Matt Keally's Blog

The traditional approach for implementing solutions in wireless sensor networks is to use academically designed sensor motes, which provide an open hardware and software platform.  Such devices have been good for addressing fundamental problems, like radio irregularity, routing, data aggregation, and power savings, all of which require fine-grained control (open source) over the software and hardware.  While sensor motes provide a good proof of concept solution to some problems, more practical solutions are needed that are more attention-grabbing than a collection of weak, low power devices with limited sensing capabilities.  Basically, there aren’t a whole lot of applications for sensor motes that would be useful to most people.  A more recent approach is to use cell phones, which are increasingly becoming equipped with GPS, accelerometers, and microphones, providing a platform for interesting and practical wireless sensor solutions.  However, the hardware and software of most cell phones are extremely restrictive, clamped down by manufacturers and wireless providers, effectively limiting the research possibilities.  For example, one can’t just perform a clear channel assessment using a cell phone’s WiFi radio without less restrictive or open source drivers (even with Android).  Such restrictiveness is hindering improvements in mobile devices and many of these improvements would be welcomed by everyday consumers.

Like landline phones, Internet users will eventually drop wired ISP connections in favor of wireless.  This shift towards mobile and ubiquitous computing emphasizes that wireless infrastructure and usage policies will be critical in the coming years.  With few exceptions, ISPs have followed the principles of network neutrality with respect to wired networks, permitting wired customers to use any device with any software using any communication protocol.  However, such openness is not reflected in wireless networks with ISPs placing heavy restrictions on devices, software, and means of communication.  To ensure competitive pricing, hardware innovations, exciting software applications, and available bandwidth for the surge in wireless traffic, wireless providers must follow the principles of network neutrality.  Since wireless providers are hesitant do do so, the FCC’s decision to enforce network neutrality is a step in the right direction.  The enforcement of the FCC’s network neutrality principles will allow researchers to push mobile computing to new and exciting levels and will allow consumers to get more functionality at lower prices.

The openness of the wired Internet has seldom been encroached upon by ISPs and rarely regulated by government, making the Internet the world that it is today.  This freedom has been defined by the FCC’s four principles of network neutrality:

• A user can access any content over the network.  All who access the Internet are provided access to everything on the Internet, whether it be an AP news report or the Unabomber Manifesto.  No ISP restricts content: everything is available, even if it may be morally objectionable or illegal.
• A user can run any application or use any service over the network.  Anyone can use any web service or application (Google, Mapquest, Facebook) without restriction from an ISP.   No ISP prevents users from making Skype calls even if that ISP also sells landline telephone service.
• A user can connect any device to the network, given it does no harm.  An Internet user can connect with any hardware, whether it be with a ten year old piece of junk running Linux or with a $10,000 top-of-the-line quad core processor running the latest Windows 7 beta.  No ISP restricts a user’s Internet access because his or her computer is a piece of junk.  Nor do ISPs force users to connect only with proprietary computers sold by the ISP.
• Competition among network, content, and application providers.  A user is open to choose from one of several ISPs (if more than one are even available), and also has choice over competing web services and content providers.

This freedom has not always been maintained, even with the wired Internet.  Two years ago, Comcast deliberately throttled the bandwidth of peer-to-peer protocols, limiting the upload and download speed of file sharing applications.  With peer-to-peer using customers enraged over this finding, the FCC forced Comcast to abandon this policy.  Other than this incident and a few others, the Internet has always been delivered equally to all who have access.

Unfortunately, such open policies of the wired Internet are not followed by wireless providers.  From the very birth of cell phones, wireless providers have controlled everything:

• Unrestricted content.  Wireless providers block (through restricted software) bandwidth-heavy content, such as streaming videos, voice/video communication, as well as file sharing.  Such restrictions are in place to limit or prevent wireless network congestion.  Improvements in wireless infrastructure could alleviate such congestion, but wireless providers have decided to restrict, rather than improve.
• Use of any application or service.  Nearly all providers restrict the operating system and applications available on connecting mobile devices.  Apple blocks the use of Skype when the phone is not connected to a WiFi network.  Similarly, the Google Voice application was also removed by Apple and AT&T.  Both applications provide features that could be seen as subversive to standard cellular voice calls.  Instead of providing competing applications (maybe with better features), the ISP and application providers just block any competition.
• Connection of any device.  Verizon’s network may be good, but their phones are terrible.  A customer cannot just build their own tricked out phone and connect it to Verizon’s network.  Instead, users are forced to choose from a handful of phones with menial features (only sold by Verizon, of course).
• Competition. Since content, applications, and hardware are restricted on most wireless networks, competition is limited.  Only a handful of wireless providers offer large coverage areas, especially for data communication.  Since the United States pays more for wireless than any other western country, it is clear that less restriction would provide more options and more competition for consumers.

Despite the crackdown on allowable hardware, software, and access, wireless executives somehow manage to argue that their industry is “perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America.”  While unregulated competition would be great for consumers in terms of increasing wireless freedom, there simply isn’t enough competition to go around.  There are only four major carriers in the United States, effectively forming a cartel that can set prices artificially high and extensively limit consumer freedom.  With barriers to entry so high (infrastructure), few new carriers are likely to emerge.  In cases like these, government intervention is the only solution.  Fortunately, the FCC is investigating the lack of competition in the wireless market with respect to insane billing rules and lack of consumer freedom in comparison to the wired Internet.  Of course, their latest decision to enforce network neutrality will also provide a strong push.

The end result should allow anyone to build their own phone, install a custom operating system, and connect it to the wireless provider of their choice without issue.  Such a user should be allowed unrestricted access to the entire Internet without throttling or restriction of streaming video, large file downloads, or VoIP calls.  Ultimately, text messaging and voice calls will be merged into wireless data plans, removing such unreal and confusing costs like $.25 to send a 160 byte message or “anytime” minutes, which are anything but anytime.  Unrestricted hardware, software, and access will bring increased competition among existing wireless providers, fostering the development of better mobile hardware and cool applications.