After six years of rolling with T-Mobile’s HotSpot to power in-store wi-fi Web access, Starbucks has gone another way with an agreement to go with AT&T to provide a mix of free (with purchase) and paid wireless hook-ups, starting this Spring.

My initial reaction to this was “Sonofabitch!” — not because I’m a big T-Mobile fan, but because I landed a free yearlong subscription to HotSpot as part of the One Laptop Per Child donation program. So seemingly, I get screwed by this switcheroo.

But then I read the fine print:

Current T-Mobile HotSpot customers, who pay from $6 per hour-long session to $9.99 for a day pass to $39.99 a month for unlimited access, will get Wi-Fi access at no extra charge through an agreement between AT&T and T-Mobile.

So hoo-ray, I don’t get cut off, at least not until early next year. Which is good, because I’ve actually come to rely upon pitstops at random Starbucks outlets for quick checks of email and other info via my iPod Touch. Yes, T-Mobile has other HotSpot partners, but they’re nowhere near as widespread in Manhattan as Starbucks (which is why this development is a real problem for T-Mobile).

Theoretically, I shouldn’t be so dependent on the HotSpot link, given that there’s a big free wi-fi cloud over midtown called CBS Mobile Zone, which I was jazzed about upon announcement. But to date, I’ve never been able to connect to it. It’s definitely there — it comes up as an available wireless client when my iTouch is scanning an area, and I’ve seen ads promoting it. But until I’m able to actually use it, it might as well not be there.

So for the time being, I continue to be on the lookout for Starbucks shops. They’ll get my money, by design — the incidental purchase of a tea and cookie is part of the trap. But I like to stick it to the man half the time by just camping out outside the store and surreptitiously calling up the HotSpot login page.

As what used to be a no-fly zone for Web access gets un-wired-up, what airline passengers will be doing with that high-altitude bandwith while in close proximity to others is raising concerns.

Panasonic Avionics Corp., a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. unit testing airborne services on Australia’s Qantas Airways Ltd., is designing its high-speed Internet services to block sites on “an objectionable list,” including porn and violence, said David Bruner, executive director for corporate sales and marketing.

He said airlines based in more restrictive countries could choose to expand the list.

The company also is recommending that airlines permit Internet-based phone calls only on handsets with wireless Wi-Fi capabilities — the technology delivering access within the passenger cabin. Bruner said the company believes Wi-Fi handsets use less bandwidth than telephone software that runs on laptops.

Airlines, he said, also could block incoming calls — and the annoying ring tones they produce — or designate periods of quiet time.

Those policing efforts are mainly the province of overseas flights. U.S. carriers are going decidedly more laissez-fair:

“We think decency and good sense and normal behavior” will prevail, said Jack Blumenstein, chief executive of Aircell LLC, which is launching service on some American and Virgin flights in 2008.

Decency? Good sense? “Normal” behavior? Obviously this guy has never stood in line at a Starbucks for 5 minutes while surrounded by non-stop cellphone jabberers. Imagine enduring that for a 3-hour trip from New York to San Fran.

Besides that, it’d be a royal pain to scrunch over a notebook computer in a space where even legroom is non-existent. The best alternative would be an ultra-small wi-fi device — like my iPod Touch, for instance! So I guess this would work out well for me.

Even as municipal wi-fi efforts in Philadelphia and elsewhere founder, New York is getting, by the end of this month, a big fat zone of free wireless Internet access in the heart of midtown Manhattan:

Called the CBS Mobile Zone, this area of coverage will stretch through a bustling, tourism- and business-heavy swath of midtown from 42nd Street north to Central Park south, from Sixth Avenue west to Eighth Avenue. (Landmarks-wise, that’s roughly Times Square to Columbus Circle.)

The new effort will be supported largely by advertising. Upon logging on, Web surfers will come to a home page with “hyperlocal content such as breaking local and national news, sports highlights, weather reports, music discovery, wallpapers, ringtones, maps, a social network, and the ability to search for nearby restaurants, shops and entertainment complete with geographically-targeted community reviews,” according to a release from CBS. Citi and Salesgenie.com have signed on as sponsors. Some businesses within the midtown zone will also be equipped with routers to take advantage of the Internet access.

