Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Long distance WiFi rule could be just 10 days away

By | September 13, 2010, 5:00am PDT

Summary: Imagine. Easily networked hotspots, with omnidirectional antennas that can find fiber, not just the pitiful excuse for broadband your phone or cable monopoly sells.

The FCC is due to meet on September 23, and on its agenda is a proposal on white spaces. (The picture is from the UK’s Ofcom regulator, which is also exploring white space radios.)

This should matter to you. If, as expected, the FCC adopts a rule on white spaces, WiFi will have vast new territories to develop, frequencies where devices can use higher power, where signals can travel for miles and even go through walls.

Neeraj Srivaspaba, a vice president for marketing and business development at Spectrum Bridge Inc. in Lake Mary, FL, has been using white spaces under experimental license for nearly two years and says objections from broadcasters and cordless microphone makers have been solved.

Each project under the experimental license has a one-year shelf life, he noted.

White spaces are tough to define as unlicensed because the frequencies available differ from market-to-market. Big cities have more stations than others, and thus less frequency that can be safely used without interference.

The answer, Srivaspaba says, is a geolocation database.

“The idea is the radio uses GPS or cell towers – some form of geo-location,” before it can start transmitting, he explained.

“It has to figure out its latitude and longitude. This is sent to the database,” over an Internet connection, “and the database tells it the channels it can use. We’ve built this database covering the entire U.S.. Any latitude and longitude, we can tell the device what frequencies to use.”

With the technical problems solved, there remain only political problems. Will owners of licensed frequencies try to stop this move to expand WiFi?

The experiments Spectrum Bridge has worked on may overcome those objections, too:

  • In Claudville, Virginia, Spectrum Bridge brought broadband to a town that never had it before.
  • For Plumas County, California, Spectrum Bridge built a smart grid, giving the local co-op access to sub-stations and consumers control of their electric meters.
  • In Wilmington, NC, Spectrum Bridge worked with the city to deliver traffic monitoring, security cameras, public WiFi hotspots, and water monitoring for rivers and estuaries.
  • For Hocking Valley Community Hospital in Logan, Ohio, Spectrum Bridge delivered WiFi to patients and their families.

In most of these cases, white space radios provided long distance services to WiFi radios. The radios themselves weren’t fancy — just converted AirSpan WiMax gear — and no attempt was made to encode for maximum throughput.

That will be the work of a new IEEE committee dubbed 801.11AF802.11AF, Srivaspaba said. And once the FCC gives the go-ahead, both that committee and the equipment market can go into overdrive.

Imagine. Easily networked hotspots, with omnidirectional antennas that can find fiber, not just the pitiful excuse for broadband your phone or cable monopoly sells.

I’m psyched. Are you?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

50
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Long distance WiFi rule could be just 10 days away
William_P 20th Sep 2010
@Drakaran In rural areas, where this would have impact, the local telcos still own the lines.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll be suprised if it happens...
BitTwiddler 13th Sep 2010
The big Telco's will do their damnedest to stop this. Their overpriced, old-school networks must not be allowed to have competition as they see it.

Sadly, they have lobbyists. The average consumer doesn't. In theory, the people we elect are supposed to be our lobbyists but we all know how well that works for us.
0 Votes
+ -
Lets send a message to congress
Uralbas 13th Sep 2010
Rack up signatures and let them know, that if they bend over for Telco's they will all be out of a job next term.
0 Votes
+ -
Question lies in your resolve
Uralbas 13th Sep 2010
Does your personal freedom outweigh your political thoughts?
0 Votes
+ -
@Uralbas - The legislators are not stupid. They know the voter rarely, if ever, can make a threat stick. That is why, after hundreds of years of a republic, they still do whatever the hell they want to. Now, if we could vote on them weekly, at home, electronically, they would have to be more responsive.
0 Votes
+ -
@BitTwiddler I asked about this. So far the telcos have not been involved in this at all.
@DanaBlankenhorn
Wrong - the telcos are lobbying for "rebanding". The rebanding will remove open unlicensed use and sell more of the spectrum to the big telcos.
to be your lobbyist. So, explain to me how that logic works.
@BitTwiddler
Actually, in many places, the large phone companies no longer own the lines, they rent them. They're replacing with fiber and towers instead.

