Apparently you aren't understanding the usage of this.
I'm at the Cable Show.
This is meant to assist each others network. Do you want to 'worry' about what you can and can't download when VZW removes your unlimited data when you are waiting at the doctor's office or having a coffee?
I think the panelist from Vevo said it best when he said when people worry about how much they are allotted to consume, they don't consume as much.
Also, it is meant to be stationary. Not a web of handoffs.
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I understood that this was meant to be a stationary solution rather than a hand off at least initially, but there's certainly talk regarding hand off system or automatic authentication system as well. Of course the handoff doesn't need to be anywhere near as well orchestrated as it is for cellular phone communication, essentially because the audio of a phone communication continues virtually uninterrupted. Not to mention that local wifi communication covers a very small footprint, and in order for that to be a so called web commication these wifi hot spots would need to be very close in proximity to each other. That's not to say that this could not be placed into the fact at some point down the road. Telephone poles are rather closely spaced together and easily with in line of sight distance is for wifi communication so telephone pole top wifi hot spots even as an infrequent location every so few poles down the road would work well.
Philadelphia has had city-wide WIFI (although it failed and is stalled for funding to revive it) so it is realistic to believe it could become as common as cellular at some point. The real issue is that WIFI is a much lower power system, so there needs to be many more "hotspots" within a geographical region than cellular, yet their equipment is far less expensive and can be totally hidden from view. Another problem is that unless interior antennas and repeaters are installed, the signal doesn't propagate well to inner rooms of large buildings.
The bigger issue here, is that there will be a way for people to benefit from their home cable services on the road and that's a value added benefit to the cable service providers which will compete directly with the wireline service providers such as verizon fios system. I don't see this as a plan to reduce congestion on the 3g and 4 g networks, as the question would then be raised why would the cable service providers care whether cellular networks were congested or not. I see this more as a plan to try to entice cellullar service subscribers who also use the wire line or fire systems in their homes back to the cable service providers as a way of saying well if you're with us, and you're on the road, and you don't have cellular service nearby, or your cellular data service is too expensive, or you've exceeded your monthly allotment, you can still connect with us. Also the benefit to be able to watch cable programming while on their wifi hot spots, will be a big attraction.
As the saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall. And I see this as a way of uniting the cable carriers against their formidable opponent, the verizon fios conglomerate. Will it draw me away from my FIOS triple-play service, well - quite possibly yes. Cable provides essentially the same user experience for me, they can now provide phone service, and for all intents and purpose, it would be interchangeable for me. Now, if Verizon got really smart, they'd offer a discount for a "Quadra-play", where the cellular service of Verizon Wireless is coupled with the Verizon FIOS, and the result would be a deterrent from me moving to Comcast for cable Triple-play for instance.
Sent from my DROID RAZR MAXX using Xparent ICS Tapatalk 2 using Google voice to text translation. Please excuse any minor spelling, punctuation, capitalization or grammatical errors.
