AT&T has nearly 80,000 Wi-Fi hotspots, including roaming locations.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:08:17 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>At 13 Dec 2008 15:10:36 -0800 John Navas wrote:

>> * WiMAX is 3G, not 4G
>
>Not according to the trades, or the players involved, e.g.:
><http://www2.nortel.com/go/solution_c...0&parId=0&prod
>_id=61702>

The players involved are of course not a good source of accurate
information, and the trades aren't much better -- see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g>

>> * I was referring to Wi-Fi versus WiMAX, not cellular
>
>My mistake, sorry. In that case the answer is clear- a spotty (if you'll
>pardon the pun) hotspot network, even with 80,000 locations can't compete
>with a more ubiquitous technology like WiMax should eventually be.

Maybe, but that depends on how well WiMAX proves to work in practice.

>I
>suspect, like with T-Mo, AT&T Hotspots will primarily be used by those who
>get it for "free" (bundled with a different AT&T service, like broadband
>DSL or wireless.)

Or Starbucks. Agreed.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

---

› See More: AT&T has nearly 80,000 Wi-Fi hotspots, including roaming locations.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:31:44 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> * I was referring to Wi-Fi versus WiMAX, not cellular
>>
>>
>> My mistake, sorry. In that case the answer is clear- a spotty (if
>> you'll pardon the pun) hotspot network, even with 80,000 locations
>> can't compete with a more ubiquitous technology like WiMax should
>> eventually be. I suspect, like with T-Mo, AT&T Hotspots will
>> primarily be used by those who get it for "free" (bundled with a
>> different AT&T service, like broadband DSL or wireless.)
>
>That thinking, wifi VS Wimax is all wrong. Look at the videos:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/results?
>search_query=wifi+wimax+handoff&search_type=&aq=f
>
>They're going to seamlessly hand of from your wifi, or hotspot TO the
>Wimax system as you leave the house....use Wimax while you're on the go
>and NOT near a wifi hotspot....then, hand off from Wimax to the hotspot
>or home as soon as you arrive, unloading you and your VoIP calls onto
>the wifi hotspots where you don't have to pay for mobile Wimax or use up
>its resources.

Only in their dreams. LOL! There's a huge gap between that laboratory
curiosity and ubiquitous real world deployment. Those "seamless"
handoffs can also occur with Wi-Fi, but in the real world they don't --
too many deployment issues. WISPr? What's that? WiMAX<>Wi-Fi will be
even more problematic. What is going to work is a single Wi-Fi network
of 80,000 hotspots (if that's the number).
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:20:06 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:02:06 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Good for AT&T, because Wi-Fi is free and available, unlike cellular
>>>> spectrum, a win-win. But will it be competitive with WiMAX over the
>>>> long term? Only time will tell.
>>
>>>John, have you seen the youtube videos of them handing to/from between
>>>wifi and Wimax? Very cool....(c;]
>>
>> No -- got a link? Thanks.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYtGG2bTEpg
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8gNGCGI-EI
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0awIw7PNY
>
>http://www.youtube.com/results?
>search_query=wifi+wimax+handoff&search_type=&aq=f
>
>It's going to be a great ride off this sellphone merry-go-round.

Thanks -- that's what I thought. But only in their dreams. LOL!
There's a huge gap between that laboratory curiosity and ubiquitous real
world deployment. Those "seamless" handoffs can also occur with Wi-Fi,
but in the real world they don't -- too many deployment issues. WISPr?
What's that? WiMAX<>Wi-Fi will be even more problematic. What is going
to work is a single Wi-Fi network of 80,000 hotspots (if that's the
number).
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

At 14 Dec 2008 08:08:47 -0800 John Navas wrote:

> >IMO, what'll really make WiMax viable short-term is Sprint's upcoming
> >EVDO/WiMax combo service that falls back to Sprint's EVDO network when
> >WiMax isn't available.
>
> But only in a single carrier sense, not seamless roaming across
> carriers.


Sprint < > Clear should be ubiquitous enough for a large percentage of the
population, I'd think...

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news[email protected]:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:08:17 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>At 13 Dec 2008 15:10:36 -0800 John Navas wrote:
>
>>> * WiMAX is 3G, not 4G
>>
>>Not according to the trades, or the players involved, e.g.:
>><http://www2.nortel.com/go/solution_c...atId=0&parId=0
>>&prod _id=61702>
>
> The players involved are of course not a good source of accurate
> information, and the trades aren't much better -- see
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g>
>

Who would call one source unreliable and then point to a wiki as being
better?


>>> * I was referring to Wi-Fi versus WiMAX, not cellular
>>
>>My mistake, sorry. In that case the answer is clear- a spotty (if
>>you'll pardon the pun) hotspot network, even with 80,000 locations
>>can't compete with a more ubiquitous technology like WiMax should
>>eventually be.
>
> Maybe, but that depends on how well WiMAX proves to work in practice.


It's working like a charm. If you didn't have your head firmly planted up
your ass you would know that- it has been the subject of numerous articles
in the last three months.

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:31:44 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> * I was referring to Wi-Fi versus WiMAX, not cellular
>>>
>>>
>>> My mistake, sorry. In that case the answer is clear- a spotty (if
>>> you'll pardon the pun) hotspot network, even with 80,000 locations
>>> can't compete with a more ubiquitous technology like WiMax should
>>> eventually be. I suspect, like with T-Mo, AT&T Hotspots will
>>> primarily be used by those who get it for "free" (bundled with a
>>> different AT&T service, like broadband DSL or wireless.)
>>
>>That thinking, wifi VS Wimax is all wrong. Look at the videos:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/results?
>>search_query=wifi+wimax+handoff&search_type=&aq=f
>>
>>They're going to seamlessly hand of from your wifi, or hotspot TO the
>>Wimax system as you leave the house....use Wimax while you're on the go
>>and NOT near a wifi hotspot....then, hand off from Wimax to the hotspot
>>or home as soon as you arrive, unloading you and your VoIP calls onto
>>the wifi hotspots where you don't have to pay for mobile Wimax or use up
>>its resources.
>
> Only in their dreams. LOL! There's a huge gap between that laboratory
> curiosity and ubiquitous real world deployment.


Yo, Novice- real world deployment with paying customers has been going on
for months. You truly are clueless.


Those "seamless"
> handoffs can also occur with Wi-Fi, but in the real world they don't --
> too many deployment issues.


There's a huge gap between that laboratory curiosity and ubiquitous real
world deployment.

Notice how your own words are far more accurate when applied to your
statement.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I find it ironic that for years you've been *****ing about the lousy
> range of handheld cellphones vs. old bagphones, and suddenly you're
> willing to ditch cellular for either metro-only Cricket service or the
> promise of metro-only WiMax.
>
>

Times change. I'm retired, now, and not a slave to the phone any more for
my living. Hey! Wednesday is another PAYDAY!....Thank you for your
contribution....(c;

In article <[email protected]>, The Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >>> * WiMAX is 3G, not 4G
> >>
> >>Not according to the trades, or the players involved, e.g.:
> >><http://www2.nortel.com/go/solution_c...atId=0&parId=0
> >>&prod _id=61702>
> >
> > The players involved are of course not a good source of accurate
> > information, and the trades aren't much better -- see
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4g>
>
> Who would call one source unreliable and then point to a wiki as being
> better?

hilarious.