A growing number of people expect mobile phones to emerge as the dominant means of Internet access for the 6.6 billion people on Earth; as proof, they point to the 10 percent of the 2.5 billion handsets in circulation that already include such access. But there exists a flaw in the mobile phone-as-path-to-Internet-ubiquity theory in that telcos generate the majority of their revenues from voice services that the Internet threatens to make obsolete — like a power company that makes most of its money through a monopoly laundry service that at-home washers and dryers have the power to put out of business.

In fact, given carriers’ efforts to excise voice functionality, it’s the Internet that seems unlikely to survive, much less prosper. Carriers routinely require device manufacturers to handicap handsets, for example, to remove Wi-Fi functionality in order to make it difficult to bypass voice plans. Another example is that of Apple and AT&T, which require iPhone customers to purchase both voice and data connectivity (i.e. laundry service and power) — a policy that’s even enforced for deaf customers with a doctor-certified inability to speak or hear.

Low cost or free voice functionality helps drive demand for Internet access, so it hardly seems a good idea to sacrifice voice in order to get mobile phones with Internet functionality. The way forward requires making the Internet more useful for connecting communication devices, not less. For example, addressing the three issues below would go a long way toward creating an Internet for devices that competes directly with carriers for mobile phone users:

• Close the ease-of-use gap between configuring session initiation protocol VoIP devices like the Linksys WIP330 IP Phone (a.k.a. “Cisco’s iPhone”) and the provisioning process for cell phones. The former remains sufficiently painful as to exclude everyone without an IT department or geek credentials, but the telcos cannot stop the 100 or so manufacturers of SIP devices from agreeing on a common provisioning mechanism.
• Unify the addressing of all SIP-based devices. The insistence on proprietary screen names and unwillingness to peer leaves real-time Internet services like instant messaging and VoIP mere islands of communication. Even the millions of users claimed by AIM or Skype are meaningless vs. the 3.3 billion wired and wireless phones addressable by telephone number. The secret to carriers’ ability to generate in excess of a trillion dollars in revenue from voice services is interconnection.
• Eliminate the user intervention steps necessary for wireless device connection. Connectivity should get addressed as a matter of reception, as in the case of mobile phones or even FM radios, not by presenting users with lists of Wi-Fi access points. It seems like there must exist automated solutions for picking and connecting to or disconnecting from Wi-Fi access points.

Initially, electric power generation companies were application-specific, which resulted in incompatible voltages and infrastructure being used for everything from street and residential lighting to industrial applications. The decision to abandon the link between application and power generation unleashed an explosion of devices offering the tremendous range of productivity and entertainment options we take for granted today. When it comes to decoupling the connectivity and application, the nature of the Internet makes it possible to create mobile phones with CD audio quality. The Apple iPhone’s elegance does not change the fact that basic voice quality remains unimproved since mobile phones first arrived 25 years ago. The mobile phone companies see the Internet as a threat, not an opportunity.

Daniel Berninger is the CEO of Free World Dialup

Let’s be honest: When it comes to the networked home, most analysts, press and consumers mainly think Wi-Fi. This is for good reason, of course, as Wi-Fi has been phenomenally successful as a consumer technology. It’s ubiquitous in laptops and portable gaming devices, is fast becoming so in portable media players and mobile phones, and new devices like TVs and set-top boxes are seen as the next big growth markets for this technology.

However, while many view Wi-Fi as a jack-of-all-trades technology that can be shoehorned into virtually any use case, at ABI we see things a little differently. While we continue to forecast a bright future for Wi-Fi, we view the home network as a multilayered one made up of individual sub-networks that are defined by their own specific use cases and applications, some of which may not involve Wi-Fi at all.

We ultimately see five types of networks in the home:

1. The consumer network for data and entertainment. Mainly Wi-Fi, with a mix of Ethernet and HomePlug as well. Where Linksys, Netgear and gateway vendors such as 2Wire dominate.