I'm sure they would be even happier to use towers instead of running line and just drop renting. So, no surprise to me they aren't shouting.
@Drakaran In rural areas, where this would have impact, the local telcos still own the lines.
@BitTwiddler If you can get up some kind of patition to make sure that will not happen and send it to all of congrus leaders. ( sorry for the spelling.) Make them understand that, as I for one, am on social security and can't afford the prices they are asking now for sub stander connections, and have to depend on Hot Spots for my internet. They should be ashamed of them selves, greed knows no boundarys. I'm 66 and I really depend on the internet for information on things that I suffer from.
@jpe98@... I have been in a battle with Verizon since Dec. 18th, 2009 about their offers, promotions, equipment, and billing practices to access Unlimited WiFi Broadband. After numerous justifications/rationalizations, out and out 'misrepresented' statements (lies), and inept support, information sharing, polices from Sales Offices, Customer Service Reps/Supervisors, Tech support reps/Supervisors, Accounting, Corporate Office (which at one point in May, 2010, I was told by CS Supervisor "Verizon does not have a Corporate Office") etc., that NOW I am required to PAY for additional data (hits) over 5mgs per month.
I've had my account 'reassessed' three times since December, re-billed, and reassured as many times, that I had Unlimited Access, Unlimited Data and Text on both Cell Phone and MiFi Broadband devices. I have NEVER received a billing for ANY of the original or changed agreements, received ANY consideration for THEIR PROVEN ERRORS OR MIS-INFORMATION, and continue to fall victim to their Breeches of this required 2 year contract.
My last email contact representative, in August, has NOT responded to my dilemma. It was he, who informed me Verizon quit offering Unlimited Broadband in December 2008!!!!!! He had/has no answer to my question of "Why for these 8 months have I been "sold and re-sold" AND ASSURED of this "Unlimited Broadband Plan"?
My research of this problem comes to my questions for you:
1. Can company's like this legally charge, on a hit by hit basis, over and above established "Access Charges" for satellite, fiber, cable "signal"?
2. FCC 'view' on this?
3. Are there any other 'regulatory' entity's?
3. Possible Privacy Policy breeches on their (IE: Verizon) monitoring MY data hits on Internet?
4. My MIFI is capable of 5-device "hot-spot" - no way to discern from billing WHO accessed my signal. I only have one PC utilizing signal now, and was anticipating 3 more units (depending on "ability" of unit to be connected*).
5. Has what I need in communications Dependability, Efficiency and Affordability for us consumers even been invented yet???


*this refers to the other "problem", at the same time, I was dealing with, with Verizon --- a WHOLE 'NOTHER FIASCO!!!
0 Votes
+ -
@BitTwiddler I think you're right, but I also think a way to get their foot in the door is to keep going the way they've started, and bringing service to smaller communities first...
Today, Podunk, South Dakota, Tomorrow, the WORLD!!! mwuhhaaahahahahahahaha!!! >:)
Seriously, it's a great thing, and I hope they win in some way.
Am I the only one with a nagging concern about the amount of microwave radiation we are exposing ourselves to with Wi-Fi, and how that would increase with this new development? I have read one source that compares passive microwave radiation to cigarette smoke in it's ability to cause cancer, and this worries me a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I am an Internet professional and a geek through-and-through, but I am also a parent and family member who has seen too much suffering caused by cancer.
0 Votes
+ -
You are not!
happyharry_z 13th Sep 2010
@Biz-Zone As it has been in all too many cases, the business side wins out over health issues. Cell phones are used with impunity, yet we forget the concerns we had not so long ago about our microwave ovens leaking. It's not like there hasn't been a lot of studies either.
@Biz-Zone - I have conversed with people who claimed to be hypersensitive to radio/TV/WiFi signals, and since I know a few people with fibro I didn't simply dismiss their claims as hogwash (as many doctors STILL do with fibro)... but I also know from physics class that sunlight is electro-magnetic radiation, too. Yeah, it's in the terahertz range, but it's still physically the same thing as WiFi/TV/radio waves (and human-audible sound, from 20 Hz to 20 kilohertz).

