Comments on: Palm Releases Update for the Unlocked GSM Treo 650

I've LONG maintained that the <$200 bottom feeder models (T|E variants, Zires etc) are fine with little to no support. But the pricier models (the Tungstens, LD and all Treos) should fall under some kind of "Support Assurance" plan on Palm's behalf.

Palm should guarantee at leat one major patch/update/bugfix and then one or more minor updates during each unit's life.

Case in point would be the LD 2.0 updatpe as its major update and then a mini bundle of updated VersaMail/Blazer/PTunes/DTG a few months down the line to bring it up to speed with whatever is shipping on the latest devices.

Palm should *ALSO* offer reasonably priced upgrades of the core apps on its own website. Not OS updates, mind you--just apps. Blazer, VersaMail and Media could all fall under a $15-$20 downloadable update bundle. E-Reader Pro, PTunes & DTG could all give slightly better discount rates for upgrading/updating if you are a registered user of the app via a pre-loaded Palm bundle. Look at how NormSoft is trying to screw TX & LD owners now with their "free" updates. But if they just gave all new Palm owners the option of getting the full version for say $10-$15 a lot of the complaining would be muted.

P.S. Palm wouldn't have issued more than one update or so for the Treo 650 were it not for the incessant demands of the carriers--Verizon especially--to fix "issues".

P.P.S. Any idea if this upgrades the BT stack to 1.2? Is the hardware even capable of that? I've heard mixed things on this from Treocentral & Brighthand.

Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX

Just trying to ride my contract out. I'd rather not pay the hefty Verizon ETF. Now that this update is out I'll definitely have to wait for one that's pre-patched out of the box---just one thing less to go wrong.

Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX

If you have ever been cursed to support a SONY workstation or laptop you know exactly how useless SONY support is - basically, "if we blew it in the firmware, just buy another one of our fine systems."

Palm USED to issue several patches for their earlier handhelds, but they do seem to be issued every blue moon now- even the Treo 650 took nearly 6 months after release to issue a usable firmware, all the while Palm denying there was nothing wrong that a 128MB SD card wouldn't meliorate. Better than Sony, but that's not saying much.

Hkk; heard from a friend that there may be one major update for all Treo 650s then that's it unless something major happens. From the sounds of that person, they felt that Palm is doing something big (and it was a Palm rep that spilled the beans about the slowing to an end 650 support downloads).

Other comment:
I agree, it would be smart as beans to make available seperate downloadable updates for VM, Blazer, and other apps. Make it into a n update that installs like the keyboard driver and call it a day. This would save support costs and company face in the long term.

I personally just want the tabbed WebBrowser 3 for my Treo. That would be the absoutley best browser, and its more than doable. Why NO DEVELOPER has made a web browser since the Xiino and NWeb folks is beyond me, but that browser is on point as what the Treo needs NOW.

mobileministrymagazine.com
antoinerjwright.com

In talking to my friend last night, he basically said that the 650 will recieve no more patches after this last round. In other words, its either TC-ish and stable enough to keep selling, or that its going to be phased out officially come the Fall release season.

He also in that same statement said that Palm would not do any patches unless something big comes, then he mentions that they say this with a smile. Personal feeling after hearing that is there will be a big update to come that will align the 700p with the 650 (for carrier support purposes). The only thing is that the only real 700p rumor (from Shadowmite state at TC) states that the 700 is only a memory and radio upgrade. That would be silly on Palm's side, but logical because of what we know of how they tweak and tweak. When the 700 was first rumored, I assumed that Palm would at least try one model with Cobalt just to see what would happen. The report earlier this year of a Cobalt phone at the PS DevCon said to me that it is at least possible that its out there. And if I were decision-maker at Palm, with my 75%+ crew of software folks, I'd make Cobalt work as one well planned and hapazardly executed just as a PalmOS is not dead note and would be just enuogh from Palm to keep the WinMob looked at as a side business. Why do 3OSes has been discussed before, its not smart, but if done right, would pan out (in either a buyout or WM take over, lest Access has even better devs).

So yea, thats all so far. Its kinda kool having people in places where they interact with Palm, and I thought just being a web developer and writer was fun :)

mobileministrymagazine.com
antoinerjwright.com

Patience, Grasshopper. Rome wasn't built in a day - but it was destroyed in one.

TVoR

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

TVOR;
I so would like to know who you are...you have something info wise that you arent saying that I have no idea about, and at the same time know it clearly probably. Hate to sound like a fan, but I would like to speak to ya personally (email) if you have the time.