2. Whole-home backbone. This is the network being driven by IPTV deployments and, in the near future, cable. MoCA, HomePlug AV and HomePNA 3.1 have seen strong traction here.

3. High-speed, in-room video networks. Technology such as the new WirelessHD 60 GHz standard is specifically designed for this use case as it sends uncompressed video over high-speed wireless links to a TV.

4. Home automation and control. Low-cost, lower-speed networks for command and control of home systems and as part of the home entertainment stack through integration into universal remotes.

5. Personal area networks. Has been, and still largely is, defined by Bluetooth.

Of course, many of these networks use either the same underlying technologies or an offshoot of similar ones. UWB, for example, is being positioned as a solution for high-speed Bluetooth, as well as being used for whole-home backbone networks. Pulse~Link, in particular, has been pushing its UWB technology for a number of applications (and networks), seeing it as a candidate for UWB over coax as well as for high-speed, in-room video networks.

One of the most exciting and active areas for development today is the whole-home backbone. MoCA is being integrated into FiOS set-top boxes, while HomePlug AV (and to a lesser extent, UPA) powerline technology has been used for IPTV deployments in Europe and Asia.

But it is the in-room, high-speed video network that is both the newest and likely the one that will get much of the attention in coming years. And while some vendors may see Wi-Fi as a potential option here, the bandwidth needed for uncompressed HD video ranges from 3 to 5 Gbps. This is out of reach for Wi-Fi and where other technologies, such as the 60 GHz, UWB or proprietary implementations in 5GHz, are better suited.

We certainly expect that vendors such a Broadcom will continue to push Wi-Fi for applications such as whole-home video distribution. However, ABI Research believes that most pay-TV operators in the U.S. and Europe are more comfortable with the security and propagation capabilities of wires. To that end, many within the International Telecommunications Union have been working to develop a new standard that would succeed today’s coax, powerline and phoneline home backbone technologies: G.hn, a new triple-wire specification that ABI Research believes holds significant potential.

Michael Wolf is a research director focused on the digital home for ABI Research.

Even if San Francisco’s high-profile, city-wide Wi-Fi network with EarthLink and Google was a fundamental flop, residents of the city that need it the most could still get some free wireless broadband. Meraki Networks, a San Francisco-based startup that makes mesh networking gear is building an ad-hoc San Francisco Wi-Fi network called “Free the Net.” At a press conference on Wednesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Meraki CEO Sanjit Biswas plan to announce a project that includes Meraki’s Wi-Fi networks throughout San Francisco’s affordable housing communities.

We’re not sure the extent of Newsom’s announcement, but supporting Meraki is the least the mayor can do after the previously botched San Francisco Wi-Fi network. And in any case, Meraki is actually footing the bill for the entire ad-hoc free Wi-Fi network, including the affordable housing section. Biswas says the cost of the entire network is in the low several millions.

Biswas says Meraki will set up its system of Wi-Fi repeaters and Internet broadband access in “all” of the low-income housing communities in San Francisco, including the Altamont Hotel, where Newsom and Biswas will make the announcement. This is the latest part of the company’s “Free the Net” project and Biswas tells us that the company will have access points in every neighborhood in the entire city by the end of the year.

In the past, EarthLink and Google were both linked to a Wi-Fi effort in San Francisco that really didn’t go anywhere due to political roadblocks. Both companies have backed away from their MuniFi efforts.

Google, however, was one of those who invested in the seed round Meraki raised in November 2006. The mesh gear maker raised $20 million in a Series B round from Sequoia Capital, DAG Ventures and Northgate Capital back in January. Meraki could also be taking a page from Google when it comes to testing out ad-serving to support a free network. Biswas tells us that the company has tested out some contextual ads over the network.