And what do you know, that’s just the part of town where I spend the majority of my waking working hours. Yippee! Looks like I’ll never want for a Web hookup for my iPod Touch again.

It’s confirmed for only the next six months, pending the success of (I presume) usage levels and ad sales. As similar efforts around the country managed to dry up quickly, I’m not counting on this offering lasting forever. However, it is New York — more people are out and about and in need of wireless access than in more car-centric cities. I’m cautiously optimistic.

With a 100-buck pricetag, Nabaztag is slightly too pricey to be a frivolous purchase.

But I wouldn’t mind test-driving one for a while. This wi-fi enabled toy rabbit audio-delivers RSS feeds and music, among other things, and generally gives the Web media experiences a plastically-goofy context.

This brings to mind the old-style television bunny-ear antenna, now updated for the 21st Century.

Those ears, by the way, are both movable and removable. It occurs to me that a Nabaztag sans bunny-ears would look suspiciously like a Halloween ghost. So perhaps a recent holiday sales-positioning opportunity has been missed? (Assuming this thing will even work without those ears.)

I’ll also give parent company Violet props for maintaining an appropriately irreverent Nabaztag blog, just perfect for soft-selling such a tech-cutesy product. I especially liked the proposed throw-down between Nabaztag and Honda’s Asimo robot:

Hey, Asimo, do you know what a Flying Dragon Ear Strike looks like? How about a Five Point Rabbit Throat Punch? Nabaztag knows. You see, he’s been practicing Tai Chi for years… while you where still playing with LEGOs in your Daddy’s server farm. So just turn around and go home kid… just go home.

Hmm. Pretty large talk from a rabbit with no visible appendages — unless you count removable ears…

I think I can abandon my plan to hack the iPhone just for the wi-fi action.

Yes, I’ll be queued up later this month, waiting to get my hands on the iPod Touch, most likely the 16-gig model (my current 30-gig is less than a quarter full, and I’m not planning on loading up on fat-file videos in the future, so the drop in disc size doesn’t faze me). And the key motivator for me — as it was for my brief flirtation with the iPhone — is the wireless Web capability. Finally, I’ll have a pocket-sized way to access the Internet while out and about!

It’s just as well. I wasn’t wild about switching phone service from Verizon Wireless to AT&T. And really, I was even less wild about combining my phone, music player, mobile Web and whatever else into a single device. I don’t care how high-performance the iPhone battery is, I’m not counting on it having enough juice to last the amount of use I’ll put into it. Besides, I’m well used to carrying both a phone and an iPod around; it’s not a hassle.

I’ll admit, I’m just as intrigued by the other new capability for this refreshed iPod line, including the Starbucks interface and mobile iTunes service. I’m not sure I’ll utilize either to a great degree. But it’s fun to tinker.

Back to the iPhone, on a side note: I’m curious about the new service allowing conversion of select iTunes tracks into customized ringtones. I’m surprised AT&T went along with this. Ringtone sales are a hot revenue-generator for the phone companies; this would seem to undercut that. Maybe it’s a test market thing, given the iPhone’s relatively small base.

Just counting down the days now…

A browse through this blog’s Wi-Fi category reveals a preoccupation by yours truly of municipal efforts to erect wireless Internet networks.

I may not be thus preoccupied much longer: Earthlink, AT&T and other providers are balking at further build-outs even in underway projects, citing low usage and lack of city funding.

When EarthLink and MetroFi first bid for Wi-Fi contracts several years ago, they often agreed to foot the bill for network build-out, operations, maintenance, and upgrades. They also frequently agreed to pay cities to lease public facilities, such as light poles, to hold Wi-Fi transmitters. If that wasn’t enough, the companies also promised some cities a chunk of their subscription and advertising revenues, as well as free usage of the Wi-Fi networks by city workers. EarthLink’s troubled San Francisco contract, for example, contains many of these terms.

One major flaw in these arrangements has been that initial forecasts for Wi-Fi subscriptions used to justify the investment in these networks have proven to be overly optimistic by a wide margin. In many cases, 15% to 30% of an area’s population was expected to sign up for muni Wi-Fi. But only 1% to 2% have signed up so far figures Glenn Fleishman, editor of an industry blog called Wifinetnews.com.

