Slashdot Mirror
Rolling DSL and Wireless Access Out In One Swoop
B1ackFa1c0n writes: "Finally those of us in telecom valley (Petaluma/Santa Rosa, CA)
are getting DSL with a twist... Vista Broadband is beginning to roll out DSL to those of us beyond the SBC limit. Rumours have it that every home that installs gets a wireless router and an antenna on the roof - effectively expanding Vista's wireless network at the same time. If enough people sign up, this would allow seamless wireless coverage for the whole area *at a profit* to Vista."
This is not DSL, it is wireless broadband - probably not unlike the Nokia Rooftop system that Cringely mentioned not too long ago...
Jeff
[Pinhead alert]
Cable is shared bandwidth from the cable company CO or central office to the users on that local cable loop segment.
DSL is NOT - it's basically a PPP style connection from the CO to you.
Thus, your won't suffer from performance lag from other users in your segment.
Now, if the DSL is terminated in a ATM or Frame cloud that is saturated, you'll have to compete with those other requests from other customers to the SAME ISP.
If your ISP oversells too much, you can always switch ISP's, and then provided the new ISP doesn't oversell, the problem is fixed.
If you are on the same cable segment (cable modem here) and another group of users saturate the cable segment, the only solution is to blow up those users who are saturating your segment. Since you stand to do a long stint with Bubba in the local pen. for such an act of terrorism (Seig Heil Ashcroft!) it doesn't seem like such a great solution.
For these reasons, DSL has some significant advantages over cable.
Cheers!
This has absolutely nothing to do with DSL. A Tin can and string is closer to DSL than this.
A lot of fixed wireless companies (not just broadband data) call their services the wireless equivalent of the wireline alternative. Ie: Wireless Cable -- what a misnomer!
Some company says "Wireless DSL" and some stupid person posts it to slashdot as some sort of breakthrough idea. It's simply fixed wireless.
You can't sell DSL service "beyond SBC" unless you want to run your own CO's, which is not turning out to be very profitable for small companies to do. DSL only goes over copper wires and it only goes so far.
~GoRK
This is residential wireless of the same type that Sprint/Earthlink rolled out to several major cities. Check out their services page.
Residential wireless is neat, but only if you can't get DSL or a cable modem. The latency makes it problematic for fast-paced online games, but the download speed makes it ideal for web surfing. Also, wireless usually has a transfer limit -- in this company's case, it's 3GB-6GB a month (3GB for the lower-priced connections.) You have to watch your downloads.
It's a great idea if your only choice is dialup, and I'm glad to finally see a company recognize that this is a great service to those in flat areas that DSL/cable are not covering.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Ok, looks like the article is a little misleading. "Wireless coverage" is not really the goal of this approach, but merely the means to provide residential broadband internet access. It makes connecting distant customers feasible because up to 40 subscribers can be connected to one one "airhead", which is a special box connected to an uplink, which in turn can be either wired or wireless (but not through other airheads). The cost of installing an uplink can therefore be split among 40 customers, and because the "airhead" is so small, renting an office for hub hardware isn't necessary. This whole concept doesn't appear to be based on 802.11b at all.
Does anybody have an definitive answer as to how these wireless devices stand on the FCC's "totem pole". I was under the impression that us ham radio operators (at least for the part of the spectrum we share with 802.11b, about 1/2 - 2/3 of the channels) were given a higher priority than the ISM unlicensed users. In fact my license gives me the ability to jam out 1500 watts with no limitation of ERP. So my spread spectrum 5 watt signal at 2.406 mhz sent through a 15db vertical is going to cause them at least a hiccup if they ever make it down to Florida. (my signal is audible enough to digipeat at 23 miles from my house. (yikes, too bad I can't make money off of it...)) What would happen if say a company wanted to use the same frequency my station is set to? In the past hams have usually been trod upon, as the primary users have priority. Does this actually mean they have to work around me for once?!
Lousy facepalm.