City-wide Wi-Fi networks have been proving to not be viable in many cities and communities, but Meraki’s type of very low-cost, ad-hoc networks seems to be best suited for the technology. For just a few million, a company like Meraki can slowly add localized Wi-Fi hotspots in communities that actively want and will use the technology. Newsom certainly wants to work with the company to close San Francisco’s digital divide. We’ll check out the press conference later today and snap some pics of the mayor’s do — and the unwiring festivities.

As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” And so it has been with municipal Wi-Fi. While the goal of providing free access to citizens is a noble one, muni W-Fi proponents have misunderstood how the Internet is used in public spaces, primarily by assuming that people who can afford laptops are somehow unable to afford Internet access.

The majority of us have the means to pay for mobile voice and data service, especially now that companies like Metro PCS offer cheap, unlimited plans. However, there is a large population of people who can’t pay rent, much less afford a MacBook or a BlackBerry loaded with all the extras. Perhaps a better solution is to update the concept of lifeline coverage to make it universal and automatic.

It seems reasonable to me to require mobile operators — as a condition for siting cell towers throughout a community — to provide basic service to users who can’t afford it. What might this wireless “lifeline” service look like?

• 24×7 access to emergency and social services (911, 311, local agencies)
• 15 minutes per day of voice calls
• Basic data service, downgraded when the network is in demand from paying users
• Ability to upgrade to paid plans
• Paid plans that go delinquent or to zero balance are automatically downgraded to “lifeline” phones with limited service
• Ability to re-use second-hand phones

In exchange for supporting the concept of universal service, the mobile operators would receive permission to build more cell towers, tax credits and other incentives to add incremental capacity. They’re already building out networks, so the cost of supporting a population of low-impact users should be minimal, especially since they can ration service to non-paying users during peak periods. Many of these people will also upgrade to paid plans when they can afford it.

It seems to me that the proponents of muni Wi-Fi tried to solve a problem that didn’t really exist. Anyone who can afford a laptop can generally afford a cheap DSL or cable connection, or can find a hotspot when they need to get online. Extending broadband Internet to an entire city might be great for road warriors, but for the average person, it’s a solution looking for a problem. The real problem is economics, not access, and that’s something a public-private partnership between cities and mobile operators can solve, and quickly, because it’s not necessary to build an entirely new network to support these users. It might not be necessary to build any new infrastructure if mobile operators can figure out how to ration service during periods of high demand from paying users.

Most of us who read this site take communication for granted, and frankly, have a warped view of what people outside the tech industry need. Talk to a tradesperson or someone who falls under the category of the “working poor” and you’ll get a much different view of what’s important (things like an affordable place to live, basic services, the means to find work and get things done). A cheap or free mobile phone can mean the difference between finding work and not, especially for transient populations (unfortunately a growing population thanks to the recession and mortgage crisis).

A well-designed wireless lifeline service could be developed at little cost to either a city or to mobile operators, yet would enable even the poorest of the poor to have the same access to information, services and jobs that the rest of us take for granted. If it works here, the model could be copied everywhere, especially in developing countries where the gap between the haves and have-nots is even more pronounced.

Brian McConnell is the founder of the Worldwide Lexicon project and Der Mundo.

The iPhone’s ability to switch seamlessly between Wi-Fi networks and AT&T’s EDGE network with minimal mucking around by the user still remains unmatched. If you’re using one of Nokia’s increasing number of Wi-Fi enabled phones, the experience is the opposite: painful. Unless you permanently set a preference in each individual application, you’re annoyingly prompted to select a network whenever a program tries to access the Internet.

Nokia is still grappling with this problem. The good news is that there’s a fix: Psiloc Connect. Psiloc Connect works by creating a new Access Point on your S60 device. By pointing any application to the Psiloc AP, you can set your preferences so Psiloc will attempt to connect through Wi-Fi, then will try your cellular data connection next, whether it be 3G, EDGE or GPRS. In other words, with Psiloc, you can let the phone choose the fastest data network available. It will set you back about $16, which isn’t cheap — but I think it’s worth owning.