Verizon Wireless - The Global Communications Network

[ravious]

The Global Communications Network

As it stands we have thousands of communication service providers in the world today. Each offering one or several types of the following types of communications, PSTN Phone Service, cellular, and the Internet, not to mention the private bands that are used for like emergency personnel such as police, fire and ems. Imagine if there was just one provider for all of these.

The goal of this essay is to provide a glimpse into our possible future. These goals could be achieved by any of the current provider. But there is one that I see closest and it is Verizon.

So I provide to you the possible future of Verizon Wireless.

Some time ago Verizon Wireless announced that they were going to start using a VOIP protocol on their wireless handsets. This is the first key step to the global communications movement. Each wireless phone would be assigned a MAC Address rather than an ESN (Electronic Serial Number) that is currently in use today. This MAC Address is what would be registered to a customer's account, and service would be provided by the wireless network. The problem with this is currently the bandwidth bottleneck provided by current cellular Internet access is a major limitation. 2MB of download data is no comparison to the FiOS that is being install in homes all over America. How do we solve this? We don't. Yes we could wait 10 years and hope that some new protocol comes along which would all faster cellular data access but what about now? I'll tell you. Wireless 802.11agb access points FAR outnumber the cellular towers in the country. What would happen if we designed cellular handsets that could auto roam between the cellular network and the standard 802.11 wireless Wi-Fi Networks? This bottleneck would be obliterated. How many times have you sat in an office building, and had poor quality cellular service. Yet you still had excellent Wi-Fi coverage. Your cell phone could have crystal clear connection, and blazing fast network speeds. This would work perfectly with open and unprotected access points. Access points that anyone can connect to freely and without cost.
But there are still alot of private access points that are either encrypted or protected in other ways from random connections. How do we overcome this? There are several cable Internet, and DSL providers that do install either cable modems or dsl modems with integrated wi-fi access points already installed. These could be factory set to check MAC address against a RADIUS type server. ie. Verizon Wireless's Customer database, and allow unrestricted access to the Internet connection. Notice i said Internet access and not network access. Since these wireless access points are install into the cable modem or DSL modems themselves they could be set to restrict access to the home or business users' internal network and allow ONLY directly to and from the Internet. I could see this working best with the FiOS Installs. Every FIOS install would increase Verizon's wireless coverage.

ok, this all sounds great, but how do we start putting this into action.

Simple, destroy the competition. Once the VOIP protocol is implemented into Verizon handsets start offering Flat Rate service contracts. $50, $60, or $70 dollars a month for UNLIMITED access. No more pay per minute, no more confusing plans no more peek times. Flat Rate. This will give the consumer a HUGE incentive to want to be a Verizon Wireless customer. Their new account sign ups with soar through the roof. Customers will no longer have to worry about going over their minutes, they will be able to save money a month, and live and use the technology as it was meant to be used. This will drive those smaller companies that really have no hope of ever amounting to anything out of business. Then verizon can come in, buy their hardware and increase their network more.

Lets be honest people PSTN phone service is out the door. Its old technology, bigger better and newer has come along, VOIP is the future. Mama Bell is on her death bed and the historical provider or running scared. Take Sprint. Sprint PSTN phone service was once dominate. They realized that the future of the PSTN phone lines were on rocky ground and what did they do? They formed a merger with Nextel, to ensure their wireless survival and started selling off their PSTN phone networks to Embark. So for the next few years SprintPCS/Nextel will survive. This is why if bet so much on the FIOS service. If PSTN Lines are going out, that means that the networks that run on the are going to go out as well. DSL was fad. It was nice while it lasted but it never really had any future. You cant bring along new technology, and hope it soars when a requirement for its success is based a network that started in 1876. This is where FiOS comes in. Yes Verizon still has PSTN phone service, and yes They still have DSL service. But they should have them for a limited amount of time.
As FIOS gets more and more widespread. They will start installing more and more VOIP packages in the home rather than standard PSTN phone lines. This provides the ability to offer package deals. Phone and VERY high speed Internet for one low rate. Add your verizon wireless phone to the mix and save even more. Ideally home phone service itself is going in to go out the window you will be dealing with connectivity per person rather than per household.

Now lets talk about devices for a moment. Cell phones are great, but they are primarily just a audio communication device. Laptop's and PDA's. Integrated Wi-Fi is becoming standard in these devices but they have limited range. You can also buy internal Cellular cards. So your range is no longer an issue, just your connection speeds are. This is another place where the auto switching protocol can be used. Not only cell phones, but any wireless network device could auto roam back and forth between the cellular and Wi-Fi networks. Just sign into your Account at Verizon, register your new device, and it instantly has network coverage anywhere. You new car is equipped with an Auto PC, great, register its MAC address, and start streaming MP3 or send voice emails. This will truly connect the world.

