World Unification

Wireless gurus dream of a seamless, global network -- one handset that you can use everywhere. This would be a godsend for international travelers, from occasional tourists to veteran globetrotters, and a boon for manufacturers who no longer would need to design and produce different models for different regions.

Sometimes it seems the only thing that stands between today's mixed bag of wireless standards and tomorrow's grand unified air interface -- featuring 100% friction-free roaming -- is petty human rivalry. But that may be a misperception. Public networks must be built and upgraded one brick at a time. Is it really so surprising they end up looking like Rube Goldberg contraptions?

HISTORICAL PARALLELS Some wonderful network-building lessons are found in a small book about, of all things, a 19th century technology. The Victorian Internet, by Tom Standage, chronicles the invention and rapid spread of the telegraph. But what makes the book particularly fascinating are the parallels it draws between the early telegraph network and the Internet. Many of the parallels might be extended easily to wireless networks.

The electronic telegraph replaced a lower-capacity, shorter-range system: the optical telegraph (a machine with mechanical arms positioned on hilltops). Similarly, cellular telephony supplanted a lower-capacity, shorter-range solution: the old mobile telephone service. In both cases, people comfortable with the existing technology doubted whether anyone would pay to use the new technology -- or whether it even would work.

Different types of telegraphs emerged around the same time. Each invention was patented, and there was much bickering over which to use. The visionary American Samuel F. B. Morse eventually won. Morse saw his invention's world-spanning potential almost from the beginning.

"If it will go 10 miles without stopping," he said, "I can make it go around the globe." A sort of global system for stationary communications.

SECURITY ISSUES Not everyone grasped the telegraph's importance immediately. In Britain, the telegraph proved its mettle by helping apprehend criminals. A certain gang of pickpockets routinely made its escape via train. Prior to the telegraph, the best police could do was jump on the next train, but by the time they arrived, it was too late. The telegraph allowed them to signal police at the next station. Today's CALEA proponents don't need any convincing.

One of the first things the International Telegraph Union did was establish rules concerning the use of ciphers and codes. Governments wanted to restrict the use of private codes, both because it was harder for operators to send coded messages (which looked like gibberish) and to ensure law enforcement authorities could intercept messages. But users always found ways to circumvent the rules. Regulators, take heed.

The telegraph spread like wildfire, putting the pony express out of business. In time, the many separate lines that linked pairs of towns began functioning as a network. Messages were forwarded from one operator to another routinely. Operators in different locations became, effectively, interconnected. Wireless operators will interconnect when driven to do so by customer demand.

UPHOLDING STANDARDS Hooking up telegraph networks in different countries required written interconnection agreements. The first, signed in 1849, was between Prussia and Austria. Smoothing the way to further interconnection agreements, several European countries standardized on Morse's telegraph. Yes, interconnecting wireless networks is easiest when operators use the same core network standard.

But standards advocates shouldn't read too much into this. European operators continued interfacing with their end-customers in different ways. For example, stock exchanges were heavy users of the telegraph, and several operators linked their telegraph offices with stock exchanges via pneumatic tubes. That's right, paper messages were sent to and from the customer using a proprietary "air interface" -- compressed air, that is.

Interconnecting telegraph operators in different European countries wasn't that tough. But interconnecting operators across the Atlantic was. It took several attempts to lay the first working transatlantic cable. Unfortunately, it only supported very low speeds. A commercially viable transatlantic telegraph link took more time, money and effort. Bridging GSM MAP and IS-41 networks also presents challenges, but it can be done.

The telegraph's promoters created unreasonable expectations. Because news suddenly could travel at lightning speed, some predicted there no longer would be need for printed newspapers. They had it completely backwards: the telegraph actually gave newspaper publishers reason to print multiple daily editions. Others believed the telegraph, by dramatically improving international communications, would usher in an era of world peace. Many threats and promises of "anytime, anywhere" wireless communications also have not materialized, largely thanks to a monumental invention: the "off" button.

Eventually, the telegraph was replaced by the telephone. But the telegraph did not disappear overnight. Instead, it evolved into the ticker-tape machine, which never became ubiquitous but did survive several decades. With the commercial launch of Iridium, we must contemplate the possibility of satellites one day replacing terrestrial wireless networks. Could wireless data be terrestrial wireless' ticker-tape machine?

FULL CIRCLE If there are parallels between the telegraph and Internet, and between the telegraph and wireless networks, then there should be parallels between the Internet and wireless networks. The Internet operates as if it were a seamless, global network. But actually it is composed of thousands of subnetworks -- most of which were connected to the Internet as an afterthought. Thus, not only has it been proved that you can patch disparate networks together with chicken wire and bubble gum, but it also has been proved that if you do it right, the whole will turn out greater than the sum of its parts.

Does this mean the Internet should serve as a model for global integration of wireless networks? The most important thing on the Internet is not ensuring that 100,000 frequent fliers can dial-in from anywhere with the same modem but that 50 million users can communicate with any host or other user at very little cost. When you call a wireless user who is roaming overseas, the most important thing is that his phone rings. The purpose of wireless communications is defeated if subscribers keep their phones switched off to avoid exorbitant international roaming charges.

As the telegraph proved, basic connectivity is a priority. But to really shrink the world, there has to be distance-insensitive billing. If we can just figure out how to make that fly over wireless, the world finally will be one.