Lexy Antoni
MIT Capstone Course: MI412
“Future of Wireless Technology:
The Past Potential,
The Projected Power,
And…
Those Pesky Problems”
The world of wireless technology has grown substantially in recent years, and
many predict that, like the early years of the Internet, its projected power has yet to be
seen. In 1999, one prescient reporter stated that cell phones were to be the revolutionary
force for a wireless future (Platt). Cell phones have, indeed, paved the way for wireless
technology. However, as with all new technologies, there were various complications
with the earlier versions of cell phones. Even as cell phones advanced, more problems
arose. In 2000, one technology online newsgroup reported that “the wirelesscommunications world is locked into a gold rush with millions of dollars waiting for the
companies that can develop commercially practical solutions to increase spectrum
capacities and overall speed” (Meta Group). Over the past three years, the solutions for
these two problems have arisen; however, newer complications present themselves.
Before living in a successfully wireless world, strategies and solutions must be sought
which will create the smoothest transition from our current wired environment into a
wireless one.
The world of technology is constantly changing as consumers become cognizant
of new applications for technology. Wireless technology provides myriad applications,
some of which are being incorporated today. For example, real-time recording of
inventory is one application. According to their website, “FedEx was the first
transportation company to embrace wireless technology more than two decades ago…
FedEx couriers, contract delivery personnel and other team members use wireless data
collection devices to scan bar codes on shipments.” The use of such technology allows
not only FedEx, but their customers to track packages across the US, because with each
scan of the package (which is at least 12 times from pickup to delivery), the location of
the package is uploaded to the FedEx mainframe. (“About FedEx: FedEx Technology”)
Another application of wireless which has already been deployed is AMR, or Automated
Meter Reader. PPL, with headquarters in Allentown, is already successfully installing
and utilizing AMRs instead of the manually having meter readers go to each residence in
order to acquire a reading for utility use. With the AMR project, the cost-savings is
twofold: less manpower is required, and the data is collected more quickly. Furthermore,
a study of a Wisconsin AMR showed multiple benefits compared to the previous manual
meter reading method, including “more proactive discovery of outages, more timely and
complete resolution to billing inquiries, reduced field visits for special readings, and the
detection of meter tampering and energy theft” (WPS Resource Corporation). A third
application, which is currently used but under extreme scrutiny, is the utilization of
wireless technology in order to see through walls, buildings, or the ground. According to
an article in 2002, this technology is employed by emergency personnel such as
firefighters and rescue squads. However, they complain that current restrictions on
wireless technology prevent them from being able to use this wireless application to its
full potential, leaving the current technology sadly lacking in efficacy. (Charny)
Other applications for wireless technology which have not yet seen fruition
include utilizing your cellular device in order to compare motels, restaurants, and gas
stations while you’re on the road via online resources which can sense your location and
locations of businesses within a specified distance; downloading a nearby fast-food
franchise’s menu (complete with pictures), and sending an order in via your cellular
device, ready to picked up by the time your arrive; visiting the supermarket will cause
interaction between the store’s server and your handheld device, automatically registering
your buying habits and emailing you appropriate coupons; using a cellular phone as a
honing device so that you can track your child’s location in a public area, such as a mall
or park; and automakers can utilize wireless technology to increase airbag deployment
efficiency. (Platt)
Inherent in all new technology is an extensive list of problems which need to be
solved before the technology can reach its full potential. Roadblocks for wireless
technology occurred early during its inception, and many of those same problems
continue to be a problem today. As early as 1999, complaints started circulating that the
limited bandwidth on wireless technology was hindering its power. Traditional wireless
devices “use radio waves to send signals, which is hampered by limited bandwidth and
interference from other waves in an increasingly crowded radio spectrum” (Charny). The
problem of limited bandwidth is especially important due to the expected increase in the
number of wireless devices over the next several years. If bandwidth is considered
crowded now, then interference and bandwidth issues are going to be an extremely large
stumbling block for wireless users unless it is dealt with. One solution for this problem
did present itself in the form of ultrawideband (UWB) technology, which can transmit
data at high transmission rates (up to 2MB per second), and UWB encompasses a wider
spectrum so that interference and crowding issues are not an immediate concern. An
article from News.Com detailed how UWB works, stating that “instead of a continuous
wave, ultrawideband works by sending pulses of data in a binary format. Because the
pulses are sent over a much wider radio spectrum, they are into locked to a specific
frequency and will not interfere with other wireless devices as easily, enlarging available
bandwidth.” (Charny). Although the idea of UWB has been around for years, it was
illegal until February of 2002.
After complaints from wireless advocates and warnings from military officials,
the Federal Communications Commission reluctantly approved the limited use of UWB
technology in the beginning of 2002. The response to this breakthrough was mixed. The
US military and current mobile phone carriers were fearful of interference with their
current wireless networks. The military was afraid that access to confidential military
information may be given to unqualified people, and the mobile phone companies were
anxious about interference with their new Global Positioning Services (GPS) networks.
According to Charny, “the US military and mobile phone carriers say the signals are so
powerful they could cause disruptive interference to their wireless operations” (“Fed
approves new wireless technology”). However, the FCC did limit the UWB technology
specifically for the military and mobile phone companies. According to a Gartner
Analyst, “the FCC’s decision will keep UWB noise out of the sensitive areas of radio
bandwidth occupied by GPS , cell phones, and wireless LAN systems” (Reynolds).
Although not entirely convinced that these restrictions will prove effective in preventing
interference, the government and mobile phone carriers were grateful that some
restrictions were placed on UWB.
Although the FCC’s restrictions were hesitantly embraced by the UWB
opponents, UWB advocates protested the limits. Charny reports, “police and fire
officials criticized the limitations, saying they weaken the strength of the UWB devices
they had planned to use” (“Fed approves new wireless technology”). The police and fire
crews have been using UWB technology for emergency-rescue purposes since 1998,
under special dispensation from the FCC. However, they are now bound to the new
restrictions on the technology. According to one New York firefighter, “The ability to
track from 150 feet away is now not possible,” while this feat was accomplished after the
1998 dispensation. The firefighter continues to say, “Now we can’t get the signal out 20
feet” (Charny). Therefore, the FCC was not entirely successful in its attempt to satisfy
both opponents and advocates for UWB technology.
Further problems ensued with the FCC’s ruling in December of 2002. According
to one article, due to impending war and complications since the ruling in February, the
Defense Departments filed a request to have the FCC further restrict bandwidth,
bandwidth which is being sought by advocates of the wireless industry. “The bandwidths
in questions allegedly conflict with critical radar systems Defense officials say are the
‘eyes and ears of forward deployed troops’. The industry counters the limits would retard
growth in the rapidly advancing technology” (Walz).
The Defense Department claims that the restrictions they are requesting are
essential for maintaining homeland security and ensuring that at least 10 critical radar
systems remain isolated from potential destructive interference. The Defense
Department’s Director of Spectrum Management Badri Younes states, “Those radar
systems are there to protect and serve the American people an we will do everything in
our power to protect our operations.” Especially with the threat of war, the Pentagon
adheres to their stance of no-compromise for this issue. (Walz)
Technology advocates retaliated by stating that the FCC’s restrictions in February
had already stunted potential wireless growth, and further limitations would be enervative
as well as unnecessary. Not only would future wireless systems possibly have
complications with limited bandwidth, but current wireless systems would have to
redesign their networks. Dennis Eaton, chairman of Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) Alliance,
says that the technology industry and the Department of Defense can coexist sharing the
UWB if rules are agreed upon. He states, “We’ve lost a lot of years and can’t afford to
lose anymore.” Eaton also acknowledges the Defense Department’s concern for US troop
and civilian safety. “Nobody wants to put American lives, or any person for that matter,
in jeopardy.” His solution is to mimic Europe’s solution to their bandwidth problem,
utilizing Dynamic Frequency Selection and Transmission Power Control devices. These
devices allow Defense Departments to monitor the use of bandwidth. When a
commercial enterprise enters into a bandwidth which is currently occupied for classified
systems, the enterprise is sent notice by the government that the company must use a
different frequency. While this approach is reactive, the US Defense Department is
advocating for a proactive approach, which would limit the bandwidth that commercial
enterprises can use, so that interference does not have to be monitored and companies do
not have to change frequencies. Younes also cites that “European communications are
constrained because of the system in place.” (Walz)
Although both a proactive and reactive approach are being considered, the FCC is
not expected to make a ruling until the summer of 2004, due to domestic policy
restrictions. Therefore, the issue of bandwidth and interference remains a controversial
topic and will occupy the wireless industry for some time to come.
Another problem which arose early and caused years of ensuing controversy was
the issue of continent-wide access points. The early years of wireless technology saw
high demand, but companies were needed to take the initiative to set up access points
across the US. This problem is extremely similar to the difficulties encountered by the
early construction of the continent-wide telephone company and even the continental
railroad. While everyone is generally in favor of the idea, there has to be someone or
some corporation willing to put out the initial investment in order to set up the access
points. With the onslaught of 3G (3rd Generation) Cellular Technology, major phone
carriers such as Sprint and AT&T have begun to set up continent-wide access points.
According to an Ars Technica article, 3G cellular phones are voice and data compatible,
built “from the ground up” – ideal for delivering high-speed data. The setup of 3G
systems “allows for a large number of users with high data rates” (Kleint). The new
Sprint commercials, notorious for their “built from the ground up” slogans, are
advertising this 3G technology. Another company which has built a national wireless
network is Cadillac. According to a report in 2000, “while all of the automobile
manufacturers have committed to adding wireless Internet and voice emergency
connectivity to their cars, only Cadillac has created an actual network” (Meta Group). In
1999, Cadillac created the network for the deployment of the OnStar system, which is a
directional navigation tool (“GTE activates…”). Although Cadillac built the network,
almost all car manufacturers, including Acura, Audi, Buick, GMC, and Saturn, currently
have models which utilize the OnStar system (“Vehicles with OnStar”).
Despite the efforts by these pioneering companies, the networks are not
completely comprehensive; the infamous “no service” areas still exist. The solution to
this problem is pending the completion of a fully inclusive wireless network. Even
OnStar, which boasts “ubiquitous coverage” on its website, admits to being limited to
areas which have cellular phone coverage since those are the towers which are used to
relay the OnStar signal. Bruce Radloff, the Chief Information Officer for OnStar, stated
just last year, “because of cell coverage limitations in the United States, it [OnStar] can
only offer wireless data services to customers in areas where cell coverage is consistently
available” (Lenatti). Cadillac, mobile phone companies, and other companies vying for a
piece in this entrepreneurial endeavor will have to complete their “ground-up” networks
before the full potential of the wireless technology they employ can be seen. Consumers
will not be satisfied if they have a technology that retains the “spotty coverage” which is
so common in today’s 2G cellular phones.
Besides bandwidth and coverage problems, security is another issue which is
continually brought up when dealing with wireless technology. In fact, security has been
an increasingly important issue since the provenance of technology and the onslaught of
hackers, viruses, and worms. As companies continue to retain more information in
networks, it becomes even more imperative that those networks remain secure from
outside invasion. Wireless networks prove to have a twofold problem: most of the
security in the network is primitive, and most network administrators fail to implement
any security measures at all. More advanced security is available for wireless networks,
but due in part to the low number of harmful attacks on wireless networks, administrators
fail to place the proper importance on wireless network security.