While rising demand for advertising on municipal Wi-Fi networks is helping offset the shortfall in subscription revenue, there’s a catch-22 at play here: Higher user numbers might generate more ad revenue, but network operators might need to cut fees to attract more users.

Is it realistic to push through enough ad inventory during the average few minutes someone is accessing the network? To me, free public wi-fi hotspots are good for spot-checking the Web: Check your email, check your blog, look up movie times, get local maps/directions, etc. That’s it. It’s not for lounging for a couple of hours of Web surfing. Battery life alone is an obstacle to that. A typical online media model for advertising doesn’t make much sense.

I’d still love to see a more widespread use of free wi-fi, for always-on access (independent of cellphone networks and the like). Maybe there’s a workaround no one’s dreamed up yet.

He uses it as a stepping stone toward reviews of a bunch of overprice Bluetoothed trinkets, but David Pogue brings up a good observation about how external wires are being phased out of our tech toyland:

Yes, wires. If you hadn’t noticed, they’re disappearing at an alarming clip. The cord between your home phone handset and the phone body? Gone. The wire between your cellphone and clip-on earpiece? Gone. The cable from your laptop to the network router? Gone.

Wi-fi Web/network connectivity is probably the most common example of this, at home and work. But if anything, the possibilities for ditching wires are underutilized. For example, I used to have to buy a new data cable every time I bought a new cellphone. But last time, since I got a phone with Bluetooth functions (which practically every phone has now), I smartened up and got a USB-plugin Bluetooth reception dongle. Now, syncing phone and computer is smoother, and I won’t have to buy a new connection interface with my next phone.

More to come, too. Wireless electrical power transmission will take the unplugged setup to bold new levels. Someday, the very concept of external connection wiring for any purpose might be a quaint outmoded technological memory.

The downside? Security holes galore, probably. And I’m sure a couple of decades from now, we’ll all be diagnosed with irradiated tumors, as a result of living in daily wireless crossfire zones. Convenience now, chemo later…

I’m sure we’ve all seen T-Mobile’s “Jimmy’s HotSpot” TV spot:

And I’m sure all of us are glad that “The Jimmy” has prospered since his long-ago “Seinfeld” appearance.

I was skeptical about the prospects of “The Only Phone You Need” campaign resonating with customers. Maybe ripping off old sitcom motifs is a way to ensure success.

I’m not in the market for a new wireless access point for my home. But if I were, I’d probably have to go for Belkin’s N1 Vision wireless router.

Why? Because it does something that shouldn’t be remarkable, but — thanks to inexplicable design short-sightedness in the computer hardware industry — is: It actually tells you who’s tapping into your wireless network.

With an interactive L.C.D. panel on the front, the router shows the number of connected users and devices, the speed of your uploads and downloads and even how much network bandwidth is being used.

I’m sure there’s other wireless equipment that gives you this valuable metric. But most of the stuff out there doesn’t. In this day of mobile Web devices that sniff out any and all hotspots, I don’t know why manufacturers don’t put this functionality front and center. Why not make it easy for the user to know if someone’s tapping into the house wi-fi?

Easy-to-set-up encryption should, of course, prevent Web leeching. But what if someone cracks it? Again, it’s nice to have a quick way to check.

Come to think of it, my current wireless access point is probably about seven years old, at least. It works fairly flawlessly, but it’s bound to fail sooner rather than later. So I’ll definitely have to keep this in mind for an upgraded replacement.

With all the hacking tips posted online, I’m mighty tempted to pick up an iPhone and use it solely as a mobile wi-fi Web access device.

Because I feel I could use such a gadget. I’m on the go so often, and there are so many purposely-open wireless hotspots around town, that I can easily take advantage of having the Web constantly at my fingertips. I already pay for Internet access as part of my current Verizon Wireless phone plan, but it’s only crappy WAP — barely tolerable for checking email and the occasional online map directions. I could lug my notebook computer around, but that’s overkill and a hassle — something that fits in my pocket would be ideal.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure it’s worth going through the dummy activation-then-cancellation process, especially since it’s likely to be shut down in a future software update. I don’t want to wind up with an elegant $600 brick.