Those people were not interested in sitting in a faraday room for a few hours to see if it helped, by the way.
@Darr247 I would LOVE to take part in a study like that - my issue is actually opposite, I cause interference with WiFi, Tv/Radio ! Radios lose their lock when I am near - odd phenomenon - it has no physiological effect on me that I am aware of, perhaps too many CAT scans, and MRI's ?
@Darr247 There's very little evidence of people being sensitive to RF. But some animals are able to sense the earth's magnetic field and navigate with it, which is an even lower energy phenomena. So who knows. On the other hand, I've seen videos of some of these people. For example, one guy up in Norway or some-such, who goes nuts when the interviewer's cell phone rings. Thing is, that cellphone was transmitting the whole time, keeping in sync with the cell tower, or the call wouldn't come through. And in fact, he's getting more RF from that than from the incoming voice signals.

There's no known damaging effect on cells from non-ionizing radiation -- just not enough energy there. Sunlight isn't even a fair comparison, because UV is ionizing radiation... dramatically more powerful than any radio signals passing through your house.

Allowing WiFi of some kind in the whitespaces would be exactly the same as allowing more television channels at those same channels. Sure, if you're a user of this stuff, you'll get some higher level signals during a transmit, but even these have been, so far, very controlled for the whitespaces (current rules, in fact, so restrictive there's not much value). In-home Wifi devices are usually limited to 100mW. Your cell phone probably doesn't transmit over 1W, though technically, cellular devices can got to 3W (usually just via a fixed booster amp).
0 Votes
+ -
nefarious effects
znusr Updated - 13th Sep 2010
To the extend that some phenomenon lacks definitive studies on its effect, all kinds of nefarious effects can be ascribed to it. Low level microwave radiation is a perfect example. If we could "see" this radiation, we would notice a faint glow all around. Cities and towns would be brighter than country sides. Cell towers and radio antennas would be bright spots, falling off as 1/r 2 .

Radio waves have been around since the late 1800's, and high powered radios (AM/FM/TV) since the 50's. There is no evidence in the last 60 years or so that any one living near these sources of electromagnetic radiation are being harmed. Cell phone and Wifi microwave transmissions really started taking off in the late 70's and 80's, and now, of course, they're everywhere. If there is some incredibly harmful effect is happening to people because of this, it has yet to be noticed. That doesn't mean it something isn't occurring, just that whatever the effect might be (if any), it hasn't risen above the statistical noise level.

But nature doesn't care. The only thing nature is concerned with is survival of genetic information to the next generation. Life survives moment by moment. So far, life on this planet has made it a few billion years, but each successive moment must be survived again and the next yet again. People have values and belief systems and a intellect that can abstract the world, manipulate that abstraction, and then take actions that profoundly alter the environment. But nature doesn't worry about human belief systems, or whether people are happy and healthy, nature only cares about survival.

If society was truly analytical about the effects people were making to the planet, we would stop everything, wait 10, 20, 50 years to see what was really happening, then take another tiny step. If the world took that approach, global climate change would not be of concern.

But we don't do that, we rush pell mell into the future. The survival of the family (your genetic information) having the highest priority. As Biz-Zone said it "I'm a parent and family member..." - my family comes first. We experiment on a global scale with technology, assuming if something goes wrong, we can come up with a fix before catastrophe. We dress all this up with the wonderful word "progress", the world is always making progress. In reality, it is survival, by hook or crook, whatever works, moment by moment.
0 Votes
+ -
High Levels of EM Radiation
tculler@... 13th Sep 2010
@Biz-Zone Didn't it work out well for Desmond on 'Lost'? I think I'm seeing some time-travel benefits here.... fire me up a few WiMax WhiteSpace routers and I can get back and invest money from selling my El Camino into Apple, Microsoft, and Pets.com stock.
"That will be the work of a new IEEE committee dubbed 801.11AF, Srivaspaba said."

