"Bluetooth set to take over wireless from Wi-Fi..."

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/bluetooth_bests_wifi/print.html>

A thought-provoking article that's well worth reading in its entirety.
Here's a key portion of the article:

...

It's hard to put together a convincing forecast of anything except
chaos for Wi-Fi. Not this year, not even next year; but after that,
the 2.4 GHz band of 802.11b and 11g and 11n will become too congested
to use. Can Wi-Fi survive the public disillusionment that will
follow? I wouldn't say so.

Meanwhile, the success of Bluetooth is likely to expand. The current
spread spectrum technology at 2.4 GHz can duck ad weave around Wi-Fi
because it doesn't need to be as ambitious in terms of bit rate, and
because of its inherently more efficient use of frequencies. And by
the time 2008 starts up, I would bet quite a lump on seeing UWB
established as a de facto Bluetooth technology, for handling the high
bit-rate stuff.

If the Bluetooth SIG has the foresight to build Mesh technology into
its chosen version of UWB, then it will win. ...

What will provoke the switch to UWB and Bluetooth?

I'd say: "Laws."

Some time in the next two years, I expect to see metro area
authorities start to call for the banning of Wi-Fi except for the
networks they run themselves. They'll be happy to have residents use
the metro Wi-Fi, but they won't be happy to have their own critical
communications infrastructure sabotaged by seeing fifteen residents
each set up a powerful MIMO device on channel 11.

Precedent says that they can do it. Several airports have banned
external Wi-Fi from their territory, despite the theory that it's
licence-exempt and therefore open to anybody. If a democratically
elected body bans private radio transmissions in the area, the only
problem is policing it. And the operator of a city-wide wireless
network will have no trouble at all in triangulating onto rogue
hotspots.

That will make it necessary for people who want their own, private
access to their own, private home server, to use another technology.
Mesh-linked UWB networks will suit just fine: high speed - faster
than you need for high definition TV, anyway! - and low powered
wireless which will carry voice, data, and video without interfering
with anything else.

...

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

(E-Mail Removed) (John Navas) wrote in
news:%S6Cf.298384$(E-Mail Removed):

>If a democratically elected body bans private radio transmissions in
>the area, the only problem is policing it.

Maybe so in the UK (the apparent source of this piece), but in the
US, the FCC will certainly have a lot to say about such a practice.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)

In article <Xns97576CA4BFD8BVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>, Bert Hyman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (John Navas) wrote in
>news:%S6Cf.298384$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>>If a democratically elected body bans private radio transmissions in
>>the area, the only problem is policing it.
>
>Maybe so in the UK (the apparent source of this piece), but in the
>US, the FCC will certainly have a lot to say about such a practice.
>

Just in passing, how do you think someone becomes an FCC commissioner? Is
it a politcal appointment (spoils) job? So let's democratically elect a
President who at some point in his past was the mayor of a mid to large
city that wanted to do away with residential WiFi. Now just ask yourself
who might this newly elected President appoint to the FCC?

Now tell me again what the FCC would have to say about anything?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:35:07 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

(quoting an article on El Reg)

> Meanwhile, the success of Bluetooth is likely to expand.

The pundits say that every year, and every year, theyre wrong. Maybe
this year will be different. Maybe they'll discover intelligent life
in the Big Brother house.

> Some time in the next two years, I expect to see metro area
> authorities start to call for the banning of Wi-Fi except for the
> networks they run themselves.

They can call all they like. They don't control it in the UK.

> Precedent says that they can do it. Several airports have banned
> external Wi-Fi from their territory, despite the theory that it's
> licence-exempt and therefore open to anybody.

Airports are private property. You can ban wifi on your land too, if
you want to. Doing so is of course pretty pointless.

> If a democratically
> elected body bans private radio transmissions in the area, the only
> problem is policing it.

No, the only problem will be explaining to your voters why you wasted
all that money on defending your illegal move in the High Court.

I think someone has been reading too much propaganda.
Mark McIntyre
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> Maybe so in the UK (the apparent source of this piece), but in the
> US, the FCC will certainly have a lot to say about such a practice.

I seriously doubt it would happen in the UK either. The Radio Agency
doesn't tend to lift a finger unless there's a complaint from a proper
official body such as the CAA, police, BBC, fire etc. They certainly
aren't interested in policing Joe Bloggs with a wifi router at home.

The cited case of airports is specific as they are privately owned and
so I wouldn't see a problem in enforcing radio transmissions on private
property any less than a corporation could do so with an overlay
solution such as Airmagnet/Airdefense etc. They might have difficulty
doing it from a legal point of view though.

Quick question, how many people do you think forget to turn off their
mobile phone when on an aircraft? How effectively is that policed?

David.

David Taylor wrote:
>

> I seriously doubt it would happen in the UK either. The Radio Agency

http://www.radio.gov.uk/

> David.

> http://www.radio.gov.uk/

Thanks for that, I only ever got to speak to them twice and that was
probably just before their demise.

Ofcom seem equally uninterested in pretty much anything enforcement
wise, more interested in creating paperwork.

David.

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
(...)

It's interesting to note that the recent crop of Nikon digital cameras
use 802.11g Wi-Fi and not Bluetooth. Nikon CoolPix P1 and S6 are
802.11g while the D2H is 802.11b. No Bluetooth from anyone yet.
There's rumors of a Wi-Fi camcorder, but no real products yet.
Methinks it's too soon to declare Bluetooth the eventual winner.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:17:12
-0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>(...)
>
>It's interesting to note that the recent crop of Nikon digital cameras
>use 802.11g Wi-Fi and not Bluetooth. Nikon CoolPix P1 and S6 are
>802.11g while the D2H is 802.11b. No Bluetooth from anyone yet.
>There's rumors of a Wi-Fi camcorder, but no real products yet.
>Methinks it's too soon to declare Bluetooth the eventual winner.

By most accounts, Nikon Wi-Fi has been a flop, panned by reviewers and
customers alike. Look for Canon or Sony to make wireless happen.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:48:08 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:17:12
>-0800, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>(...)
>>
>>It's interesting to note that the recent crop of Nikon digital cameras
>>use 802.11g Wi-Fi and not Bluetooth. Nikon CoolPix P1 and S6 are
>>802.11g while the D2H is 802.11b. No Bluetooth from anyone yet.
>>There's rumors of a Wi-Fi camcorder, but no real products yet.
>>Methinks it's too soon to declare Bluetooth the eventual winner.

>By most accounts, Nikon Wi-Fi has been a flop, panned by reviewers and
>customers alike. Look for Canon or Sony to make wireless happen.

Review of Nikon CoolPix P1 wireless:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p1_pg5.html
In the conclusions at:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p1_pg6.html
he says:
"The WiFi features were simple to setup and use. Using the
supplied software it was easy to get the camera to talk to
my D-Link 802.11g router and transfer photos. It really does
work as advertised as long as you are within the operating
limits of your router."
That doesn't sound too horrible.

Here's another review that says he likes the wireless:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/con...Conclusion.htm

PC Magazine doesn't seem to like the wireless features:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1882077,00.asp
They complained that it was difficult to setup with a wireless hot
spot. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but it had them
stumped. As usual, they had trouble with WEP. My guess is the usual
ASCII to Hex conversion problem. They also complained that one
couldn't take photos and send them via wireless at the same time. If
that is how they use the camera, little wonder they failed to be
impressed.

I didn't realize the Kodak also made a Wi-Fi digital camera:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1882074,00.asp
PC Mag seems to like it better than the Nikon Coolpix P1.

Anyway, that's now 4 cameras with Wi-Fi and zero with Bluetooth, which
was my original point.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS