I was pretty excited when I saw this article in ACM Queue magazine on open spectrum, software radios, and mesh networks as the keys to ubiquitous connectivity. Unfortunately, the author plays fast and loose with a lot of the details in a way that left me quite unsatisfied. He repeats the hype on some technologies without noting the well-known limitations.

The first thing that raised a red flag for me was when the article said that the term “cognitive radio” was coined in 1991. I found that hard to believe, as I first heard the term only recently, and I haven’t exactly been living under a rock, particularly in the area of wireless communications. Well, I checked his source (it was linked to Mitola’s website, below) and it says plainly that the term “software radio” was coined in 1991 with “cognitive radio” coined more recently. This makes more sense to me.

So, read the article if you like, but take its claims with a grain of salt, if you please.

Joseph Mitola III, who coined both “Software Radio” and “Cognitive Radio” has a website presenting a short course on both topics.

Andy M also asks what I think about the construction of a wireless communications system in Iraq after the war. If you haven’t heard, here’s a brief summary: According to reports, the defense department was planning to build a GSM cellular system in Iraq after the war. GSM is a standard that is used throughout the world, but it was initially developped for use in Europe. Well, California Congressman Darrell Issa caught wind of this and introduced a bill that would require the system constructed in Iraq to be based on “American” CDMA technology. Here’s a story on the subject.

I understand the logic behind this measure: The French and Germans wouldn’t support us in this war so now we’ll show them by shutting them out of the rebuilding Iraq. In addition, Congressman Issa states that CDMA technology is superior to GSM.

Although debateable, I agree with the Congressman’s assessment of the technology. CDMA is commonly held to be superior technology. Nevertheless, I think his measure is completely misguided.

Although Qualcomm, the main holder of intellectual property related to CDMA, is an American company, the argument that using CDMA instead of GSM “supports America” is completely off-base. Two of the top six manufacturers of GSM network equipment are U.S. companies — Lucent and Motorola — while a number of manufacturers of CDMA equipment are European — Alcatel and Nokia spring to mind.

In addition, while CDMA may be technically superior, GSM tends to be much more interoperable because it is deployed more widely. GSM countries include Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan. To force Iraq to adopt a different system, preventing roaming even throughout the Middle East, would be a great disservice to the Iraqi people. Ultimately, it’s not technical superiority that matters here; it’s usability.

The DoD has already demonstrated that it will tend to prefer American companies in the rebuilding of Iraq. Whatever. In choosing GSM for Iraq, though, the DoD was definitely making the right decision. The bigger issue here: Doesn’t Congress have more important things to worry about than what kind of cell phones the Iraqi people get?

Ever since I posted that last entry, I’ve been thinking of ever-cooler applications of Voice-over-IP technology. Here’s the best one I’ve come up with: You take a Pocket PC Phone Edition (or an equivalent Palm OS device with built-in cell phone), and you add an 802.11 card and software for Voice-over-IP. When you’re at your home or office, it uses the Voice-over-IP and the 802.11 card to provide voice and data services via your broadband internet service. When you’re on the road, you get your voice and data via the cellular system. At the moment, you would still need two phone numbers to pull off this trick, but someone’s bound to offer this service with a single number soon… And service should be cheaper than the current cellular plans since you will often be using a network connection that you’ve already paid for. The hardware is there; the software can’t be far behind.

I saw this linked a couple of places before I actually got around to reading it. Clay Shirky explains how the phone company is going the way of ZapMail. Go read.

The rise of customer-owned networks is intimately connected to my area of research. I worry that the current technology isn’t really ready for prime time; I don’t think we’ve done what it takes to protect our networks (wired or wireless) from those who would bring them to their knees. Nonetheless, the potentials here are very exciting. I’ve been keeping up with WiFi, but I didn’t realize how far Voice-over-IP had come. Cool. [via Joel on Software and others]

Yet another NY Times WiFi story. This one about the proliferation of free access points in public places. It’s an interesting article.

Also a bit about the compatability issues facing 802.11 in the near future. Lots of companies are shipping products based on draft standards. The problem, of course, is that if the standard changes drastically then the pre-released products may not be interoperable with the standard.