In 2005 it was finally revealed that TVoR = Carl "Bluetooth" Yankowski. Shocking, isn't it? ;-O

Back on topic for a sec:
I still wonder about the 700p. If Palm really wanted to show committment to the PalmOS platform, why stick with Garnet, why not just roll all the marbles with Cobalt and call it a day. It might not be the smartest thing to do, but dang sure would raise some eyebrows (and according to some devs, piss folks off more).

If you like PalmOS PDAs, I'd suggest you do whatever it takes to find a new European (Bluetooth + WiFi) Sony CLIE TH55. Lock it in a safe. Use your Treo 650 or a TX until it breaks. Then gingerly unwrap the precious TH55 and use it for the next 5 years. Bill Gates has won the war (as usual). I suspect he had saboteurs working on the inside at Palm all along.

Commodore 64
Amiga
Newton
PSION
Palm

Based on the quality of the Treo 650 I've seen, I doubt your phone will be functioning without major problems a year from now. Mark my words: your Treo 650 will be broken within a year. The TH55, on the other hand will give you 5 years of flawless, reliable PDA goodness. And it has a big, gorgeous screen, too.

I have been done with endless installing and trying of new apps for a good long time now and therefore my very stable setup should stay such for as long as I dont try another device, or find this one needing mechanical repair.

After 9 years of experimenting with all the latest apps out there, I too have decided to keep my PDAs stable with a tried-and-true set of apps (over 100, though!) I finally broke down and bought 5 or 6 apps through Palminfocenter in December, but I'm done with living as an app beta tester. Now it's all about FUNCTIONALITY and STABILITY. If you haven't downloaded Directory Assistant (by Rick Whitt), I suggest you do so ASAP. DA is probably the most useful freeware app you'll ever put on your Treo. Palm should license it + make it part of the ROM.

http://home.triad.rr.com/rlwhitt/palm/#da

And to quote Gekko, wont be going back to a two device solution if I can help it. Thanks for the advice though, always a pleasure.

As someone who had one of the first Treo 600 and then (in disgust!) went back to the separate (tiny) cellphone + (big screened) PDA route, each has it's advantages. I now use a Samsung i500 (always have PDA data with me, very high quality construction, excellent voice quality and it's the same size as a non-PDA cellphone) always and either a TH55, UX50 or VZ90 at work. The VZ90 is great for watching movies that have been converted or the occasional TV show recorded on a VR100K Memory Stick recorder. The UX50 is still my personal favorite because of its wireless abilities, small size, rugged case + keyboard. Had Sony simply released the OLED-screened version of the UX50, we would finally have had the PERFECT PDA, in my opinion.

------------------------
Sony CLIE UX100: 128 MB real RAM, OLED screen. All the PDA anyone really ever wanted.
------------------------

The Palm eCONomy = Communism™

The Great Palm Swindle: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=7864#108038

NetFrontLinux - the next major cellphone OS?: http://www.palminfocenter.com/comment_view.asp?ID=8060#111823

I have marked your words, and in exactly two months and 17 days, I'm going to call you on them, Voice. :P

Tim Carroll
Your friendly customer service robot
(and big Treo fan)

http://euro.palm.com/europe/en/support/downloads.html#Treo650

Then I clicked on "Treo 650 Updater (for Unlocked GSM phones)."

IT ONLY HAS 1.13 UPDATER!!!
:-(

Time to recover your head from Planet-Rectum!

Not happy!

Tim Carroll
Your friendly customer service robot
(and big Treo fan)

The HK support website has not yet been updated, however,
http://www.palm.com/hk/ie/support/downloads/treo650updater/unlockedgsm.html

--
With great power comes great responsiblity.

I'm guessing Palm has to release their updates in some sequence, and perhaps they simply upload them to their HQ's country first. If this update finally addresses those repeated "out of memory" problems loading pages in Blazer with 4MB of free dbcache, then I'm proud to be an American and have access to the update first!

Wow! That was fast! I am impressed.

Handspring Visor -> m505 -> Zire71 -> Zire72 -> Treo650

You might want to try the forums on Treocentral. They're much more tech-support friendly, and there are quite a few knowledgeable Treo owners there. Perhaps one of them could help you.

Tim Carroll
Your friendly customer service robot
(and big Treo fan)

1. 700w (already out)

2. 700w for GSM carriers, possibly slightly improved with software updates and/or more RAM.