The lack of security for wireless systems is obvious due to the increased amount
of “war driving” or “war chalking” which has been occurring. War driving is
accomplished similar to CB eavesdropping. If there are no security measures in place,
hackers can search for the radio transmission frequency for the nearest wireless LAN,
thus gaining access to the network because no verification or security checks were
performed. Dragan Arsic, a mobility strategist for Microsoft, and a few friends walked
around The Loop in Chicago, which is the heart of the financial district. According to the
Chicago division of the Point-Travel Company website, The Loop is home to such
prestigious buildings as the Sears tower, the Chicago Board of Trade (which is one of the
biggest options and futures trading floors in the world), and dozens of hotels and
convention halls which draw millions of visitors every year (“The Loop, Chicago,
Illinois”). From the street, Arsic and his friends were able to access 32 wireless networks
which were inside the various buildings. He told one reporter that “more than half were
totally open with no security at all” (Tatum).
Many sources indicate that war driving has been the benevolent actions of curious
techies. Thus, war driving, while proving the dearth of current security measures, does
not seem to be spurring technology administrators into action because they do not see the
action as a threat. Because of this lack of foresight, at least one article warns of the
impending virulent attacks which are being goaded by the lack of security in wireless
systems. “In the near future… expect to hear that wireless networks have been hacked,
viruses have proliferated through such networks, and that other hacker exploits have
wreaked havoc. These will strengthen the impression that wireless networks cannot be
made secure and increase the need to ensure that they are as secure as they can be”
(Voorhees).
To prevent benevolent eavesdroppers as well as malicious hackers from gaining
entrée into a wireless system, there are simple, as well as complex, security measures
which can be implemented in the system. One solution is to create more internal access
points. By installing wireless access points at the most internal spot in the building, the
radius of wireless entry into the system is reduced. However, this solution is considered
naïve by most administrators, for rarely can an access point be installed that extends the
exact dimensions of the building. Furthermore, high signal strength is required so that
employees do not lose connectivity; however, this expands the radius for entry, thus
increasing the ability for non-registered users to gain access to the system. For example,
one reporter working in Manhattan reported that he was able to identify networks up to
six blocks away. (Voorhees)
Since more internal access points is not a feasible solution for most networks,
other, more traditional, security measures can be utilized. Encryption is considered
essential for creating a secure network. Unlike wired networks where the hardware of the
system must be secure to prevent hackers from gaining access, wireless networks must
ensure that the transmissions themselves are secure to eliminate eavesdropping. The
current standard for wireless networks is 802.11. Although this standard includes
Wireless Encryption Protocol (WEP) and RC4 algorithm for encryption, it is not enabled
by default on most implementations. Thus, administrators must be made aware to
physically activate the encryption algorithm. Moreover, 802.11 does not encrypt the
entire message, including the initiation vector and header information. If externally
accessed, this information could compromise network security. These faults with the
current standard leave it as a less-than-optimal choice for securing a wireless network.
(Voorhees)
Despite the manual work necessary to enable the encryption protocol, the 802.11
standard is not completely nugatory; in fact, combined with the enabling of a good WEP
and authentication methods, 802.11 can prove to be a valuable security measure. Most
operating systems come with authentication methods which can be enabled. (They, like
the encryption standard, do not come enabled by default.) RADIUS and Kerberos are
two of the most common authentication methods and can be found in Windows 2000
network systems. Their purpose is simple yet effective in keeping out hackers; however,
they intrinsically have additional disadvantages of cost and network complexity.
Furthermore, operating system authentication methods are password-reliant, and with all
password-reliant algorithms, they are only as secure as the passwords. (Voorhees)
Fortunately, a solution to the complexity and extensive manual work for creating
a secure wireless network is forthcoming. A new 802.11i Task Group has been created
and is currently working on ways to fix the problems with WEP, as well as replacing the
more primitive RC4 with an improved encryption algorithm called the Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES). (Voorhees)
While there is no simple security solution defined, a combination of techniques
remains the best way for protecting a wireless network. And unless network
administrators begin to use the security mechanisms available to them, there is the
potential for serious data manipulation and interference over wireless networks.
