John says that there don’t seem to be FAA rules prohibiting video calls. Which sounds logical: Once a plane has Wi-Fi, I’m not sure if if there’s anything terrorists could do with video that they couldn’t do equally effectively with other communications means, such as IM. (Besides, they’d probably ignore any rules against video calling–hey, they’re terrorists.)

But there are at least two other plausible arguments against video calling in the air. One involves the people surrounding the folks doing the calling, who might find the call intruding on their personal space. (Probably depends in part on the courtesy of the person doing the calling, but I sometimes have a hard time dealing with gabby seatmates who are simply making phone calls before takeoff or after landing.)

The other issue is bandwidth: I don’t how much speed a service like Aircell’s Gogo has to share among everybody on a flight, but it’s not infinite–and consuming video might bog things down for everybody else. (Of course, video of any sort could do that–I wonder if Gogo does anything to block, say, Hulu?)

I have a hard time living without inflight Wi-Fi these days–I’m going to use it so much on Virgin America this month that I shelled out for a month-long pass–but I could tolerate with a ban on video. (Then again, if I was sitting next to John and noticed he was chatting with his family, I wouldn’t press the Flight Attendant button and squeal on him.)

Your take?

Share/E-Mail

Share/E-Mail

I gotta say it: I’m loving it.

The change is part of an effort to continue drawing in a wider customer base. Part of it could have to do with its efforts in gourmet coffee — the McCafe offering has more than doubled sales of coffee and now is five percent of its overall sales.

Free Wi-Fi is something that can be found in many local coffeeshops, and certainly the two have almost become synonymous with one another. Starbucks charges a fee for access, but is one of the few that still do.

As McDonald’s remakes itself into more of a destination rather than a quick stop for a bite to eat, company officials say they don’t mind adding services that keep customers in stores longer. There will be no time limits on wireless access, the company said.

Both Starbucks and McDonald’s partner with AT&T to run their Wi-Fi offerings.

Share/E-Mail

So even though the ink is barely dry on the document making today’s 802.11n standard official, I’m happy that major technology companies are pooling their resources to come up with faster wireless technology more suited to HD video and other demanding applications. But the thing is, there isn’t one consortium figuring out what’s next–there are three of them.

As Dean Takahashi reports on VentureBeat, the Wireless Gigabit Alliance is announcing its WiGig standard, which combines Wi-Fi with 60-GHz networking that’s theoretically ten times faster than 802.11n. WiGig joins WHDI (Wireless Home Digital Interface) and Wireless HD in the next-generation wireless race, inevitably bringing to mind that old saying: “The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them.”

As Dean notes, WiGig, WHDI, and Wireless HD aren’t trying to do exactly the same thing, and there are arguments in favor of all of them. But the fact that the industry’s pursuing a trio of related, overlapping standards still reminds me of the long, tedious, counterproductive squabbling that bogged down 802.11n’s progress–not to mention the equally pointless Blu-Ray/HD-DVD wars.

So I’m left with visions of consumers buying networking gear and gadgets that are doomed to obsolescence, and worrying that it’s going to be awhile before it’s clear which of these standards has legs and which doesn’t. Anyone want to make the case for competing standards being healthy? And is there anyone out there who knows more about these three than I and can outline their pros and cons?

Share/E-Mail

Blockbuster’s memory-card movie rentals.

Nvidia shows off tablet prototype.

How many Droids? Maybe 100,000.

LinkedIn talks to Twitter now.

Nokia starts shipping N900 handset.

A whole new Google coming?

Blu-Ray managed copy: looks awful!

A projector dock for iPhones.

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

Share/E-Mail

I presume that Google will get some promotional value out of the deal–maybe ads when you log in, with links to Google services–and am intrigued by the possibility that in-air Internet could go from a somewhat pricey paid service to a free, ad-supported one. Back on terra firma, Wi-Fi is increasingly complimentary (both Borders and Barnes and Noble now offer it gratis). Wouldn’t it be cool if that were true at ten thousand feet, too? May Google’s experiment be a success for everyone concerned, and therefore a widely imitated one…

Share/E-Mail

We’ll see if it actually takes off. Wireless USB sounded neat, too, but so far has failed to go much of anywhere…

Share/E-Mail

As Glen Fleishman is reporting at Wi-Fi Net News, Lufthansa is working with Panasonic to put satellite-based Internet (and cell-phone) service on 120 long-haul flights. Wi-Fi will cost $12 an hour or $22 per day–as Glen says, on the pricey side, although not unreasonable if you take a long flight and stay online for hours at a time.

Connexion wasn’t perfect, but its main problem was clearly that it was ahead of its time. I wonder if Boeing regrets having killed it?

Share/E-Mail

A few weeks ago, I bought a gadget I’d been contemplating for awhile: an Eye-Fi wireless SD card, designed to transfer photos from camera to computer over a home network. Its slogan: “No wires. No hassles. No kidding.” Every once in awhile, it works as advertised. But mostly, I’ve spent more time unsuccessfully troubleshooting it than shooting pictures with it.

