AT&T to offer free WiFi to some broadband customers

AT&T announced today that it would be making its nearly 10,000 WiFi hotspots accessible free of charge to the company's higher-end broadband customers, effective immediately. The hotspots, located in places like McDonalds and Barnes & Noble, will be made available to users of AT&T's 3.0-Mbps-and-higher services like Yahoo! High Speed Internet Pro and Elite, and FastAccess Xtreme (3.0 or 6.0 Mbps), and will give them unlimited connectivity anywhere that AT&T has service. This should be nice news for the company's users, especially those who just got a new phone with WiFi, and while this doesn't really offer anything close to T-Mobile's Hotspot @Home, it could certainly pave the telecom's way towards some WiFi-based VoIP.

[Johan S @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:34PM]

I really hope this is the start of WiFi slowly replacing cell phone technologies such as GSM, CDMA etc.

[Beyondthetech @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:46PM]

if they decide to give all iPhone customers free wi-fi as well, they would have won the hearts of half a million people in a heartbeat as well.

[Jeremy Sjodin @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:53PM]

I agree with Beyondthetech, I think they should expand this to all iPhone owners (although I am sadly not one yet). That would make the use of YouTube and Safari on the iPhone much better when away from the home or office WiFi.

[Anthony @ Jul 2nd 2007 2:54PM]

I use this whenever I travel. While I personally wouldn't dream of spending one nickel in a McDonalds, I have found that even in fairly remote places Wifi is available (Idaho, Washington, Oregon outback).

I currently pay, so getting a $2.99 return will be nice (if they don't try to say, "non customers or renewals only..")

[booyaka @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:00PM]

I still don't see the point in hotspots. Sure you can surf the internet in fast speeds when you're near a hotspot but usualy when you're going somewhere how often do you stop somewhere just to check you're e-mail or see what friends added you on myspace? Unless you're really addicted to socializing over the internet then i understand stopping every other hotspot just to check up on the net. Which is why Wi-fi on phones is mostly pointless, sure it comes in handy every now and then when you're bored near a hotspot waiting for something. But if you're at your house why would you surf the net from your phone? Would'nt it be much more useful to jump on your laptop or computer to do all those things?

I rather have fast internet on the phone already provided by the company like Edge or other fast internet rather than jumping from hotspot to hotspot losing connectivity every 5 seconds when driving. Or having to stop somewhere just to get fast internet.

But that's just my opinion. :)

[Matt @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:01PM]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the free WiFi, aimed at "higher-end customers," is available at McDonald's? How many high end customers frequent Mickey D's, I wonder?

[t-bone @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:14PM]

I never wondered about that. Then again, I can't get past the fact that McDonalds even has wifi. With all that grease I can't even imagine using any electronic device in there.

[booyaka @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:18PM]

Down here in Houston Tx they have movie rentals as well. =/

[jilie @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:01PM]

AT&T triing to save their ass after the iPhobic fiasco?

[booyaka @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:13PM]

Indeed but it's just another way to help them spy on more Americans.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/privacy/att-to-start-scanning-their-network-for-pirated-material-268444.php

http://boingboing.net/2006/01/31/eff_suing_att_for_he.html

Which is why AT&T will never get my service.

[ethana2 @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:32PM]

That's it. We need our own radically transparent ISP. In this age of technology, what's to stop us? Let's start it up right here, right now.
We need to round up all the f/loss we'll need to run the servers, and lay down some of the basic rules. If this is going to be a nationwide revolt, which I intend it to be, it needs to be a bunch of ISP's using one open ISP protocol, i.e. identical software setups and user agreements. Using this, we should have a shot at forcing other ISP's to be reasonable. For the hardware, we should try to be fully compliant with the latest broadband standards, perhaps even attempt to catch up to the Koreans and Japanese. These ISP's would likely be nonprofit organizations of some kind...
I'm [e-mail] contact me if you want to get this ball rolling.

[Michael @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:04PM]

Johan - WiFi will never be able to replace mobile phone services since it is unable to handle "moving" usage, even in a mesh network... though with walkers it is possible.. just not in faster moving modes. There are other technologies that do do this... but they are not seeing strong adoption as of yet.

Btw - for what use would it be... don't people in the states pretty much get free national calling? I would rather use the low consumption of GSM over the energy cost of WiFi.

[B1663r @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:25PM]

Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about...

I have built sever multi-access point wifi networks, and as long as they all have the same ssid moving between access points is seamless, at least on linksys and buffalo AP's.

