Slashdot Mirror


Yet Another "Last Mile" Option

Jay writes "This article on Yahoo talks about the FCC looking into licencing the 70 - 95GHz bandwidth spectrum. Which would provide "12.5 gigabyte Internet access to homes or businesses as many as 12 miles away from an antenna." Another option for bringing bandwidth over that last mile?" And we could see products based on this during my grandchildrens lifetimes.

66 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Funky hardware? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

    Doesn't radio at such high frequencies require all sorts of funky hardware that's strange and expensive to operate reliably?

    If the barriers can be overcome, wireless delivery is really an ideal networking solution, though.

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    1. Re:Funky hardware? by edrugtrader · · Score: 2

      no funky hardware at all... just a linksys web/radio/dsl router with built in 4 port switch. $89.99 at costco.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
  2. But will it benefit the owners? by peripatetic_bum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The question that I keep saying raised and being answered (not the favor of home users) is what happens when bandwidth becomes more and more available and the end-user starts getting charged for it.

    Here where I live, I've been asking business to consider installing a wap11 to allow customers surf while they have a cup of coffee, but all of them have refused because they fear the increased costs. At home, if I tried to set up my own wap11 for use outside my house, and let a few people start using, what would be bills be? I wouldnt mind paying a little more, but I keep reading the the cost of bandwidth is really going to start to get expensice so that ISP's can make their money ( no problem with that)

    Thanks for reading

    --

    Sigs are dangerous coy things

    1. Re:But will it benefit the owners? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2


      As pointed out in many of the various replies under this thread, ISPs make tons of money. Perhaps they aren't making as much money as they could in other sectors, so their economic profit is negative, but their accounting profit is through the roof. Sure, a tiered bandwidth plan is justified for the small percentage of users that use a large percentage of bandwidth, but that is not to evidence that the ISPs are going broke or anything, it's entirely the opposite in fact.

    2. Re:But will it benefit the owners? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Strange, that things are so twisted. In a supply and demand economy, the introduction of more "supply" should act to reduce costs. We claim to be such an economy. Let's take a look at how it applies to this situation.

      Joe Sixpack decides to set up a WAP to let his beershop customers browse the web for porn, while drinking brew. He's hardly building a major fiber optic trunk, so how could this affect the price of bandwidth?

      Well, for starters, he's bringing in just a bit more business to his ISP, which might make the difference between bankruptcy, and breaking even. Or maybe the ISP is doing well already, but the extra business means they get better volume discounts.

      And then, there is the fact that the customers might be less inclined to use some cellular internet connection that costs a buttload. Competition might end up forcing them to lower prices. All sorts of effects might come into play, if you simply put up that wap11, that in the long run will only make things cheaper for everyone.

      However, the reality of it is, it will cost you extra now, and probably forever. Demand is screaming at the top of its lungs, but no one listens. They aren't interested in making a comfortable profit meeting our demands, they are more interested in stalling the inevitable, and making a killing slowly starving us of bandwidth. Sound farfetched? Then consider...

      What situation is more lucrative?

      A) Some yuppy at 7-11 buys a 20oz bottle of water for $1.29, on his way to work, or...

      B) The same yuppy, stranded in the desert for 2 days, on the verge of death, willing to sign over his life savings for that same 20oz bottle of water?

      Suffice it to say, that the telecom companies are busy little bees building an artificial desert, and herding us all into it.

    3. Re:But will it benefit the owners? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Not only will they not notice, but in my case, I'd be happy to buy the water several times a week, the rest of my life. I'd be happy with the business that did that, and would have good things to say about them. They would be treating me fairly.

      So what gives? There is something wrong, either most corps are run by idiots or people with souls so black and withered that it defies comprehension, or there is some dynamic at work that we have failed to name. Idiots would be subject to a "survival of the fittest" principle, in which only a single smart CEO would trounce their asses, and wipe out the idiots. Evil? Maybe, but if they are working for satan, I always thought he was impatient, and they're dragging everything out way too much.

      If I'm forced to explain this, then I will offer this argument which I'm still not convinced of myself. With the water in the desert analogy, there are several factors that don't quite apply to the bandwidth phenomena.

      #1 Failure to sell the water to them, amounts to murder. You can't withhold it even if they can't pay, or at least I couldn't and ever get a good night's sleep afterward.

      #2 Withholding bandwidth isn't as shocking as as withholding a vital necessity, you simply won't get the outrage you would with the latter.