Which means I’ve spent a lot of time in the Eye-Fi support pages, reading items like this:

Range variability

The wireless range of your Eye-Fi Card for photo and video uploads is listed as 45 feet indoors and 90 feet outdoors. These values are under ideal conditions, camera bodies, walls, building materials and other electronic devices can contribute to reducing your card’s wireless range. When encountering wireless upload failures from within your camera, move your camera closer to your wireless router. Generally if you are within 15-20 feet in line of sight of the router you should be fine. Take several pics and wait for a minute or two to see if the card uploads. If it still fails, remove the card from the camera and insert it into your computer via the supplied card reader. This will allow for maximum range since the card’s antenna will not be constrained by a camera body.

In other words: You might need to make sure there are no walls in between your camera and your router, and if that doesn’t work, you might need to put the card into the computer, as you might have done if you’d used a plain old SD card. Doesn’t sound hassle-free to me!

I know that I’ve been the victim of bad luck, possibly stemming from my network rather than the card–folks who use the Eye-Fi tend to rhapsodize over it. But for the moment, I’ve gone back to transferring photos via a nice, boring, reliable wired connection. And it works. Every time.

Then there was the TechCrunch50 conference, which I attended a couple of weeks ago. Last year’s edition of the show was bedeviled by dreadful Wi-Fi connectivity. (I wasn’t there, but I’ve probably attended more industry events with crummy Wi-Fi than ones with decent service–which is one reason why I broke down and sprang for a Verizon EVDO adapter.) At this year’s TechCrunch, however, the Internet access was as robust as you could want–and it was apparently so good in part because it was provided in part via cables. As far as I could tell, the setup involved Wi-Fi access points, but each one had a bunch of old-fashioned Ethernet cables plugged into it, so most of the folks in attendance could get online by plugging in a cable rather than attempting to connect to a Wi-Fi network.

I won’t even discuss wired headsets vs. wireless ones, in part because I already have, repeatedly. And also because I’m currently experimenting with using a Bluetooth hands-free device in my car. It’s not bad. On the other hand, it’s not truly wireless, since I need to remember to plug it into its charger. And it has a tendency to inexplicably get de-paired from my iPhone. Like almost all wireless devices, it requires a degree of babysitting that most wired devices don’t.

And maybe I’m just an old fogy, but I’ve never warmed up to the idea of wireless keyboards and mice. Why force yourself to futz with batteries when USB not only establishes a reliable data connection between input device and PC but also delivers power, for less money?

I don’t wanna come off as a hater. I use multiple forms of wireless technology every day–Wi-Fi, EVDO, and my iPhone’s 3G. I’d kind of be lost without them, or at least a lot less productive. But whenever I undertake tech tasks that involve wired connections, I’m not left thinking “Gee, this is embarrassingly archaic and I can’t wait until I can do this wirelessly.” Actually, it usually reduces my blood pressure a tad, since I’m generally confident that whatever I’m trying to accomplish will, in fact, occur.

Like I said–if we’d all been using wireless connectivity for the past few decades and someone came up with Cables(tm), we might consider them to be a dazzling breakthrough. That said, I’m reasonably confident that I’ll live to see the day when almost nothing relating to computing involves wires of any sort. I just hope it’s an improvement on the current situation…

Share/E-Mail

A few years ago, notebook-toting workers and students were seen as an attractive clientele, which is why both national chains and neighborhood joints set up Wi-fi hotspots and installed extra power outlets near seating.  Now–at least in some restaurants in New York, according to the Journal–they’re seen as freeloaders who hog tables during busy times without buying enough to eat and drink. Laptop bans are going into effect, and some places are going so far as to padlock power outlets. (One chain with a zero-tolerance policy for computer users is, appropriately, called Café Grumpy.)

I take this all personally. Technologizer doesn’t have an office–not even in my home. I do my work wherever I have my laptop, an Internet connection, and my phone. Which, at various times, is in coffee shops, hotel lobbies, and public parks; on the subway; and in my car (not while driving). In fact, I’m writing this from the comfy corner booth of the Westlake Coffee Shop, near my house.

I try to be a good citizen. When I’m working from a coffee shop, I buy food and beverage–although I confess I’ve been known to nurse one Starbucks chai for hours, or even leave the empty cup sitting on my table in hopes that people would think I’d recently purchased it. I’m sensitive to busy times, and try to take off if a line’s forming for seating.

But I don’t want to hang out where I’m not wanted, and if a restaurant institutes a ban on laptop use–even if it’s only during certain hours–my instinct is to not do business with it, period. It’s not computer use itself that’s the problem. So why not just institute a minimum bill amount and/or a limit on the duration of visits if it’s absolutely necessary? Or charge enough for Wi-Fi that the joint makes a profit even if someone doesn’t consume any coffee?

Better yet, why not look at laptop users as an opportunity rather a threat? Maybe there’s a market for a sort of hybrid of Starbucks and Kinkos, with power at every seat, services like faxing and photocopying, and recharging stations for your BlackBerry or iPhone. And a promise that you’ll never, but never, be harassed for pulling out your computer and getting some work done.

Share/E-Mail