[Michael @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:52PM]

And how fast was the car moving? and it what type of environment? Think before you speak...

[B1663r @ Jul 2nd 2007 4:12PM]

Well again presumably, in Jackson Michigan they have free municipal wifi, and driving around town at 25-35 mph it works seamlessly, presumably over hundreds of access points.

The ones I built were smaller with 5-10 ap's over 100k square foot factories.

[Michael @ Jul 2nd 2007 5:26PM]

B1663r: I won't beat a dead horse... and yes.. in your building (ie.. stationary presence) you can have a wonderful network with multiple APs... and no problem. I worked inside one of the very earliest adoption in the world.. been around for a very long time.. i know they work.

However... 802.11 is strictly an indoor protocol/spec. The reason why 3g and 802.16 are so important is because of the substantial limitations on 802.11. Now.. it is possible to set up enough "outdoor" APs to provide a substantial mesh for "low-speed" movement... and again I emphasize low-speed. However the biggest problem is that the client side entity will never be strong enough... unless someone wants to lug around a huge device along with their other equipment... all kind of silly.

No... a true alternative to the GSM world needs to be able to operate at high-speeds, provide efficient hand-over between APs (towers) all at sustainable network performance.

Do yourself a huge favor and google for "Mobile WiMax". This is the direct competitor to 3G and 4G. Also, you might want to refresh yourself on the 802.11 specs to better understand the limitations.

Now... if you or your village of Jackson have made some remarkable discovery, I am sure there are many in the industry who would love to see how you and your village have been able to modify the 802.11 to deliver such fantastic performance and still stay in FCC requirements for the band.

In the meantime, 3G, 4G and WiMax will start to populate cities, villages and the like with products that can travel on highways, rail, and other means with useable services. And unless something crazy and unexpected happens... Wifi will never replace mobile services.

[CL @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:04PM]

I remember reading an article about 3G cell services before, one of the main advantage they said about 3G was wifi will only work to 60mph max, so both of you are right.

[Michael @ Jul 2nd 2007 11:41PM]

CL - you are so correct... and so politically correct as well :-)

Wi-VOD & RoamAD are the companies behind a project in Arizona that was actually able to go up to 80mph. The system uses the 4.9GHz band and is not off the shelf gear, though is strongly based on it since it does use most of 802.11. To reach those speeds, the system was placed in an optimal environment and seems to require line-of-sight. (4.9GHz is the dedicated band for emergency services.)

In reading the RoamAD company page (http://www.roamad.com/roamad/solutions/highway_railway) I am more then willing to eat the proverbial crow - with the caveat of understanding that this is flat desert with little line-of-sight interference. So it does work.. but not plausible as an alternative.

I don't keep abreast of the changing market anymore... but all that I have read confirms the difficulties of traditional WiFi. Just give it two more years... and just maybe we will start to see the tide changing.

Sorry that this has gone so far off-topic... now time to get the fork and knife out. :-)

[t-bone @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:20PM]

You've never surfed the web while reclined in a Laz-E-Boy, have you? That's how I watched the shuttle landing on my PDA ove wifi.

Wifi at many places is all about convenience. I wouldn't stop in because they have a hotspot but it is nice that when I do it does have a hotspot.

[AndrewNeo @ Jul 2nd 2007 3:35PM]

Sweet! I was just about to go on vacation and sign up for the $2.99/mo. wifi. Guess I don't have to now.

[MacBookOwner @ Jul 2nd 2007 4:38PM]

Come on ATT, give this to your 500K new iPhone users too! :D

[free_sw_for_all @ Jul 2nd 2007 4:48PM]

iPhone edge network down right now

http://digg.com/apple/iPhone_edge_down_nationwide

[Beat @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:04PM]

Not available in CT

bastards

[LikesGadgetsWillTravel @ Jul 2nd 2007 6:41PM]

Would someone PLEASE explain to me why I should --
1. Pay $600 for an iPod with built-in phone?
2. Sign a 2-year contract with America's worst network, when I OWN THE EQUIPMENT outright?
3. Be limited to use only America's worst network, even though I bought the fancy iPod?

No thanks. I'm going to stick with my fully-open N800 and keep my cell in my pocket where it belongs.

[Tavis @ Jul 2nd 2007 7:14PM]

Yay, free stuff for people who can already afford said stuff.

[CL @ Jul 2nd 2007 10:06PM]

A bit off topic...but does anyone know if you can get ATT's DSL without getting a landline?

[Galley @ Jul 3rd 2007 10:19AM]

This will make my MacBook very happy; thanks, AT&T!