Are you sure that working group won't be 802.11af ?

801.11 doesn't cover wireless, that I'm aware of.
Mistaken transcription?
0 Votes
+ -
@Darr247 You're right. IT's the same group as the other 802.11. I mis-typed and will correct it immediately.Thanks for the catch.
As a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Hard Knocks, I offer this wisdom. Politicians don't get themselves elected to help ease the burdens of mankind. They do it to benefit only themselves. If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself.
Long distance Wi-Fi will happen only if the pockets of the politicians who can make it happen are properly greased.
@Micromush Write your Politicians and let them know, "You're MAD AS HELL!!! And you're not going to take it any more!!!" I DARE YOU !!!! CHICKENS!!! Prove me wrong, you won't.
@jpe98@...

Actually, I do as you suggested "let them know" on an almost daily basis. My in-box gets replies from them routinely, as does my snail mail box.
0 Votes
+ -
@Micromush Given your level of cynicism, perhaps you would prefer to something other than a democracy? And some system other than freedom?

A free society depends on an assumption of goodwill. Absent that, you're better off in some other system.
@Micromush Actually, its not that cut and dry. Politicians get elected to have power. Sometimes this is defensive in nature, to prevent the other guy from implementing programs that are considered negative to the first guy. Defensive guys usually only rise to the level needed to perform that function.

This is not to say they cannot become seduced or corrupted after the fact, just that "benefit" can have both positive and negative results depending on the real reasoning for that person to seek office. Sometimes people just want to be seen as this great idea guy, so the benefit for them is fame, but can still potentially result in benefits for society as a whole.
0 Votes
+ -
White space usage.
Catmandu1 13th Sep 2010
Personally, I would love it (depending on cost, as always). Professionally, the wireless mic users and makers would suffer. Why not auction off dedicated frequencies as is currently the norm, not just hopping on "unused" white spaces which might not be inactive 100% of the day, re: stage & comm wireless mics.
0 Votes
+ -
@Catmandu1 I don't think the wireless mic objections are terribly serious. Look at the distances, and the power output, for the two different services.
0 Votes
+ -
@DanaBlankenhorn Also the frequency range and type of signals being used.
@DanaBlankenhorn The concern is still that you'd have whitespace internet stepping on the use of the wireless mics. Again, pretty easy to deal with for the 50 or so licensed users, and not an issue for those using them illegally.
@DanaBlankenhorn As an end user of wireless mic and comm systems, I depend on frequency agile receivers to spot "in-use" frequencies (mostly in the 700 MHz area). I spend a lot of time coordinating temporary usage based on known, fixed or strong transmitters. Think large convention or sporting events. Most of our "mobile" transmitters are limited to 100 milliwatts (or less!) and are strictly analog signals. When our signals get stepped on by some unit with even several watts, we don't have time to re-program every transmitter/receiver pair.

Some of the larger manufacturers of handheld wireless (Shure, Sennheiser, LectroSonics, and others) are working hard to keep some of those white spaces available for temporary, and therefore unlicensed, transmissions.

I foresee that long distance WiFi (even the AirMAX solution) will be opportunistic in selecting frequencies with low power signal usage and knock us right off the air.
@Catmandu1 The problem isn't so much the wireless mics being used properly. Everyone using these legally has a license, and they could easily arrange to be "on the map" as far as use goes, just as they will with television. The problem is that most of the users are using them without licenses, and there's no way to know where they are going to be used.

The reason they're not auctioning off the frequencies is simple: this is a huge block of the choicest spectrum available, and most of it's not in use, ever. There is no other spectrum with the same value that hasn't already been sold.
@dave@... There are no licenses that I know of covering the uses of "white spaces". We buy or rent wireless units from vendors or manufacturers and then have to figure out (with the use of RF spectrum analyzers) just which bands and frequencies to use at a particular venue. Gets very crowded out there sometimes.

Our mobile transmitters generally operate around the 700 - 900 MHz area with analog FM signals of about 100 milliwatts or less.

The manufacturers are not likely to cough up several billions to buy spectrum but the next step might be digital, encrypted, signals and spread-spectum frequency hopping.