3. Hollywood: Slim, stylish and antenna-less WinMob Treo for European market only (at least for the time being). Expect similar but slightly cut-down specs inherited from the 700w (lower resolution camera or slower CPU perhaps?).

4. Lowrider: Entry-level Treo (CDMA) similar to a Z22 & Treo 600 hybrid. Expect a smaller/lighter formfactor and something either iPod-esque (shiny white) or blingy looking (colored LEDs) etc.

Pilot 1000-->Pilot 5000-->PalmPilot Pro-->IIIe-->Vx-->m505-->T|T-->T|T2-->T|C-->T|T3-->T|T5-->TX

http://tinyurl.com/b6bjq
http://tinyurl.com/d7f53

With the extra bulkiness also comes the advantage of its own seperate battery, and you can thus get much more life out of both it and your Treo.

Tim Carroll
Your friendly customer service robot
(and big Treo fan)

- Sir Axl de Rose, 1986

PALM sells the vast majority of its TREOs to carriers and carrier-related retailers. Those guys make no money from Wi-Fi - they WANT "paying 2.5G data download rates...

I appreciate both sides of the argument but I think even WiMax will need some investment into network structure and a means of getting a return on that investment.

True, in the UK, wi-fi is pretty much everywhere in urban areas (it's even on the London-Edinburgh trains!) but you have to pay around £6 an hour to access it on a casual basis; you can sign up with the providers for unlimited access but even that costs £30-£100 per month.

I think the carriers who prevent the Treo from using Wi-fi are being selfish and short-sighted; reasonable carriers will understand that, just as nobody is constantly talking on their cellphone 24 hours a day, there will be times when a customer will prefer to use wi-fi instead of the celllar network. After all, as of today, cellular network coverage is still much wider than that of wi-fi. We shall see what WiMax brings. Forcing people into a corner where they can't use wi-fi breeds resentment and the need to look for an alternative. Carriers not allowing people to use wi-fi may end up having the counter-productive effect of making WiMax networks more attractive and thus hasten the cellular network demise.

By the way, Orange UK has actually but its brand onto a WinMob phone with built-in wi-fi:
http://shop.orange.co.uk/shop/show/handset/orange_spv_m2000/detail/pay_monthly

I understand that the Nokia 9300i and the SonyEricsson P990 will have wi-fi too. These phones are going to be competing with the Treo(s).

"It is commonly said, and more particularly by Lord Shaftesbury, that ridicule is the best test of truth".
Lord Chesterfield

Google's in it for the $$$. They've got a pilot project going here in mtn view, and they're learning how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure. But they've also got bigger plans than just being a carrier. (I've been dropping hints here for a couple of months now, but they've gone unnoticed. )

Meanwhile, the carriers aren't that dumb. They're all working on wifi plans. pacific-telesis^wpacbell^wsbc^wat&t already offers wifi hotspot service. They've got O(2000) hotspots in CA, for example.

and, all the backchannel for wimax ain't free bandwidth. those carriers are making ugly noises about tiering services, again.

i suspect we are all about to live in interesting times.

May You Live in Interesting Times

Ummmm... no Marty - I've been watching Google since they first came out. Don't delude yourself that you're the only one living in SillyCon Valley with their eyes and ears open. Google have got some brilliant strategists working there in addition to some of the best talent in the Valley. Thus far they've retained the aggressiveness and vision of a 1990s startup, while becoming a Big Corporation with the $$$ it takes to make things actually happen. That's a difficult balancing act that even Apple failed to achieve. Having Rubin's IP on board might be the final piece to the Google puzzle:

- The best search engine
- Free email
- Wireless web portal
- Unused fiberoptic lines and bargain basement backbone access
- Location-tracking (gotta love the potential for abuse of something like that World Tracker service http://www.world-tracker.com/). Pretty soon someone will hack the tracking service to become like this: http://locatecell.com/
- Dodgeball (friend-locating service)
- Google Maps/Google Earth
- Android (to provide a cellphone OS + more)

"Free" location-specific ad-driven web access, email, GPS, friend location + cellphone service? Can't miss. The cellphone carriers are going to be hurting big time next year if Google gets the recipe right. They already have the right price figured out (free). The nagging question I have is: "Is this another dot bomb deck of cards?" Is there an adequate revenue stream to support such a grandiose mobile connectivity dream. If Google fails, it will go down as the most spectacular dot bomb the Valley has ever seen.

Google's in it for the $$$.