Let talk about the service fees. Above i mentioned the $50, $60 or $70 a month for the unlimited Cellular communication. But what about for multiple devices. What about people who have other wireless devices. What about a family of 4 who each have about 3 or 4 wireless device EACH.. This could mean HUGE wireless network bills. But Why? Just because a device has 24/7 unlimited coverage does not mean its in use 27/4. A person may have 5 or 6 registered network devices, but its highly unlikely that they are using them ALL at once. There is no where near the network drain on Verizon's systems to require that type of fee be paid for each devices. The goal of the future is to have great technology and have EVERYONE have the ability to afford it. There is no use in having a HUGE global network when only few people could afford to use it. That would be a disservice to the people who could use it, the would be limited to who they could communicate with. So what I would recommend. Your main wireless bill may be $50, $60, or $70 a month, and then an additional SMALL fee for other devices that are added they all still have the same wireless access and there are no minutes to worry about.

But how would that work for Verizon? Wont they lose money like that? No. they wont. and here is why. If you make something affordable you open up your services to the mass market. If someone has FiOS Installed in the home of office, yes its a service to that person, but also a service to the rest of the Verizon global network. You have increased the network's wireless size and coverage. not to mention that the home or office user is the paying to power the device. So verizon would be getting paid a monthly fee every month, for HIGHER network coverage of their service.

But what about the consumers. Whats to protect them from Verizon gouging up prices once its knocked out the competition. The people who use it's service. With this type of shared network where the users themselves contribute to the network coverage, its very important for Verizon to keep its customers. It they lose a customer, they lose coverage. A small amount of coverage, but added up, losing several customers in one given area could provide holes in coverage to certain places. But I really doubt this will be an issue. I'm sure the federal government will step in and provide provisions and service requirements.

Just my thoughts on the future let me know what you think.

Please send questions or comments to:

ravious@gmail.com

[nKrypteD1]

I think sprint is closer on goal to this than Verizon by it's beginning of design on a WiMax network. WiMax has much higher transmission rates than it's predeccesors and has "Cellular" transmission ranges. You can't expect to be on an open Wireless network everywhere you go, I mean you'd be leeching off other peoples bandwith if you were to go through this, if you recall T-Mobile is already releasing a device that can do voip using the 802.11 standards.

I agree on a specific point here though, Voip is much more efficient for handling calls than the current switched networks because the "Virtual Switches" have a much higher capacity and the bandwith useage is less.

Another flaw I see in your post, if Verizon adopted a new business blueprint and it worked every other network would hop on the bandwagon. There would be no such thing as beating out the "Competition." But keep in mind, Verizon is behind on this one, T-Mobile is already releasing a device in this direction, Cingular has announced it has something similar in it's labs, and Verizon/Alltel are silent on the subject. Sprint, on the other hand as previously mentioned, is deploying WiMax as it's 3.x Generation platform which is a great step in this manner.

Since the technology is slow to adapt I think the first logical step is to start migrating Switch stations in the local PBX offices to Voip (which I believe has already started,) again sprint is in the lead here since they are actually a backbone provider. But yeah the future is going to be interesting in the case of wireless providers, technology for the service is getting cheaper, platforms are moving in non traditional ways ("Wireless Blimps",) and bandwith/throughput is on a rise, the next logical step is convergance of devices. Once Blanket coverage exists we will see the dissappearnce of Consumer Land Lines and Globalization of the Exchange system. Of course what I'm speaking of will likely take the better part of a few decades but still, it's what we're moving towards.

[Jay2TheRescue]

But there are still alot of private access points that are either encrypted or protected in other ways from random connections. How do we overcome this? There are several cable Internet, and DSL providers that do install either cable modems or dsl modems with integrated wi-fi access points already installed. These could be factory set to check MAC address against a RADIUS type server. ie. Verizon Wireless's Customer database, and allow unrestricted access to the Internet connection. Notice i said Internet access and not network access. Since these wireless access points are install into the cable modem or DSL modems themselves they could be set to restrict access to the home or business users' internal network and allow ONLY directly to and from the Internet. I could see this working best with the FiOS Installs. Every FIOS install would increase Verizon's wireless coverage.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say I get a really cool super fast DSL or cable line installed at my home or office. I will spend about $80 - $100/mo for having this bandwidth (Plus installation fees). Are you telling me that after I go through the expense of buying this bandwidth that any Verizon customer who walks within 100 yards of my office will be able to use MY bandwidth for free? Making MY downloads crawl, and MY internet surfing slow down. On top of that, Verizon will be leaching off MY bandwidth for free, but I'm sure they will still charge their subscribers for internet access. I would make a point to NOT purchase broadband service from any provider that would let others use MY bandwidth without any compensation to me, and I should be able to control the maximum amount of users, and be able to bar the users when I want to (Which would probably be all the time).