Stay tuned!
I've read that South Korea has uniform 100Mbps broadband in most of the country, as the result of a concerted government push to get it rolled out to everyone. At home, I have 3Mbps down/768kbps up on Verizon DSL. If South Korea can do it, we not the US, maybe as part of stimulus funding?
@glnz My Son is in the U.S. Air Force, and was recently TDY (Temporary Duty) to S. Korea - the "public" broadband (off-base only) he said was down more than it was up - I cannot imagine the budgeting issues they must have if maintenance is a constant struggle ! I think it is more than possible to do that Stateside - look at the new Sprint phones that become a public (if desired by the owner !) hot-spot ! The political slowdown has cancelled out any speed bursts from technology.
0 Votes
+ -
@glnz I happen to agree with you. Are the South Korean leaders all in it for themselves, without thought to the people or society? I doubt it. I think we can say the same about American leaders.
0 Votes
+ -
@glnz A couple of issues. First of all, South Korea is tiny... about the size of Portugal. Both Koreas together would fit in Minnesota. So we have a very different problem than they do... they have a population density that makes fibre a pretty good solution for just about everyone.

And then, of course, this is a concerted government effort. And it's not over... this same Korea Communications Commission is pushing for 1Gb/s by 2012. This will cost US$24.6 billion and create 120,000 jobs, they say.

There was/is a stimulus program for rural internet expansion, but sadly, most of the telcos have been trying to figure out how to get the money without really hooking up us folks in the rural areas (I'm on Hugesnet, the only broadband I can get, $120/month for 1.5Mb/s down, with a daily high-speed cap of 500MB).

Anyway, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 tagged $7.2 billion for this.. just over 1/3 of what South Korea is spending, for an area 100x larger. Now, sure, the goal is to get private enterprise spending some of their money along with the Federal grants. But this is the reality... we're pretty much talking about ANY practical broadband here, not boosting my hookup from 100Mb/s to 1000Mb/s. We are insanely behind the rest of the world.

Now, there's some hope. Wireless is certainly a better solution that wired for large areas with few people. Real 4G (which is not Sprint/Clear/Comcast's first generation WiMax, nor AT&T or Verizon's first generation LTE) that meets the ITU spec delivers 100Mb/s for mobile, 1000Mb/s for fixed installations. Of course, as long as it's Verizon and Sprint and the other guys, this isn't going to seem like "real" broadband anyway, as they're certainly metering your monthly use, precluding many of the uses of modern wired broadband (Netflix, etc) anyway.

I'm still hoping that LTE actually does get a rural rollout, with a plan that's better than the satellite. That's one place the telcos could suck up some of that stimulus money without really having to play games.
0 Votes
+ -
What happens when the crunch hits?
mark@... 13th Sep 2010
There are some potential future problems. What happens, for example, when a new television station gets licensed and all those existing whitespace devices stop working because they are now in a locaiton with no available channels? What happens when this stuff catches on in a big way and there is the inevitable demand for more room, and people want to push broadcasters off the air to create it?
0 Votes
+ -
@mark@... You can change the database if new licenses are given out, but I'm not aware of anyone applying to run a TV station.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Long distance WiFi rule could be just 10 days away
fatman65535 Updated - 13th Sep 2010
IMHO, this could be more useful in rural areas specifically because there are fewer TV stations in any given area; thus providing more available channels for operation. It is the `last mile` cost of coax or fiber makes high speed broadband economically difficult in areas where the population density is low.

If the FCC were to allow higher power operations in rural areas to be co-located on existing TV towers providing that TV station a coverage pattern that is not affected by the interference of a Wi-Fi installation. Think in terms of the area covered by two intersecting coverage circles, one being the TV station, and the other a Wi-Fi transmitter. If both signals come from the same tower, then the relative signal strengths will be even through the service area. Another thing that has not been explored is the use of unused ATSC bit streams on existing stations. ATSC (aka digital stations) can broadcast more than one data stream (or program - the PBS stations in my area broadcast 4 EACH). This unused capacity could be a source of income for a TV broadcaster who pairs up with a Wi-Fi operator to make additional down stream capacity.

