nience factor that clearly has value to the user, however intangible that value may be. Being able to connect anywhere in the coffee shop without being physically tethered is an advantage, but how much of an advantage is it? Bluetooth, an alterna- tive wireless technology, promised to eliminate dependence on wires between computer peripherals; yet, it remains a largely stillborn solu- tion. Does it work? Yes. Does it provide a level of value that overcomes the price? Apparently not, because its usage levels are near zero. Consider the following scenario: McDonald's, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Borders, major airports, and large department stores all purchase DSL lines. They terminate the lines on a low-cost router, which in turn connects to a multiport hub. They then install convenient RJ-45 connec- tions at each table or at some easily recognized spot in the store. Laptop users can either provide their own cable or borrow/purchase one from the host store. The service is offered at no cost and provides differentiation for the business, or is available via subscription in much the same way that T-Mobile and Wayport already offer connectivity in hotels and air- ports. Note that the connectivity technology is wired, and while the busi- nesses listed could also add a wireless access point to their network, providing connectivity for Wi-Fi users, they still offer near-ubiquitous connectivity using a wired option. There is another issue that seems to have been lost in this discussion and that's the issue of power. Wireless connectivity sucks the life out of laptop batteries at a dizzying rate, which means that even with a wire- less network loop a user will need a wired power loop in short order. In other words, they will have to be tethered anyway if they use the con- nection for more than ten or fifteen minutes, and this negates the sexi- ness of the wireless connection to a large extent. So what is the point of this discussion? Both mobility and ubiquity are important in the emerging world of network usage, but they 