-Jay

[nKrypteD1]

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say I get a really cool super fast DSL or cable line installed at my home or office. I will spend about $80 - $100/mo for having this bandwidth (Plus installation fees). Are you telling me that after I go through the expense of buying this bandwidth that any Verizon customer who walks within 100 yards of my office will be able to use MY bandwidth for free? Making MY downloads crawl, and MY internet surfing slow down. On top of that, Verizon will be leaching off MY bandwidth for free, but I'm sure they will still charge their subscribers for internet access. I would make a point to NOT purchase broadband service from any provider that would let others use MY bandwidth without any compensation to me, and I should be able to control the maximum amount of users, and be able to bar the users when I want to (Which would probably be all the time).

-Jay

I agree, this would be bad business practice. But Verizon will probably cite this as a way of keeping it's costs down (bandwith wise) and offering people a hardware work around for more $ per month.

[Fullstrength]

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say I get a really cool super fast DSL or cable line installed at my home or office. I will spend about $80 - $100/mo for having this bandwidth (Plus installation fees). Are you telling me that after I go through the expense of buying this bandwidth that any Verizon customer who walks within 100 yards of my office will be able to use MY bandwidth for free? Making MY downloads crawl, and MY internet surfing slow down. On top of that, Verizon will be leaching off MY bandwidth for free, but I'm sure they will still charge their subscribers for internet access. I would make a point to NOT purchase broadband service from any provider that would let others use MY bandwidth without any compensation to me, and I should be able to control the maximum amount of users, and be able to bar the users when I want to (Which would probably be all the time).

-Jay

Wow thats not cool, i would go to cable if i found out this was happening. Plus I dont any kickbacks from Verizon using me.

[ravious]

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say I get a really cool super fast DSL or cable line installed at my home or office. I will spend about $80 - $100/mo for having this bandwidth (Plus installation fees). Are you telling me that after I go through the expense of buying this bandwidth that any Verizon customer who walks within 100 yards of my office will be able to use MY bandwidth for free? Making MY downloads crawl, and MY internet surfing slow down. On top of that, Verizon will be leaching off MY bandwidth for free, but I'm sure they will still charge their subscribers for internet access. I would make a point to NOT purchase broadband service from any provider that would let others use MY bandwidth without any compensation to me, and I should be able to control the maximum amount of users, and be able to bar the users when I want to (Which would probably be all the time).

-Jay

Actually No. As i mentioned DSL is going to be a thing of the past. Like stated you can't you cant have new tech running on a network that was invented in the 1800's. When I was talking about the shared connections, I was talking about FiberOptic lines. Much like the cable or dsl modems, the speed that the modem achieves is regulated by the modem itself via a config file. If there were more than usual wireless clients connected to the user's FiOS Hotspot the system would simply allocate more bandwidth to the device. The end users would notice no change service.

[ravious]

Wow thats not cool, i would go to cable if i found out this was happening. Plus I dont any kickbacks from Verizon using me.

You would not consider having a $60 monthly bill for In home FiOS and unlimited wireless account not a kickback?

[Jay2TheRescue]

I agree, this would be bad business practice. But Verizon will probably cite this as a way of keeping it's costs down (bandwith wise) and offering people a hardware work around for more $ per month.

In reality, the costs for service probably won't go down, but they will charge extra for your "private" line.

-Jay

[UFO]

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say I get a really cool super fast DSL or cable line installed at my home or office. I will spend about $80 - $100/mo for having this bandwidth (Plus installation fees). Are you telling me that after I go through the expense of buying this bandwidth that any Verizon customer who walks within 100 yards of my office will be able to use MY bandwidth for free? Making MY downloads crawl, and MY internet surfing slow down. On top of that, Verizon will be leaching off MY bandwidth for free, but I'm sure they will still charge their subscribers for internet access. I would make a point to NOT purchase broadband service from any provider that would let others use MY bandwidth without any compensation to me, and I should be able to control the maximum amount of users, and be able to bar the users when I want to (Which would probably be all the time).

-Jay

Jay,
I completely agree with you. Actually, no, strike that. At least I don't agree with you as long as I'm using this free WiFi probably from a neighbor!!

[Fire14]

Personally I would prefer to see competition in the field & not see 1 provider knock all the other carriers "Out of the picture" since once they controlled everything your stuck & they can do & charge what they want.