Although I guess I could convince myself, via this justification: Buy the iPhone now, enable it without the telephone service, use the wi-fi (and iPod and camera capabilities) to my heart’s content — for about six months. At that point, in early 2008, my current VZW contract expires. Given that I’m already ready to chuck my present phone, I’ll be ready to replace it with the iPhone. So basically, I’d pre-pay for a new phone now, albeit at a heavy premium.

The only thing is that I’d have to dump VZW for AT&T, since there are no plans to make the iPhone available to other carriers. That’s likely my dealbreaker. So much for that scenario.

They were teased nearly a year ago, and now they’re here: T-Mobile’s HotSpot @Home wireless plan offers customers new Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) phones that can alternate between T-Mobile’s cellular network or a home wi-fi Internet connection.

This isn’t like having a cell phone that also happens to work as a cordless phone. You have the same number, whether you’re on Wi-Fi or cellular. And in an engineering feat, the new phones will hand over calls that are already in progress from Wi-Fi to the cellular network if you leave the hotspot, so you can start a call at home and then keep talking as you walk out.

My original concerns about wi-fi leeching being the basis for these for these types of phones seems unwarranted. It’ll be confined to a single wi-fi access point, presumably the customer’s home; anywhere else, T-Mobile’s standard connection takes over.

I’m thinking this will be a tough sell, simply because the concept will be difficult to accurately communicate to the average consumer. Positioning it as a supplement to spotty coverage is a good starting point. Maybe their “The Only Phone You Need” campaign will get it across, but I’m not sure it’ll completely resonate.

Every time news of a city-wide free/low-cost wireless Web network comes up, I always point out how that prospect would affect Starbucks.

It ain’t because all that hi-frequency wavelengthing would superheat all those venti cups. It’s because Starbucks is the most prominent example of a commercial outlet that imposes a fee for wireless Web access, via partner T-Mobile. In my mind, free hotspots serve to undercut high-end outlets that are coveted by proponents of downtown vitality; therefore, any such undertakings should tread carefully.

But maybe I’ve got it backwards. Rather, perhaps Starbucks and its ilk should give up the pay-for wi-fi offering, similarly to how another value-added amenity was positioned decades ago:

In the 1920s, when air-conditioning began to be installed in movie theaters, owners had to spend a sizable sum — $50,000 (roughly equivalent to $570,000 today) — to transform the property into a “cold spot.” But it was worth it. Before the “refrigeratory process” came along, theaters could not draw customers during the summer because of the unbearable heat in confined space. With air-conditioning, patronage increased so sharply that even the largest investments were quickly repaid.

Wi-Fi does not address a similar problem of seasonal attendance. Nor will it produce a multifold increase in patronage. But, then again, it’s not nearly as costly to introduce as the cooling plants of the 1920s.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some theaters back then experimented with some similar per-patron charge for AC. Maybe some owners opted for seatside mini-fan, that you had to feed with coins to stay cool? It would have gone nowhere. There may be more parallels to todays free/pay wi-fi option in retail lounges.

Simply put, offering free wi-fi will encourage Starbucks patrons to hang out longer, increasing the chances that they’ll order a couple of extra cups of coffee, cookies, etc. That should offset concerns about providing the Web access, and being able to serve more customers.

Are we approaching a point where hunkering down to an Ethernet-tethered desktop computer for Web surfing will become as antiquated as using a landline telephone?

The latest Pew Internet & American Life Project report hints at a strong yes. Finding reveal one-third of users used wireless means to check the Web, while 20 percent had wi-fi networks set up at home.

This changes the level of interaction with the online medium:

“We know that ‘always on’ broadband connections really deepen people’s relationship to the Internet; adding ‘on the go’ to the mix takes this a step further,” said John Horrigan, associate research director at the Pew Internet Project. “The convenience of wireless access gives people the chance to fire off a quick e-mail to someone while waiting in a doctor’s office or check the news headlines on the way to work.”