Wow. Thanks for sharing that brilliant revelation, Marty. I thought they were just trying to be good Earth citizens. How S.F. of me.

They've got a pilot project going here in mtn view, and they're learning how much it costs to maintain the infrastructure. But they've also got bigger plans than just being a carrier. (I've been dropping hints here for a couple of months now, but they've gone unnoticed. )

I'm actually on my way to South Bay right now. Maybe I'll drop by for a spot of tea, old chap? Call me.

Google will become a carrier + an omnipresent web portal. I don't think traditional carriers will respond fast enough to stop Google from carving out a healthy chunk of the market for eyeballs.

Meanwhile, the carriers aren't that dumb. They're all working on wifi plans. pacific-telesis^wpacbell^wsbc^wat&t already offers wifi hotspot service. They've got O(2000) hotspots in CA, for example.

They may not be dumb, but they're monolithic + slow to respond to ye olde paradigm shifts. Pac Bell especially is beyond hope. Companies like Sprint + Verizon (who would probably be wise to merge ASAP) might be smart enough to mount an effective response. We'll see soon enough.

and, all the backchannel for wimax ain't free bandwidth. those carriers are making ugly noises about tiering services, again.

I believe Google's also has that covered to go along with its tons of dark fiber.

i suspect we are all about to live in interesting times.

I suspect we already do.

I.M.

Deckard

-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201853.html

-- http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/29/D8E69QMO0.html

-- http://news.com.com/New+Orleans+to+offer+free+Wi-Fi/2100-7351_3-5975845.html

As far as free ad-based internet access not missing, it's been tried. Many times. Failed every time. Google's got to have a better angle than that, if they want to be more than another such failure.

Besides, wifi infrastructure is very expensive, as the goog is finding out in Mountain View, and wi-max is over hyped and far in the future. (Wi-max has other problems, in the form of the FCC, but that'll come up later.)

Maybe I'll drop by for a spot of tea, old chap? Call me.

Email me your phone number.

Given the speed of the AT&T purchase; the fact that SBC/AT&T already has huge numbers of wi-fi hotspots in CA -- and are offering it cheap; the time it will take to roll Google's wifi infrastructure and the tendency of people to rather pay a small fee that cope with ads for access, I suspect that the goog is going to have plenty of competition.

But you're only mentioning the obvious stuff. The goog has bigger fish to fry then the telcos, and our times are going to be a lot more interesting if they can figure out how to turn the stove on. You're missing two rather amusing pieces in your precis, and they're the two that makes this an interesting adventure.

By the way, Linux is the new black.

May You Live in Interesting Times

Ranting about conspiracy theories in spite of the intuency of such a corporate arrangement does not answer this question...especially since, from the outset of the 650's release Palm employees were quoted as "working on" drivers for the 650.

CAN T650 wifi drivers ACTUALLY be done?? If so - given that they are available for the w700 why arent they available in the 650?

Where do We Go Nowwwwwww?!

- Sir Axl de Rose, 1986

goog's deal with mtn view requires the goverment to spend no money.

With WiMax, I envision the situation being similar to the early days of the Internet, with dozens of Mom and Pop ISPs springing up in every locale.

Don't count on it. WiMax will require significant investment in backhaul infrastructure. It's not going to be within the mom and pop price range. Meanwhile, between now and WiMax, goog and others are going to be putting wifi on lamp poles. That ain't cheap either, if you want any kind of reasonable coverage.

Can ANYONE here explain how carriers and ISPs will not be seriously damaged by the widespread rollout of Wi-Fi and WiMax?

tariffs and infrastructure cost.

Providing proprietary content might have been be one angle for the Big Boys to use

carriers don't make their money out of content. they make it out of capacity. smart carriers will roll with the flow and lease their capacity out.

Any way you slice it, carriers are toast unless the government somehow can control this bandwidth. Unfortunately for the carriers, technology is advancing exponentiallly faster than the laws are.

The government has been controlling the rf bandwidth for nearly three quarters of a century. It's called the FCC. Part 15 is not your friend.

unless the goog is planning on buying at&t, it's got a lot of infrastructure to build out to be able to go toe-to-toe with the rbocs in every area. hmm... i wonder how much sbc/at&t will ask for itself?

May You Live in Interesting Times

Why shouldn't carriers get pi$$ed off when municipalites use taxpayers' money to compete with the carriers? Let's see: Free + government-sponsored Internet/Wi-Fi Vs. Not free + commercial provider-sponsored Internet/Wi-Fi. Hmmmm.... What a hard decision for consumers to make...