      #3 My analogy fails to emphasize that extorting their life savings from them doesn't make it a one time deal. They may be broke now, but assuming they survive, they'll have a nest egg again in a few years. If they still live in the desert...

      #4 Not only would this strategy allow you to extort most or all of the money they can spare, but it limits the amount of piracy they can commit. How many telecoms have big stakes in media companies?

  3. Another secret auction? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me on this (as always), but didn't the last time the FCC "open up" bandwidth, it did it in a secret auction that only the "baby bells" could attend?

    Now, if this auction were fully public so local folks could actually get a bid in and, oh, I don't know, fucking compete, then I'll get excited.

    Until then, I'll keep up my plans to lay my own fiber in my area (and hope my neighbors stop reporting me for trespassing.)

    1. Re:Another secret auction? by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      I'm not familiar with how the FCC auctions off the EM spectrum.

      It sure makes sense to me if they opened it up for free usage as long as the TX power was low enough, a lot like 800-900 MHz and 2 GHz usages for cordless phones, garage door openers, etc..

      I like the idea of last mile wireless that is not hamstrung by fixed costs of providers that bought up the spectrum license.

      Then, I'd be willing to pay for a contact point to a local communications provider that relays my wireless traffic on and off land line optical fiber.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    2. Re:Another secret auction? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Ummm, okay, they could open up the auctions to everyone, but not that many "local folks" have like a billion dollars lying around that they could spend on the bandwidth. I don't know how well you could compete against someone who has 1000x your resources. I'm in the same boat, and so are all the other "local folks." If you get my drift.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    3. Re:Another secret auction? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      I'm not familiar with how the FCC auctions off the EM spectrum.

      Check this out: FCC Auction Site.

  4. Someone will get this right.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every couple of days /. reports on someone solving the last mile problem.

    Wonder when there actually WILL be a solution?

    Us rednecks are tired of waiting so long for our our porn and Britney Spears songs to download.

    1. Re:Someone will get this right.... by praedor · · Score: 2

      How about this last mile solution: wrt the recent report of laser tunneling from Australia, how about simply providing users with a data laser and setup a receiver near a landline optic fiber backbone. User encodes their laser beam and tunnels it the arbitrary distance to the receiver laser which injects it into the fiber optic line. Upon receiving data, the laser near the fiber (a laser router) tunnels the appropriate beam to the appropriate home.


      Get a pcmcia network laser or a usb or firewire laser (big pcmcia card or periph) and tunnel your connection that "last mile" to the net. Screw paying for a T1 line, or holding your breath for some ISP to provide a wireless link, or a DSLAM for DSL. Tunnel your internet.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  5. Thank god by linzeal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now my microwave will not cause packets to drop on my network. All I have to worry about at that high a frequency is solar flares, the voice of god, and flying saucers.

    1. Re:Thank god by morgajel · · Score: 2

      why do you think the pope and cardinals wear those funny hats?
      they're recievers.

      --
      Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
    2. Re:Thank god by haggar · · Score: 2

      I feel at this point that a comment on pedofile priests is in order, but I don't knowquite how to insert it...

      Maybe "it's just my 90 GHz antenna"?

      --
      Sigged!
    3. Re:Thank god by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      I always thought the voice of god would be at a pretty low frequency. The only voice I can think of that might be this high was Alvin the Chipmunk. Shudder.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    4. Re:Thank god by GlassUser · · Score: 2

      going by f = 1/t, thats a damn small antenna . . . then again, maybe that was the point. :)

    5. Re:Thank god by mcdade · · Score: 2

      You do realize that since your microwave is causing your wireless (2.4ghz) to drop then it's leaking radiation... time to get a new microwave. Mine has never caused a problem with my wireless network.. the 2.4ghz phone, well that's another story..

      I wouldn't be standing to close to that microwave while heating up a burrito..

    6. Re:Thank god by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2

      I always thought the voice of god would be at a pretty low frequency I don't know... Is there such thing as puberty for a deity?

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    7. Re:Thank god by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Probably, but I'd figure he went through it like 3000 years ago, what with all the fire and brimstones and all...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  6. who will they license them to? by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2

    The phone monopoly? Or the cable monopoly?

    --
    [o]_O
  7. 12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a good one. They want to stop mp3 sharing BUT wants to provide customers with larger bandwidth.

    Let's face it - what is broadband used for? You can download a webpage on an isdn line (64/128k) almost as fast as you can on a DSL line (640k) due to the fact that by the time the traffic flow has got to its peek, all of the data has been transfered.

    So, what about digital video and streaming? Cool. DSL could easily be used for that. But what is the percentage of people using broadband to see video streaming (except pr0n) compared to those who download 'piracy' music/movies with it?

    It's ok if they provide businesses with broadband (they have lot of users, plus mail must have a reliable link). Ok for VPNs. Ok for websites.

    But the whole purpose of giving broadband with dynamic IP address (and sometimes not allowing the customer to put on its own service, like mail, www, ftp...) could be nothing else than giving users a way to download files. Nothing else.

    It's like giving citizens a REALLY fast car and REALLY good freeways for a REALLY cheap price, and telling them not to go fast. Why not? You don't even got hurt if you download music!

    This looks just like another contradiction of Capitalism, to me. [and yes, after this sentence, this comment will be modded down to -6]

    just my .2 euros

    cheers

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by yog · · Score: 2

      I can think of a few things:

      - video telephony -- you will be able to call people on your PC phone and talk with real time motion video. Fax/voicemail/email will all be in one inbox. No need for a conventional POTS landline anymore.

      - movies and "internet TV" -- we already have internet radio, this is the next logical step. Goodbye Blockbusters. You can watch movies on demand; what a great business model that would be--no tapes/discs to return, no deposits; just pay $2 for 48 hour access to your favorite movies.

      - faster downloads. This would encourage, for better or worse, more resource-heavy web sites. Probably we'd end up with a dichotomy where almost every major location would have a high and low bandwidth version. High bandwidth would have video, high resolution graphics, interactive audio, perhaps speech recognition for navigation, etc. (well speech recog could be a local thing but if you just build it in to your site via a java applet or something people won't need to install viavoice or whatever)

      - synergy -- you can work from home, have real time high quality video conferencing to multiple locations.

      - virtual applications -- you won't need heavy duty office software installed at home; you can do practically everything over the network, and your home terminal can be a slimmed down, thin client. How this pans out economically is another question; software rental is an icky concept, but the capability will be there.

      this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. I agree with you however that fixed IP will be useful in the future; maybe with Internet2?
      Cheers,
      Terry

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    2. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 2

      true. The fun part is that I got modded up Interesting (+1), then Insightful (+1), then Overrated (-1), then Troll (-1) :)

      but I didn't get your comment. Where do I say that I want to be different?

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    3. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 2

      Ok.. I agree with what you're saying. But my point is that *now* none of your points really justify broadband. VOIP is for few geeks around, Internet TV will probably fail (what a ./ effect would be if even 10% of the people watching the Superbowl will connect to the website AND wants to receive live high-quality broadcasting of the show!), internet radio works even with slow modem connections, and the downloads... ok I agree but I don't think that daily you download a whole ISO.
      Unless you apt-get upgrade, of course, but that's a consequence, not a need :)

      also, working from home is not a big issue with a modem: for example, windows 2k terminal service is usable at 1024x768 on a 64k link, and for the virtual apps.... hmmmm... nah, do you really use them? :)

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    4. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 2

      those who need to move scientific/medical data already have their own broadband connections, wether you call it 'internet2' or anything else. let us not forget that the internet was invented for them, more or less. so they still have a big priority at least on the government.

      and no, I chose to ignore pr0n because it IS such a big part of the spread of broadband that can be considered a constant on the whole equation. I'm talking about things that will make a difference AND are targeted as 'reasons' by the market.

      [I also think that if a DSL company will provide you a fat pipe "To download all the pr0n you want", they're gonna make a LOT of money. Perhaps they could even host their own pr0n sites, and check for the age by using their user database.. but I digress]

      and for the internet gaming... you're right. I admit, I haven't thought of that.
      Good point.

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    5. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 2

      thanks, it's always good to see a constructive reply. Given the number of people who replied in a 'serious' way to my comment, following your logic I should think that

      1. either they are all morons (doesn't matter if it was a majority who answered like that - in fact, if we had to follow a majority, we all should eat shit. zillions of flies cannot be wrong)
      2. or you didn't quite get it

      but since my logic is broken, I won't tell you what I thik.

      Cheers :)

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    6. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by karnal · · Score: 2

      "I DEFY you to run MS office over a network. Not office '92 either. Office 2k or above. Its just too much traffic, and what if you lose the packet that sends the "save" command?"

      I would then hope to god almighty that you are using TCP on top of your IP. If you lose a packet, it's not Microsoft's fault (heck, they didn't even build the entire stack, did they?)

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:12.5 gigs and they want to stop mp3 sharing? by kipple · · Score: 2

      Yes someone else said the same before, and I agreed. I still agree, the only thing I could add is that broadband doesn't necessarily mean better ping performances. Especially DSLs are known to be kinda bad in establishing connections, because of the encapsulation and stuff.
      But still, this is something I *heard*, and that barely noticed. I don't own DSL yet, my area is not covered at all, so I'm stuck with friend's DSL.

      Perhaps that's the reason because I posted my first comment ;)

      However, yes, you're right. Gaming is a huge thing that I didn't consider. But does a gamer really need a 12.2 Gigs connection? Wouldn't s/he better have a lower ping latency?

      Here's an example:

      1. ping from a CDN 64k (symmetric)

      PING 151.1.2.1 (151.1.2.1): 56 data bytes
      64 bytes from 151.1.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=66.8 ms

      2. ping from a HDSL 2M (symmetric)

      PING 151.1.2.1 (151.1.2.1): 56 data bytes
      64 bytes from 151.1.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=22.8 ms

      I know, those are 2 different providers, it depends on a LOT of things, et cetera. But still a 2M is way more than a 64k, but the ping latency is just three times.

      My point, again: broader bandwidth won't improve pings.

      cheers

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
  8. Re:95GHz? by Microlith · · Score: 3, Informative

    Light is in the hundreds of terahertz. Not only that, but this doesn't have nearly as hard a line-of-sight restriction as a laser.

    Close, but not quite.

  9. LOS? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    Seems to me that 71-95Ghz wouldn't work through walls or trees. Maybe satellite? Anyone with enough knowledge of radio waves willing to comment?

    1. Re:LOS? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few jobs ago, my wife worked for NOAA in the passive microwave radiometry group, which is fancy words for a bunch of folks who listened to clouds.
      90Ghz is one of the harmonics of H2O molecular vibration, so it's one of the key discriminators to tell between ice, liquid and vapor forms of water.
      This area of the spectrum has a few frequencies which are easy for H2O to absorb, but assuming that the FCC has half a clue to avoid those specific frequencies, the band as a whole should be able to penetrate humidity just fine.

      IANAEE, but I'm married to one.

  10. Re:Telepathic Network the way to go by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Funny
    Telepathically? That would raise a privacy-issue I think...

    No worries, a telepathic network approach would never get very far. The infrastructure in most neighborhoods wouldn't support it. ;->

  11. The bandwidth isn't the point! by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Informative

    I hope that most of you do realize that the high bandwidth offered by these services isn't it's biggest feature.

    DSL has a max throughput of somewhere around 10mbps. Virtually all ISPS cap it at 1.5mbps or lower.

    Cable is a bit different: sometimes it's capped at a set rate, or it's evenly distributed throughout all the active users (evenly in theory... somehow, it doesn't seem to work out that way). Even so, it maxes out at around 10mbps as well.

    T1 is.... awesome. Unfortunately it's quite expensive to run, even though it's available virtually everywhere (remember that the T-1 system has existed for well over 20 years).

    The other factor is the 12.5 gigaBYTE limit. Is the article wrong: most network transmissions are measured in bits. If it is in bits, you only get 1ish gigabytes per second.

    Simply put, the 12.5 gigabyte limit may be for everybody within the 15-mile radius of the antenna. If so, users will be severely limited. If each user has 12.5 gigabytes, it will definitely be capped. SLASHDOT probably couldn't handle that much load (poor fellow whose server gets slashdotted by thousands of users on 12gigabyte connections). Think about it, there are about 20,000 people living 15 miles from my home. The article says it's 1,000 T1 lines. that's 1/20 of a T1 for home users. FYI, that's slower then 56k.

    Finally, how expensive will this be? Will it go through walls? Will it be fixed-point (ie. you must be aimed directly at the antenna, making use of this with laptops/pdas/phones impossible.).

    High-frequency transmission equipment is expensive. Possibly this would use a one-way connection with a 3G type system as the upstream connection.

    In conclusion, I must add that ISPS need to realize that they don't have to cap bandwidth for their users if they simply provide services (ftp mirrors, gaming servers, etc) to their LOCAL networks so that their users can have fast internet for those services without having to cap their bandwidth or waste excess bandwidth over the backbone.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:The bandwidth isn't the point! by Rakthar · · Score: 2, Informative

      56K connects at 48,000 on a good day. That's about 5.2k/sec on throughput.

      A T1 is 1.54megabits. Divided by 20 yields 77,000. Thats about 8k/sec on throughput.

      How is 1/20 of a T1 slower than 56k mr math?

      Also, do you have any familiarity with how wireless works, in that cells can overlap, and not everone has to use the same one? Just because it has a 15 mile range doesn't mean that everone within 15 miles is forced to use the same antenna. And you're assuming a 100% adoption rate.. not even TVs are that prevalent.

      In short, your math is ... different from what I would use.

    2. Re:The bandwidth isn't the point! by rcw-home · · Score: 2
      Will it go through walls?

      No. It will penetrate a sheet of paper but probably be stopped by something such as your hand. I would be impressed if this setup will go 15 miles through a thunderstorm.

      Will it be fixed-point (ie. you must be aimed directly at the antenna, making use of this with laptops/pdas/phones impossible.)

      Not necessarily however the line-of-sight requirements would make roaming with omnidirectional antennas very disappointing.

      75-90GHz means wavelengths between 4mm and 3.33mm. A quarter-wave antenna would be only 1mm long. You'd probably manufacture antennas for this by using phased dipole arrays on a printed circuit board [Warning: powerpoint link] (probably the same circuit board as the transceiver) aimed at a parabolic dish reflector.

    3. Re:The bandwidth isn't the point! by tka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Think about it, there are about 20,000 people living 15 miles from my home. The article says it's 1,000 T1 lines. that's 1/20 of a T1 for home users. FYI, that's slower then 56k.

      I'm pretty sure that they would use more than 1 server on that kind of areas. Besides, how many of those 20,000 would use internet? Atleast not at full rate all the time.

      It's true that if you host a site and people with such bandwindth come and start to download a big file from your site it'll slow down your network pretty dramatically, but I guess you limit clients bandwindth from the server.

    4. Re:The bandwidth isn't the point! by cnkeller · · Score: 2

      Of course bandwidth isn't the point. When dealing with wireless systems, it's latency. Our air frame gives us in the realm of 60-80ms, just slightly less than your average 56kbit modem, but far worse than your 1-2ms T1/DSL latency. When someone comes up with an implementation of this with some numbers, call me.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    5. Re:The bandwidth isn't the point! by moosesocks · · Score: 2

      True. True.

      I just estimated in my head. As for the adoption rate. I have no clue how many internet users live near me. I just know that in a survey showed that well over three quarters of the population in my area had internet access.

      Do you know that these cells work nicely when overlapping? Some cells don't play nice when doing this, especilly when sending out two distinctly different signals.

      Then you have the latency issues.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  12. Re:frikin laser beams by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about using cans and a string?

    --
    How ya like dat?
  13. Shrinking choices by r_j_prahad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where I live, Qwest is my phone company, and Adelphia provides the cable TV. Service is worse than horrible from both companies, they both act like they're going to go titsup first thing tomorrow morning. Extended phone and cable outages are the norm, mainly because they don't have enough techs after the last round of layoffs. The only adequately staffed department in either company is the collections division.

    It's beginning to look more and more like my last mile is going to be wire-free... maybe satellite, maybe some chunk of the earthbound radio spectrum, but it probably won't be coming from the traditional infrastructure.

  14. Cablemodem-- by inkfox · · Score: 2
    12.5 gigabyte access for everyone within 12 miles of the antenna.

    So it's like cablemodem, only with a worse bandwidth/user ratio?

    --
    Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
  15. A serious post... by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 3, Informative

    For once, an issue on /. that's actually worth talking about...

    Ok, so the FCC is looking into this technology. They have been for a while now, but it's starting to look like they may allow civilian research on it (finally). It's not like this stuff is brand-spanking-new to science or anything...

    Broadbands "last mile" solutions have, until recently, be very pricey, unreliable, and sometimes non-existant. (Sounds like an oxymoron because in many cases, 'rural broadband' is an oxymoron).

    So, great! We now have a new promising technology which could bring 'rural' areas massive bandwidth (I mean 12.5 GIGABYTE!), but what can be defined as 'rural'? 12 miles isn't very far from any 'non-rural' area, and in some places (such as New Mexico) 12 miles can mean 6000 ft elevation changes, solid granite mountains, and generally prohibitive terrain. It seems like this technology might have more potential for bringing cheap, easy-to-use broadband to metropolitain areas and their suburbs. (Much as cable, DSL, and microwave wireless currently does). However, in a large metropolitain area, one has to aknowledge the amount of traffic flying around (but that's way off-topic).

    12 miles will not change how broadband effects rural areas. Once there is a 100 mile solution, THEN we will have bridged the "last mile" gap. (Lasers anyone?)