It’s the next step in an evolution that makes the Internet more ubiquitous and accessible. The first phase was the ascendancy of broadband speeds on dedicated data pipes (mainly fiber cables), instead of the early connections via telephone line dialup. That changed people’s approach toward the Web, from a session experience that you had to bloc out time to accomplish, to a utility that you could access on the fly, picking up info-chunks as needed. With wireless access from mobile devices (including notebook computers, but also phones, etc.), that on-the-fly access extends beyond the physical location.

What’s not mentioned here is the increase in data vulnerability, as so many wi-fi access points are notoriously weak on security. That’s the tradeoff going forward.

Geez, I’m a dunce.

Those persistent pings from Bryant Park’s wi-fi network, that compelled me to issue a call-out? Guess where they were coming from. Not the park at all, but from that very same aforementioned post.

How? Without getting too technical, when I hyperlinked to my traffic stats, in my haste I wrongly used a location-generated query-string link. Thus, every time that post and/or this site’s index page logged a visit, a phantom hit seemingly coming from the park also registered. In essence, the site was pinging itself.

It wouldn’t have been a big deal, but the activity fairly spooked me. I figured it was some malicious hacker who’d somehow used the public wi-fi network to sniff out my blog’s backend, or was trying to. I was pretty sure my computer wasn’t compromised, but I wound up running system scans and changing passwords anyway. I also tried to block the park’s IP address, in vain (now I know why that fairly simple procedure refused to work). A lot of anxiety, waiting for a possible site hijacking that in reality was baseless.

The really funny thing: This site gets dozens of hijack attempts everyday, just like most other websites. That’s part of the landscape online. But I never see much explicit evidence of it, unless I dig deep into the backend. I know it’s going on, but there’s little sense in fretting over it; I implement as many security measures as are reasonable, and leave it at that. But when it makes itself apparent, via visible traffic stats, I get antsy. By rights, I should be nervous non-stop, but because I can’t see it happening, it doesn’t faze me. Classic out of sight, out of mind phenomenon.

Oh well. If nothing else, this was an unintentional wakeup call to use some layer of encryption before my next visit to Bryant Park. Even though this was a false alarm, the threat of hacking via public wi-fi is real enough. But I’d hate to give up my semi-regular Web surfing stopovers in the park, especially while the weather’s so ideal for it.

Hmm. My traffic logs have been showing a steady stream of visits from someone(s) in Bryant Park all day long.

As it happens, I stopped off there this morning on the way to work, for a quick round of Web action (ideal layover, given the park’s wi-fi network and the generally languid setting).

I’m guessing this is no coincidence. Anyone dropping by here via Bryant want to leave a comment, to let me know who you are? Don’t be shy…

There’s a near-animalistic buzz in the air as Fashion Week descends upon New York, starting today.

And how am I contributing? Well, aside from wearing a black/grey/blue Calvin Klein tie that I’m rather fond of, not much. At least not in a sartorial sense. Hey, I know my limitations, and color-coordinating my wardrobe is one of them.

But I’m doing my part the best way I know how: Chillin’ in Bryant Park, floating in and out of the big tent holding all the runway action, and watching plenty of people who know how to dress and move better than me do just that. (Don’t ask how I snagged an event pass — it’s the ends, not the means, that matter tonight.)

I’m getting a nice eyeful every few minutes. It’s not constant — the archetypical fashion model, and those who wanna be, often lack some of the feminine physical aspects that I happen to prize. (Take a wild guess.) But it’s all about volume here right now, and inevitably, one will strut by that cannot help but capture my attention, if even for a few seconds. I may not know fashion… But I know what I like.

Anyway, I’ve got to stick to my drink quota. And this free Park wi-fi, while much appreciated, is a little patchy during a semi-hectic event like this (”semi-” because it’s relatively easygoing outside the tent, where I am now; a weird dichotomy, like a partial oasis). And whoever I borrowed this computer from is probably looking for it right now. Back to the buzz.

The concept’s been kicked around for years, but it looks like wireless phones that can piggyback onto wi-fi Web hotspots for connections are closer to reality, as Skype and ISPs collaborate with handset manufacturers to make it happen.

“It’s a phone that looks, feels and acts like a cell phone, but it actually operates over the Wi-Fi network,” said Steve Howe, vice president of voice for EarthLink, which is building networks in Philadelphia and Anaheim, Calif.