They're completely free to get upset. But that doesn't mean they should be able to rewrite the law to protect their business models. The profits of private electric services go down whereever there's a co-op, and the profits of private security go down whereever there's effective law enforcement. That doesn't mean that we should do away with those things to appease a few private businesses. If municipalities want to provide better and faster service to their consituents, and can do it cheaper than the telecoms can, I see little reason to stop them. Besides which, these systems can be very profitable for governments as well--reducing their connectivity costs, allowing for use of things like VoIP, and attracting new businesses, all of which means cheaper operations and increased revenue.

Right now, the telecoms are trying to protect their buggy whip market. If they were smart, they would have long ago started laying out fast and unlimited wireless, available for a low monthly fee. They could have fatted themselves on providing the network for people to run their own services, private or public.

The industry, though, is afraid of change, not just for the classic reasons but because change means their six-month financial forecast is in doubt. Since that's all they really care about, long-term planning is thrown in the dumpster. Eventually, that's going to come back and bite them in a big way. Very rarely do the major companies that pioneered a given technology survive the jump to the next generation of that technology.

Marty, I don't gather what you're saying about Part 15 restrictions on unlicensed radio traffic. Yes, unlicensed spectrum can be crowded, but it's also the best way to guarantee the cheapness of operation. The artificially high entry barrier for cellular service, in terms of spectrum and hardware, is largely to blame for the few choices in carrier, compared to how cheap and prolific WiFi is.

Yes, it would be good if there were some unlicensed spectrum set aside specifically for wireless internet, to prevent interference, but that's not currently a fatal problem.

Specious (and DANGEROUS) thinking there, Comrade. First of all, it was private businesses that took the risk + put up the money to get much of this going in the first place.

And they've made it back a dozen times over. Nobody in telecom is hurting for money.

Are you saying the government should have the right to move in and take over any industry you feel isn't adequately following your script, or is - in your opinion - overcharging for a service?

Nobody said anything about taking over anything. Flip it around: should the government be banned from plowing the roads in the winter because private plows would make money doing it themselves? THAT is dangerous precedent: that everything, everywhere is a profit center. I say that if you provide marginal enough service that the people of the town feel they need to do it themselves, then you don't have any right to bribe your way up the food chain to try and stop them.

Secondly, unlike with municipal law enforcement, there was no precedent for municipal Internet/Wi-Fi/VoIP providers. The government has no mandate to compete in this particular quadrant of the private sector.

The government has the mandate to promote the general welfare. Where internet access goes up, education goes up, and where education goes up, crime goes down, unemployment goes down, and the standard of living goes up. There's plenty of jobs being shipped to India that could be done quite effectively right here in the backwaters of the US, given more literate populace.

Thirdly, how many government offices do you know of that operate more efficiently than a private for-profit business?

Lots of them. Do you know why healthcare is so expensive in the US? Because the HMOs take twenty five cents out of every dollar to pay for their beauracracy. Do you know what it costs the federal government to provide the exact same service? Two cents out of every dollar.

Also consider the message that governments muscling in on private enterprise gives to businesses. Why would anyone bother taking risks in a new technologhy if they know the government can just come in and start competing with them as soon as it's apparent that the technology is viable?

The environment in the US today is more business-friendly than it's been since the era of the Pinkertons. Between cash-and-carry government, corporate welfare, unenforced laws, and tax loopholes that would make Al Capone weep with envy, megaconglomerates can operate with complete impunity. If you don't believe me, take a look at the oil industry, which is currently making more money than any industry in the history of the world. Or take the arms industry. Or pharmaceuticals, or entertainment, or...

In a slightly similar situation, governments in various countries are starting to try and legislate controls over the pharmaceutical industry. Consumers will actually end up paying for that governmental interference for YEARS to come in more ways than you can imagine.

Seen "The Constant Gardner" yet? Your segueway into regulation versus deregulation and attendant arguments notwithstanding, the phamaceutical industry is in deep need of some control.

Ridiculous. The cellphone carriers and telcos have invested BILLIONS of $$$ in their networks. They have paid their dues and have earned the right to try and profit from the market without government meddling.

Yes, they've invested billions, but they've profited tens of billions. It's an old and specious argument: we invested lots of money to do this, so anything we make back is justified, no matter how excessive. And nobody's trying to take over the industry. But if they were actually offering competitive pricing and service, they would have nothing to fear from a handful of municipal internet projects. The reason that they are afraid is because if it actually caught on, they'd be out billions in profits, because technology is making it cheaper to communicate every day.