In high density urban and suburban locations, coverage areas need to be kept to a minimum to allow effective re-use of available channels.

But, in either case, back haul is going to be the problem; no matter how many transmitter locations you have, you still need to connect to the internet unless you expect some kind of `mesh` network relaying packets from one transmitter to another until an internet gateway is found. In a `mesh` with capacity constraints, all of those packets being passed back and forth just eat into useful capacity, so I doubt that will be a viable long term solution. Back haul, whether it be for 3G, 4G or Wi-Fi is going to be the limiting factor. That needs to be addressed too.
0 Votes
+ -
Big brother would love this
balsover 13th Sep 2010
Now your mobile internet connection would be informing anyone interested in your location exactly where you are at any given second (within a couple of feet) , doesn't that sound wonderful?
0 Votes
+ -
nefarious effects
znusr Updated - 13th Sep 2010
To the extend that some phenomenon lacks definitive studies on its effect, all kinds of nefarious effects can be ascribed to it. Low level microwave radiation is a perfect example. If we could "see" this radiation, we would notice a faint glow all around. Cities and towns would be brighter than country sides. Cell towers and radio antennas would be bright spots, falling off as 1/r 2 .

Radio waves have been around since the late 1800's, and high powered radios (AM/FM/TV) since the 50's. There is no evidence in the last 60 years or so that any one living near these sources of electromagnetic radiation are being harmed. Cell phone and Wifi microwave transmissions really started taking off in the late 70's and 80's, and now, of course, they're everywhere. If there is some incredibly harmful effect is happening to people because of this, it has yet to be noticed. That doesn't mean it something isn't occurring, just that whatever the effect might be (if any), it hasn't risen above the statistical noise level.

But nature doesn't care. The only thing nature is concerned with is survival of genetic information to the next generation. Life survives moment by moment. So far, life on this planet has made it a few billion years, but each successive moment must be survived again and the next yet again. People have values and belief systems and a intellect that can abstract the world, manipulate that abstraction, and then take actions that profoundly alter the environment. But nature doesn't worry about human belief systems, or whether people are happy and healthy, nature only cares about survival.

If society was truly analytical about the effects people were making to the planet, we would stop everything, wait 10, 20, 50 years to see what was really happening, then take another tiny step. If the world took that approach, global climate change would not be a concern.

But we don't do that, we rush pell mell into the future. The survival of the family (your genetic information) having the highest priority. Biz-Zone said it "I'm a parent and family member..." - my family comes first. We experiment on a global scale with technology, assuming if something goes wrong, we can come up with a fix before catastrophe. We dress all this up with the wonderful word "progress", the world is always making progress. In reality, it is survival, by hook or crook, whatever works, moment by moment.
Spock, Make it So!
Am I missing something here? How can you communicate with a higher power system without having a local higher power transmitter/modem located next to your computer/phone?
0 Votes
+ -
@Jackums21 You can do it the same way that cell carriers do it now, if I'm understanding your question...
The same way that tiny little low power USB network adapters work now, they can work for this too, just on a different frequency...
@Jackums21 Think of it as little circles of radiation within the sphere of the biggest transmitter (coupled with a sensitive receiver).
0 Votes
+ -
I think that they ought to fix the damned digital TV carrier problems first. All Stations in my area are in a 60 degree arc, under 15 miles away. I have tried 3 different antennas and still have to tweak my omnidirectional, amplified, antenna when I switch channels.
0 Votes
+ -
I am psyched too!
donnydo77@... 16th Sep 2010
Thanks for the report. Funny picture but the examples give more info on the possibilities too.
Isn't this a form of frequency hopping within a specific spectrum at each location? That is, the range is obtained by linking coordinated transcievers sited at specific locations that monitor the available bandwidth? I'll check the links for more info so appreciate the prompt.
0 Votes
+ -
WiMax is ringing a bell
Maarek 20th Sep 2010
Sprint will be pissed. But the service will be like any other data service, a monthly service charge for a limited amount of data.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix