Slashdot Mirror
Garage Tinkerers Claim Wireless Last-Mile Solution
BrianWCarver writes: "The NYTimes is reporting that two guys in their garage have designed a low-cost wireless broadband solution that can transmit up to 20 miles. (A previous story described a 7km achievement in Australia.) Their company is called Etherlinx and they use the Wi-Fi 802.11b standard in a repeater antenna that people can attach to the outside of their homes. The technology, which apparently costs under $100, has been operating in a small for-pay trial in Oakland, CA for a year. Is this a solution to the 'last-mile' problem, hope for rural areas, and the death of cable/DSL? Read and be the judge."
I don't think this is a last mile solution for broadband (at least in denser population areas) so long as it uses that stretch of unprotected spectrum. With the growing level of noise as the equipment becomes more commonplace I would really need some type of guaranteed reliability before adopting this. Tho I must admit, it is pretty nifty nontheless.
No patents mentioned, for example, which kind of implies that even if this does play nicely in the contended 2.4Ghz band, it will be assimilated by an incumbent. Perhaps (being cynical or realistic as you prefer) that's the idea though: hype a "new" technology, then sell out to whichever Big Business offers you a cheque to go away and stop generating awkward questions from their customer base.
Kudos for providing a good laugh though:
I take it that's "unhackable" in the Oracle "unbreakable" sense of (soto voce) "Claim is for advertising purposes only, has no basis in reality and should not be inferred to imply a warranty of unhackability or fitness for any particular purpose."
Hey ho. As they themselves say, seeing is believing. I'll believe it when I can either buy it or replicate it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Satellites SUCK. For broadband, they are the only option I have besides dialup so I am sticking with dialup. Satellites are EXPENSIVE. To get more than 3 TV channels, I've had to go satellite TV. That costs ~$40/month and isn't worth it so it turns out. 155 channels and STILL nothing on worth watching (all the history channel ever shows is WWII crap over and over and over...but that's another story). Anyway, I am already shelling out ~$40/month on sat-TV. For sat-internet, it costs ~$70/month! Bullsh*t I'll EVER pay that much for high-latency, sub-DSL quality internet connectivity. If you have to choose between satellite or dialup, as I do, it is better to stick with dialup. Really.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
This piece shows the hazards of relying on journalism vs. engineering journals for assessing the potential of a company. I had to wonder, why was this company able to get the attention of the NY Times, when it seems as though there are better funded companies using comparable technology.
Details like Etherlinx's garage being a scant six blocks from Jobs' and Wozniak's first garage are cute, but they tell us less than nothing about the company's potential. I couldn't help wondering if Etherlinx hired some media-savvy marketing person, whose job it was to unearth cute little details like that in order to get journalists' attention.
Finishing that article, my main feeling wasn't "Gee...it sounds like these guys have some great technology that might overcome the last mile issue." Instead, I came away thinking, "How was it that these guys got the attention of the NY Times without demonstrating anything substantially new?"
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
This is a great idea, but the NYT article leaves a number of questions unanswered.
;-)
First: It says they used 'software' to extend the range of the system. I don't see how that's possible unless there's some software tweak that increases the transmitter's output power beyond legal limits. Even then, I question whether the transmitter could handle such overdrive for extended periods as a device designed under FCC Part 15.
Now, with that said: It -is- possible to enhance existing WiFi hardware with a better antenna, but the transceiver in question would have to have a connector for an external antenna designed right in. You can't just attach something with a clip-lead, and hope it'll work; Not at 2.4 GHz!
Next up: I've checked Etherlinx's web site as well. It is, if possible, even less detail-rich than the article. I plan to send an E-mail query to try and dig some details out of them.
Another point: Something that the WiFi peddlers are all neglecting to mention is that 2.4 GHz is (among other things) an amateur ('ham') radio band, and that ATV (Amateur Television) on that band is getting to be mighty popular, especially in the Bay Area. Slashdot has already run an article on the issue of low-power interference on 2.4 gigs... I can't help but wonder how well a big WiFi network would deal with the output signal from an ATV repeater when said signal could range anywhere from a couple of watts to the amateur max limit of a thousand watts.
And no, there is no regulation protecting Part 15 devices from interference. Quite the opposite. Read the label on any such device, and you will find that it is 'required to accept any interference, including that which may cause undesired operation.'
Just as one example, Carnegie Mellon University has, apparently, already taken this problem into account. Note this article from their Computing Services folk. They don't even want other 2.4 gig devices in operation on campus because of their own WiFi network.
Finally, the issue of security on WiFi has already been beat to death, but I'll mention it again anyway. I don't believe it's possible right now, outside of using some heavy-hitting 3rd party encryption hardware at each end of a link, to get security that's as good as that available on hardwire networks (One word: AirSnort). If anyone can prove me wrong on that point, please do so and I will cheerfully shut up about it!
The 'death' of cable or DSL? Not bloody likely. Not until it can offer the same security as hardwire, be interference-free in both transmission and reception, offer the same SPEED as you can get from hardwire, and can do so for a price that won't run us all into the poorhouse.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
They don't have to fight tooth and nail, they've got monopoly superpower, they own the backbone and they keep it expensive through totally deceptive, yet absoultely legal means. You learn about this when you go to buy a piece to start your wireless ethernet network and their eyes roll back like a shark preparing to eat and they start rolling off these new car salesman stories about how the backbone was built with these future services in mind like video conferencing and various voice telephone service add ons that nobody in their right mind would buy for the prices they're talking about. As a prospective ISP you wonder if they're totally insane. They must realize the market isn't like they think it is, but then you realize they don't really think it's like that. It's all just an excuse to keep the backbone costs high. If you think about it you realize that these overpriced gimmicks that are never going to fly the vastly overpriced way the incumbents have it laid out can at least easily be explained to a seventy year old senator or courtroom judge. After all, that's where the game gets played. If you can win in the courts, fuck the technical stuff. You own them bitchez. And if you've already got the money, all you have to do is play dumb and wait. That's what they're doing and you'd probably do the same if you had more money and power than was good for you.
It's really just about adding costs to the backbone in any possible way to keep the small players out. ATM/Sonet add vast costs to the backbone infrastructure when you compare them to today's ethernet, but low cost is not desireable for the monopolies. They come up with any excuse not to use straight ethernet switches in place of outdated and expensive ATM/Sonet and tell you that it has to be this way for Quality of Service and anything else would be irresponsible. Arguing the other way is easy on Slashdot and very difficult in Congress or the courts.
the point isn't whether you have power or not, it's whether the repeater does. for example, i could have power, but three blocks over, the power could be out on the repeater... meaning while my computer is working fine, i still wouldn't have access to the network.