Later this year it plans to introduce Wi-Fi phone service that Mr. Howe said could cost a fifth as much as traditional cell service.

The technology is in its early stages, and it faces some hurdles to widespread use. But it is being promoted by big technology companies like Cisco Systems and giving rise to new competition in the mobile phone business.

A handful of companies are already using Wi-Fi phones to cut costs within offices or on corporate campuses, and the phones will soon be reaching the consumer market.

This looks to be a threat to the telcos, which rely on people burning through their plan minutes. If your phone can regularly bypass the wireless provider’s celltower, especially in a wi-fi dense area, then what’s to stop the average consumer from going with a wireless plan with the minimum number of minutes? (I’m assuming you wouldn’t be able to forego a wireless plan altogether — for instance, you’d still need the phone activated, with an assigned phone number, etc.)

But if it is a threat, the telephone companies’ first reaction is to (uncharacteristically) co-opt it:

The major cellphone companies have taken notice of Wi-Fi phones, and some have chosen to deal with the potential threat by embracing it, building it into their business plans.

Cingular Wireless plans to introduce phones next year that will allow people to connect at home through their own wireless networks but switch to cell towers when out and about.

Later this year, T-Mobile plans to test a service that will allow its subscribers to switch seamlessly between connections to cellular towers and Wi-Fi hotspots, including those in homes and the more than 7,000 it controls in Starbucks outlets, airports and other locations, according to analysts with knowledge of the plans. The company hopes that moving mobile phone traffic off its network will allow it to offer cheaper service and steal customers from cell competitors and landline phone companies like AT&T.

“T-Mobile is interested in the replacement or displacement of landline minutes,” said Mark Bolger, director of marketing for T-Mobile. Wi-Fi calling “is one of the technologies that will help us deliver on that promise.”

So everyone’s onboard, it seems.

I can’t help but notice, though: In order to be a viable out-and-about option, these phones would rely upon unsecured hotspots; that’s the only way to maintain a fairly consistent connection while switching from one zone to another. In that case, isn’t this an example of wi-fi leeching, which is generally frowned upon? I can’t believe everyone involved would want to dip into that morass.

And that’s the viable solution. These phones would be high-and-dry when encountering encrypted connections. I imagine the phones could be configured to tap into a WEP-protected setup, but that doesn’t jibe with the operating principle here — the ability to use a mobile phone while in transit, when a celltower can’t/won’t do. I guess the owners of such phones can sync up with their household wi-fi access points, and the corporate-campus environment cited above seems like another ideal setting for a wide-area network solution. But in that case, I can’t believe the phone companies would play along, ceding network access time in physical areas where the majority of phone usage would occur.

So I’m not sure this concept is fully thought-out. It sounds to me like it’s dependent upon the indefinite continuation of hundreds of open wi-fi hotspots in tight physical zones, even as encryption becomes more of an out-of-the-box solution with wireless equipment. Take that away, and the wi-fi switching trick seems like a rarely-usable option.

It took three years of gestation, but New York is finally setting up wi-fi hotspots in 10 of the City’s most prominent parks, including Bryant, Riverside and Central Parks.

If I ever needed incentive to knock off for an afternoon and lug my notebook up to Central Park for some mobile blogging, this would be it. Hopefully the outfit that’s implementing this, WiFi Salon, can get the Web connections up and running pronto.

The key to finally getting this done was the addition of Nokia as an infrastructure/hardware partner. That partnership includes a vision of how free (actually, ad-supported) hotspots can change the park-sitting experience:

Floris van de Klashorst, a director in the multimedia unit at Nokia’s office in White Plains, said he believed that traditional park activities — reading newspapers and listening to music — were increasingly being done using mobile communications devices, in addition to watching television and sending e-mail.

“Wi-Fi in the parks provides an excellent podium for us to showcase these new kinds of applications,” he said. Nokia is marketing several portable devices — essentially scaled-down computers for casual Internet browsing — that can tap into Wi-Fi hot spots.

So instead of visiting the green patches to get away from it all, even momentarily, you go there to stay connected. I’m okay with that.