I had posted about this (I assume this is what Marty's alluding to) yesterday. The original post didn't go through but I reposted it last night. If Google (or anyone else, for that matter) were to launch a service providing 50 "Internet TV" stations and 100 "Internet radio" stations, who are they accountable to? What if the service is "broadcast" from some unnamed Eastern European country that has a "creative" view on the validity of copyright restrictions? If I buy a DVD, can I stream it to myself (Slingbox-style)? How about to 5 people in my family? How about to my 5000 closest "friends"? If I buy 1000 DVDs and 10,000 CDs can I stream these too? How about if I have a database of 100,000 MP3 and code an app that can steam songs on demand, in response to a request sent over the Internet? Is such a user-programmable radio station legal? The technology to do all this is either already here or coming Real Soon Now. The laws aren't strong enough to get all of these tools back into Pandora's Box.

True. Franky, I don't see how conventional ideas about copyright are going to survive. The entertainment industry's approach is to try and buy legislation that encrypts programs, set up copy-protected media, etcetera. But the reality is that these things are only going to get easier to copy, and it only takes one person breaking such a system to render it useless. Hence, the reason why it's foolish to try and protect the telecom industry: whether it's streamed TV stations, or ultra-cheap wireless internet, these things are going to happen. Rather than trying to hold onto the old way as long as possible, just let it happen. Industry can adapt or they can keel over, and if they do the latter, new industries will be there to take their place. It's the natural order of a truly free market. Adapt or die.

Nope. Doesn't reveal a thing. That's why it's an allusion.

But yeah, I think it's relevant.

I'd love to get the chance to take a look at Google's books myself. I suspect that - like with almost every dot bomb the Valley has ever seen - the hype is more based on potential than it is on current or even near-future revenue streams.

They're public now, so the quarterlies, at least, are public. The reveune streams are revealed, and yes indeed, they do look good. Not good enough to support the infrastructure roll out, but good.

People are cheap. They'll do anything for free access.

This turns out not to be true. There is a tradeoff between "paying" and "putting up with", and previous attempts at ad-based internet "free" access have shown that people will pay rather than put up with that. So, by the way, does the inroads that cable-only networks are making.

Google could complete the rollout within a year

Alas, no. It takes a lot longer than that to wire a lot of cities for wifi, and they have to do and finish the pilot study first.

Could the FCC then turn around and stop Google from broadcasting Internet Generation TV stations or radio stations? I doubt it. And I'm guessing Google's lawyers are saying the same thing.

Could and will. There's the little issue of spectrum, of which there is currently a shortage that gets worse every day.

I don't think the goog is all that interested in being a content provider, other than ad content. But I'm sure they'd like as many channels for their ads as possible. Perhaps clearchannel should be concerned?

May You Live in Interesting Times

Part 15 has two gottchas that will have a big impact on wimax or other wide area wifi:

1) There are power limits
2) Part 15 devices are not protected from interference from licensed services but must not interfer with licensed services

The proliferation of part 15 devices is leading to a noise crisis and licensed service users are starting to take notice.

May You Live in Interesting Times

Me.

But again, it comes down to what the hassle-factor is for "free". the hassle for "free internet" outweighed the advantage and most people skipped it.

GooglePort™ = the handheld device for the masses, serving up GoogleNet™, the location-specific ad-sponsored Internet with all the Google-flavored plug-ins you can think of...

Yes. When you add the device, you get to where I think google is going, and why the electric sheep are important.

(I wrote): "Could and will. There's the little issue of spectrum, of which there is currently a shortage that gets worse every day."

This will be an interesting battle. Google was smart enough to assemble all the pieces of the puzzle before most people realized what they were doing. Clever! I'm betting they come out on top - whatever happens.

Eh, they're far from having assembled all the pieces. I've done the infrastructure roll out thing. It's harder than google thinks it is if they think they can do it in a year. Also, they've still got to build "GooglePort", get it qualified by the FCC, and sell it to carriers. (Even if they put wifi everywhere urban, they'll still have to cope with the cell net and POTS subscribers. there are actually parts of this that the goog's not very good at. It has got some interesting blind spots.

Obviously. Do ANY for-profit broadcasters care about content other than its ability to sell ads?

Yes. Disney is a broadcaster (via ABC) because they wanted outlets for their content.

May You Live in Interesting Times