A Discomforting Precedent For WiFi "Hot Spots"

rob.sharp writes: "The BBC have some history lessons for wireless networks ...", pointing to an article about a wireless phone service called Rabbit, which relied on access areas similar in concept to the WiFi "hot spots" ISPs and business are experimenting with around the globe right now. ("Subscribers to the service, backed by Hutchison Whampoa, could make mobile calls when they were within 100 metres of a Rabbit transmitter.") Rabbit didn't work out well, though, and the article questions whether 802.11 access providers can do any better.

Mobile Phones are not for this technology

[Tall Rob Mc]

Its no wonder that the Rabbit system failed. Requiring a mobile phone user to be within 100 meters of a station is extremely limiting. The idea of a mobile phone is that you can use it far from the receiving antenna. There are cordless phones on the market that have ranges of nearly 100 meters from their base station. The Rabbit idea sounds horrible.

what the hell is the author on?

[topham]

Read the article and you'll see that Rabbit failed because there was an always-on functional equivilent.

Can anybody please point to the always on alternative to WiFi networks?

Ok, now that you've mentioned G3, can you find it where I live? No. Ok, lets try again, oh CDCP? Sure, we have it, Lets see, its 19.2K (Higher with compression, WOW!).... WiFi is what? Up to 11Mbps?

The article might be right, but only if something with equivilent speed is more readily available... which it isn't, yet.

Rabbit didn't fail because it was hotspotted

[blowdart]

Rabbit, et al, were implemented as CT2 technology at the end of the 1980s. Four operators were licensed to operate phonepoint (or equivalent) systems. When a user wanted to make a call from a mobile phone, they would lock onto the nearest low-power transmitter; with the aim to place transmitters would be in shops, tube stations, and so on and there would be few gaps in coverage in urban areas.

There was no mobility, as once a call had been set up through one base station it could not be transferred to another, also you could not take incoming calls (unless you were at home, where it worked like a cordless phone).

Rabbit failed because "proper" mobiles (albeit analogue) were taking off and moving from the brick car phone models, and they allowed incoming calls, and movement from cell to cell.

It's a bit diffrenent here

[_LORAX_]

Wi-Fi cards have many uses BESIDE use at a hotspot. If Rabbit allowed someone to go from airport to airport, home, work, coffie shop, ... ( Highway ). Wi-Fi is supported by a raft of inexpensive interchangable devices that can be used with any interoperable equipment.

So if I already have a card and I wander into a hotspot I am much more likley to use it. This is much diffrent from purchacing equipment that MUST be used in specific locations.

So Wi-Fi hotspots are taking advantage of what people ALREADY OWN. I can't wander into a coffiee shop or an airport nowadays WITHOUT seeing a laptop out if not a dozen. Comparing this to rabbit would be like trying hotspots in the early 90's, nobody really had the equipment and it would be doomed to fail.

Re:Mobile Phones are not for this technology

[An IPv6 obsessed guy]

You're exactly right. It's almost completely apples and oranges.

When I'm on my cell phone, I want to be able to walk, drive and basically go anywhere.

When I'm on my wireless network, I want to be able to go from my desk to my couch. I might even want to walk down to the cafe and use my laptop there, but I'm certainly not going to be typing on my laptop as I walk to the cafe, and I'm DEFINITELY not going to use my laptop while I'm driving somewhere.