With the extensive use of wireless technology predicted for the future, many
people are concerned about the potential health risks involved. For years, the rumors of
brain cancer from continual cellular phone use have been rampant. However, recent
studies show that, at least for the short-term, cellular use is not a precursor to any
physical trauma. A study from GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, in 2001 stated
that short-term studies resulted in “inconclusive” results; no direct link between adverse
health effects and cellular use has been made. According to a report in 2000,
Despite reports linking cell phone use and brain cancer, the federal government
and the wireless industry insist that until scientific research shows otherwise, cell
phone use is not a health hazard… Sharon Snider, spokesperson at the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Rockville, Md., said that if mobile phones are proven to emit hazardous levels of
radiation, only then will the agency take action. (Anderson)
The long-term effects have yet to be evaluated. Congress’ study offers a caveat, saying,
“there is not enough information to conclude they [cell phones] pose no risk… it will
likely be many more years before a definitive conclusion can be reached on whether
mobile phone emissions pose any risk to human health” (Brewin).
Besides health risks to the individuals using the phones, cellular phones have been
said to have harmful effects on health equipment and are banned from in-hospital use.
Research has shown that radiation from cellular phones is strong enough to warp
interpretation of data or cause equipment error about 7% of the time (Anderson).
Although a seemingly small percentage, 7% is enough to justify the prohibition of
cellular use around medical devices.
For people who do believe that cellular use is harmful, various products on the
market are available in order to “deflect” radiation otherwise directed at the brain.
Unfortunately, these devices are bogus, although extremely lucrative. An online
newspaper from England quotes Roger Coghill, a specialist in bioelectromagnetics, as
saying, “If somebody touches a mobile phone to their head radiation is conducted directly
into the head… earpieces are [also] enormously adverse, because they conduct radiation
directly to the head" (“Are Mobile Phones a Health Hazard?”). Ineffective protective
devices mirror the controversial debate of the health impact of this new cellular
technology.
With various health, legislative, and technical complications, it is a wonder that
cellular advancements are being made at all. Some people may doubt that these obstacles
are surmountable. However, tech advocates and commercial enterprises seem extremely
confident in the future of wireless. In fact, various companies, hotels, and, most
especially, coffee houses, have already installed wireless networks for their employees
and customers to enjoy surfing the Internet in a high-broadband, wireless environment.
Despite the fact that fewer than five percent of guests at American hotels actually use the
wireless connection, hotels are still adamant about giving their guests the option
(Blackwell). Many strategists are looking at wireless Internet access as a selling point, a
way to distinguish between the plethora of hotel chains: Do they have a pool? Yes?
Continental breakfast? Yes? How about wireless Internet access? Hmmm… The coffee
shop market is another hotspot for wireless connectivity. Josh Friedman, CEO of an
Oregon-based wireless solutions company called Eleven Wireless, states that other coffee
houses are vying to compete with Starbuck’s competitive edge. In 2002, Starbucks
announced that all 1,200 of their US stores would be acquiring high-speed wireless
access (Tatum). Friedman reports Starbuck rivals as saying, “Our coffee is cheaper and
better, but Starbucks has wireless Internet access” (Blackwell). Large college campuses
all over the US are seeing the influx of wireless connectivity in coffee houses. Yet
another market for the new world of wireless is gas stations. Especially on major
highways to encourage interstate travelers, gas stations will provide wireless Internet
access so that while the kids are getting something to eat, dad or mom can be checking
their email, weather conditions, road delays, etc. (Ransford)
Despite the current low usage, the demand for wireless technology is widely
apparent. In the quake following the Internet rampage, consumers want to push
technology to the limits; they want faster access, more peripherals, smaller computers,
and cheaper service. With this sort of demand driving the industry, tech-savvy
entrepreneurs are kept active trying to keep up not only with changing technology, but
with the increasing demands of consumers.