The wide-area wireless concept recently announced for New York’s Suffolk County is jumping Long Island Sound (the long way) into Rhode Island, where officials hope to set up the nation’s first statewide wi-fi hotspot.

Well, if your aim is to cover a whole state, better to pick the smallest one (Rhode Island) than the largest (Alaska).

Unlike Suffolk, Rhode Island’s effort won’t be a free service. Led by Rhode Island Wireless Innovation Networks (RIWINs), the idea is to use the border-to-border Internet access as a business recruitment tool, chiefly aimed at taxed-out firms in Massachusetts. Toward that end, there’s significant infrastructure muscle in the plans:

The Rhode Island network is a hybrid of WiMax and Wi-Fi technologies that would deliver real-time connections at a minimum speed of 1 megabit per second (Mbps), allowing users to download a typical Hollywood-length film in about 100 minutes. The system will be supported by 120 base antennas placed throughout the state…

The project is being funded by public and private sources, and once fully operational, users would pay $20 per month under one fee structure, said Saul Kaplan, acting executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, a partner in the project.

This means more pressure to make sure the network is up practically 24/7, and is secure — both crucial for business users. Regarding the former concern, I wonder how the access points would work during inclement weather, particularly during winter. Even private connections are prone to going out in adverse conditions, but that doesn’t help sell this big-idea pitch.

The free wi-fi bug has bitten Long Island, as Suffolk County has announced plans for a free-of-charge wireless Web blanket to cover its 900 square miles.

It’ll be a neat trick, logistically:

Typically, wireless systems have caught on in remote areas without any other Internet access and in urban centers with high population densities that concentrate potential users.

But Suffolk is distinctly different, a sprawling county with heavily developed suburbs, gilded estates, horse farms, semi-rural sections with potato farms and vineyards, strip malls and seashores. It stretches from the office and retail corridor along Route 110 on its western border to the Montauk Lighthouse on the East End and beyond to Fishers Island.

Covering that area would require hundreds or thousands of transmitting devices that cost up to $5,000 each, experts say. The broadcast range varies, and more transmitters are needed in areas of heavy usage. The entire system could cost tens of millions of dollars, experts say.

And the quality and reliability of this freebie carries no guarantees. Keeping in mind the snafus associated with the free wi-fi network established in the Central Florida town of St. Cloud, Suffolkers shouldn’t make plans to cancel their cable/DSL subscriptions.

I always forget how populated the “other” county on Long Island is (it actually has more people than Nassau). One and a half million people is nothing to sneeze at. Delivering free Internet for them, on land and water, will be something to brag about, if they pull it off.

Orlando suburb St. Cloud demonstrated its with-it tech chops by setting up a city-wide wireless Web service, accessible for free. Alas, residents are getting — or really, not getting — what they paid for, as performance has been spotty for many:

At first, a desktop computer in [resident Joe] Lusardi’s house could use the Wi-Fi network with no problem, but his laptop would only work outdoors. Even then it was too slow and unreliable, so he kept his $20 per month Sprint DSL service.

Now the desktop doesn’t even work, and he’s completely abandoned the idea of dropping his pay service and using the network.

“It’s just total frustration,” Lusardi said. “I’m going to stay with the DSL and just forget it, because I don’t think it’s going to work. Very few people are going to use it, and they’re going to say it’s underutilized and they’re going to shut it down.”

That last sentence may be drawing from local experience. A year ago, right up the road, Orlando killed off its own free wi-fi blanket, citing extremely low usage. I guess folks in the heart of Florida aren’t too keen on pulling in their Internet from the air.

These examples suggest a couple of things:

- Regular wi-fi equipment and frequencies might not be the proper route for such wide coverage areas. The 802.11b/g standards were intended for use in relatively tight zones, i.e. houses and buildings. They can be extended and boosted via transmission antennae, but they weren’t really designed for that kind of heavy lifting. There are alternatives like WiMax; I’m not sure how feasible they’d be to deploy, or how compatible they are with bundled and off-the-shelf wi-fi computer equipment.

- Reliability and speed of connection are factors that make such freebies more usable as backup access. Other cities like Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco probably should approach their wi-fi blankets as complementary services that are better than nothing; most people will retain their ISPs for a more reliable connection.