standard are moot, as I don’t see it as a significant driver of royalty for them. However it plays out, CDMA and WCDMA should still develop a significant presence.

Q: EV-DO vs. HSDPA: Which do you like better, and why?
A: I like EV-DO because it’s here today. Ultimately, HSDPA promises more flexibility for operators, but it’s got some distance to go before widespread deployment.

Q: Qualcomm is becoming a network operator with its MediaFLO deployment. Why is Qualcomm doing this and do you think it will pay off?
A: Well, Qualcomm has no interest in being a network operator. But they certainly would like to see the spin-off take fire to boost demand for wireless broadband (re: their EV-DO). It’s a typical practice for them I call “seeding the market”, and it’s very forward thinking as there is not yet significant demand for streamed media. Odds are it won’t pan out well (just as several other ideas have flopped), but they only have to be right once to hit it big again.

Q: Since MediaFLO will using an ODFM technology, is this a sign that OFDM is going to drive Qualcomm's next-generation chipsets?
A: I think OFDM will play a bigger role in Qualcomm’s designs going forward (where it’s appropriate). When it comes to chipsets, Qualcomm has demonstrated competency in integrating whatever customers demand – be it GSM, WCDMA, OFDM or maybe even Wi-Fi. As long as OFDM offers performance advantages, they’ll play.

Q: Speaking of Wi-Fi, do you think that Wi-Fi-enabled handsets will hurt the success of EV-DO and other 3G technologies, or increase usage of these networks (or both)?
A: I think Wi-Fi is shaping up to be a serious threat, and this is no surprise to anyone in Qualcomm. But I think it hurts Qualcomm less than the operators, who will lose control of the channel. Regional (and municipal) Wi-Fi deployments have the biggest chance of limiting the uptake of EV-DO, and pressuring service prices. Actually, Wi-Fi itself is not the true threat – it’s the aggregation of hotspots and roaming agreements for WLANs that potentially could cut out EV-DO. But so far these efforts have failed.

Q: Should Qualcomm be frightened by WiMAX? And do you think the vendor will ultimately support WiMAX?
A: Qualcomm should be concerned about WiMAX and anything like it – and they are. The standard itself will likely be stalled to no end as it is too broad right now, but some significant decisions will be made in 2005 that could put it on the fast track or send it out to be shot. Intel’s weight shouldn’t be underestimated here, and I think they’ll be successful in getting many in the industry to adopt the standard if it comes through in marketable form.
 

Glenn makes sense of this "Wi-Fi in the air" story.

The FCC didn't just suddenly decide to allow Wi-Fi on planes. Two years ago, the FCC lobbied the ITU to allocate global satellite spectrum specifically for the purpose of providing in-flight broadband. This is not news. The news now is that the FCC will be allowing a different form of backhaul (ground to air) to the planes.

The real reason we haven't see Wi-Fi on domestic flights yet is lack of resources and vision. Domestic airlines are terrified of any new cost, regardless of whether or not they may actually profit from it. They'll come to their senses after one of the more aggressive carriers (Jet Blue?) starts deploying Wi-Fi. I also look forward to seeing data from Lufthansa that shows they are nabbing customers from competing carriers based solely on their Wi-Fi service.

And there are other, equally compelling, reasons why I believe airlines will ultimately adopt wireless broadband backhaul to their jets: telemedicine, real-time aircraft monitoring, VoIP, security, content. Like any other commercial venue, wirleess broadband in general and Wi-Fi in particular will serve many audiences and many needs.

What I want to see discussed is the use of VoIP over Wi-Fi on aircraft.
VoIP is currently allowed on at least some of the aircraft using Connexion by Boeing and yet we have the FCC taking a year to study cellular phone use on aircraft. What happens when your cellular phone has Wi-Fi embedded in it? Will a flight attendant tell you not to use your phone even if you're only using Wi-Fi?

Firetide has posted a case study on its first hotel Wi-Fi mesh deployment at a Holiday Inn in Bluefield, West Virginia (not exactly a high-profile property, but you gotta start somewhere).

I've been following Wi-Fi in hotels for a few years now and was surprised that mesh didn't find its way into these properties sooner. Anything that makes for a faster installation is going to attract the attention of general managers and integrators alike. I'm glad to see a real-world deployment.

According to the case study, the hotel used mesh routers and access points to cover the entire property (134 guest rooms, two conference rooms, the office and the pool are) in just two days. I estimate that a conventional Wi-Fi installation of this size would have taken five to seven days.

The hotel uses a DSL connection for backhaul, keeping operational costs low; a number of small hotel properties use DSL for their main connection rather than a T1 line. They'll have to upgrade as usage increases, but there's no sense is paying for what you don't yet need.

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place: Vodafone and Connexion by Boeing are working together to create a seamless "ground to air" experience for travelers.

Intel has released a few results of a survey of more than 2,000 men and women and their attitudes toward technology. The survey finds that women are more predisposed to wanting wireless-enabled laptops than men. According to the release:

Not often recognized as early adopters, women in the survey are revealed as leading the way with wireless Internet access, as more women than men believe this is one of the most important features for a laptop to have (39 percent women versus 29 percent men). While men (51 percent) and women (48 percent) agree that the airport tops the list of the most useful locations to have wireless Internet access, women (38 percent) are more likely than men (30 percent) to desire a connection in a doctor's office as well.

Wi-Fi isn't mentioned specifically, but I think that's what we're talking about here.

In a recent investor's briefing, Intel says that its Centrino (Wi-Fi) line has generated $5 billion in revenues in just two years. Not too shabby. Now Intel is aiming for the desktop. People may wonder why Wi-Fi would be useful in a desktop since it is a stationary device. For starters, wiring is a pain and always will be. But I think the larger opportunity is home monitoring and control. So many devices are going to be running on the home Wi-Fi grid that it will make sense to have all computers supporting Wi-Fi.

Finally, given such user demand for wireless devices, I wonder if Intel and Qualcomm will learn to play nice and start cranking out a line of Centrino/EV-DO devices. And why not add a Centrino/HSDPA line as well.

Yes, I know WiMAX is coming. But Intel should hedge its bets. It owns the wireless laptop market and should do all it can to keep that lead.

Siemens is getting some blazing speeds out of OFDM. It is also going to be building OFDM gear in partnership with Flarion. OFDM is becoming the technology of choice for next-generation networks. Qualcomm's on board. Wi-Fi uses it. Who's next?