As for making Wi-Fi's open, why would I want the chance of someone being able to get into my computer & possibly get private information or my families ID's or CC #'s? That's the main reason I have my Wi-Fi password protected & my SID hidden, I don't trust some people & don't want my neighbors stealing my bandwidth or service for free.

Also another concern, if this were to be setup & the carrier had to install less towers, what would happen in a power failure? all of the Wi-Fi's & VoIP would go down & if your out of reach of a signal, you couldn't call 9-1-1 for an emergency.

As nKrypteD1 stated T-Mobile is coming out with a Wi-Fi device for calls, but I believe they are keeping it secured & not just anyone with a T-Mobile cell can lock onto it (I believe this is what they were saying). Again I like keeping my documents & other data safe & secure & as Jay stated, it's MY money, device, bandwidth etc... that I pay for, let the carriers put up a Wide area Wi-Fi Network for something like this vs one in each home.

[nKrypteD1]

Jay,
I completely agree with you. Actually, no, strike that. At least I don't agree with you as long as I'm using this free WiFi probably from a neighbor!!

Guess you better not move in next to Fire14

[ravious]

Personally I would prefer to see competition in the field & not see 1 provider knock all the other carriers "Out of the picture" since once they controlled everything your stuck & they can do & charge what they want.

As for making Wi-Fi's open, why would I want the chance of someone being able to get into my computer & possibly get private information or my families ID's or CC #'s? That's the main reason I have my Wi-Fi password protected & my SID hidden, I don't trust some people & don't want my neighbors stealing my bandwidth or service for free.

Also another concern, if this were to be setup & the carrier had to install less towers, what would happen in a power failure? all of the Wi-Fi's & VoIP would go down & if your out of reach of a signal, you couldn't call 9-1-1 for an emergency.

As nKrypteD1 stated T-Mobile is coming out with a Wi-Fi device for calls, but I believe they are keeping it secured & not just anyone with a T-Mobile cell can lock onto it (I believe this is what they were saying). Again I like keeping my documents & other data safe & secure & as Jay stated, it's MY money, device, bandwidth etc... that I pay for, let the carriers put up a Wide area Wi-Fi Network for something like this vs one in each home.

Once again, If these devices were installed in the FiOS modem itself, they could restrict access to the private network it is installed upon. Providing a direct connection to the internet only. Your internal network would be at no more risk than it would be at anyother time you are on the internet.

[nKrypteD1]

It really doesn't matter what security methods and devices Verizon uses, the fact is you're asking people to become wireless base stations. Nobody will ever be happy about it, irregardless of what assurances Verizon gives, it's a bad idea overall.

[Fullstrength]

You would not consider having a $60 monthly bill for In home FiOS and unlimited wireless account not a kickback?

Considering i could use skype, and get the same thing, no. Plus with Symbian you can already do this, its just in its beta form.

[viewfly]

There is no great breakthrough with FIOS.
My cable company (Charter) has given me fiber optics to my house for over 6 years now. And I live in a rural area. The fiber is used for TV and high speed internet. Now they offer VOip too, fixed rate for unlimited call too. The reason for DSL, is simple a bridge technology until the telecoms can afford to give everone fiber (or the cables slowly switch from coax to fiber, as Charter did in my area: 50 square miles of installations).

1) There is a huge competition already underway between cable and telecoms to offer high speed services in each others domain.

2) I doubt there are more wi-fi centers than celluar. Even if there were, it is certainly not in coverage; celluar has much greater coverage than wifi, which is why Cingular and Verizon are offering cell cards for PC users: it's more attractive than wifi.

3) Wi-fi is low power. The FCC will never allow the consumer to install a high power wifi system that will extend beyond, say 50 or 60 feet in range: you would need an commerical license to do go beyond that range.

4) During power outages, the majors take care of power back up and system restoration. Do you mean that if my neighbors want to save some electricity or go on vacation ( ie their electric bills) and turn off their PC or wifi at night, my connection goes down? Or a lighting strike knocks out power across the street, and it's my neighors responsibility to restore the nework coverage? Or the wifi just breaks, and i spend weeks looking for a new one? It would make Katrina look like playtime.

5)increased cell coverage inside buildings is simply handled by local cell mini repeaters. They can be installed by the majors or the consumers since they are low power generally, but cost about $500. The malls stores already do this.

Overall, skipping between wifi and celluar is not a bad idea, but it is doubtful that any one carrier will dominate, since fiber is popular among them all. Just the way any landline carrier make use of the common copper wire to your house, more than likely many carriers will just lease bandwidth on common fibers to the home: your not going to see multiple fibers for each carrier. This open pathway has been under review by the FCC politicians for some time.

vf