    I'm all for technologies like this, and contrary to some people's beliefs (*COUGH* CmdrTaco*COUGH*) we might actually see technologies like this take off en masse in the next 10 years.

    The way I look at it is 10 years ago I never would have dreamed of having a satellite TV downstream hookedd up to a DVR that automatically removes ads from TV, the can send these recordings around the world via the internet. Hell, 10 years ago no one really realized how the internet would reshape society (and if you think it hasn't, you're an idiot).

    The scientists will keep researching. The possiblities are endless and nothing is "impossible".

    One day I might even have broadband at home, 15 miles from town, up in the mountains ;).

  16. Why can Ham operators do what the military can't? by pa3gvr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On Friday, March 1st, 2002, two Californian Amateur Radio Operators communicated over 175.3 Km (almost 110 miles!) using home build 75 GHz equipment. You can find an article here. The fact that the military is not interested in this band might not be the difficulty of building the equipment, but the in the difficulty of operation and / or the reliability of the connection. Just my $0.02

  17. A better option by nsayer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One of the things we have to look forward to once broadcast television has gone fully digital is the give-back of the VHF TV spectrum. IMHO, VHF TV was one of the biggest wastes of spectrum ever conceived. The 12 channels of TV take up more than a quarter of the VHF bandwidth. By contrast, the 56 channels of UHF take up about 12.5% of UHF.

    So what?

    In general, lower frequencies tend to suffer a bit less from multipath distortion, suffer less from feedline losses, are easier to engineer, and more efficient to generate.

    Channels 2-6 are very low in frequency indeed. They start at 54 MHz (TV channels are 6 MHz wide), but there is a 4 MHz gap between 4 and 5 for various low power services (mostly RC cars and planes), with channel 6 abutting the bottom of the FM radio channels (88 MHz). Now, I think channels 5 and 6 should be dedicated to an amateur broadcasting service, and the rest perhaps to land-mobile activities, but channels 7-13 are the perfect place for low power data services.

    Of course, it's going to be years before the VHF TV transmitters are finally turned off, but I do believe it will happen eventually, and if we don't plan well in advance, there will be a smoke-filled-room give-away of this prime spectrum to someone with a lot of money, which isn't necessarily in the best interests of everyone.

    1. Re:A better option by TheSync · · Score: 2

      One of the things we have to look forward to once broadcast television has gone fully digital is the give-back of the VHF TV spectrum.

      I think you have it backwards - TV stations are leaving the upper UHF (channels 52-69) for the "Core TV Channels" 2-51.

      New DTV allocations are being made in the "Core Channels", and then at the great analog turn-off in 2007, channels 52-69 will be cleared and returned to the FCC.

      The lower 700 MHz Auction begins tommorow!. This is for UHF channels 52-59.

  18. It is VERY directional. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Required antenna size for a given gain is inversely proportional to the frequency used.

    Also, as the frequency goes higher, it becomes much harder to generate power. At 70-95 GHz, you're talking single-digit milliwatts in most cases.

    For example: I can build a 100-watt amplifier for the HF frequencies (1.8-30 MHz, approximately - I think in terms of the ham bands) for $100 or less. It might be 200-300 watts at that price range. (500W+ if I'm willing to accept nonlinear operation, i.e. I'm running Morse. Of course, at that point, I'm spending serious $$$ in the power supply too)

    A 1-watt 2.4 GHz amplifier runs around $400 commerically. I've seen supposed designs for running 1W at $100, but most modern 802.11 cards are too integrated to allow access to the T/R switching line, which makes the cheap amp designs useless.

    So to get effective range, you ABSOLUTELY need a high-gain antenna. At 70-95 GHz, even a 1-foot dish is high-gain though. The beamwidth will likely be less than a degree.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  19. Solid enough for a commercial connection? by peterdaly · · Score: 2

    I wonder if this would be solid enough for a commercial connection. By commercial, I mean a replacement for a T1/T3.

    It seems every time we order a new line, the phone company has to bring another line 1/2 mile down our road, which takes months.

    We don't have line of site to anyplace useful, which makes things even worse. We are at the mercy of the phone company everytime we need more bandwidth.

    -Pete

  20. Combined with teleportation, and we're done! by march · · Score: 2, Funny

    Combine this with this and we have the perfect solution.

    Both will be feasable around the same time.

  21. Re:frikin laser beams by MrResistor · · Score: 3

    Wouldn't that be ISDN?

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  22. Re:Telepathic Network the way to go by scotch · · Score: 2
    Sorry, this has already been invented. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called the Psychic Friends Network. This big fat black woman I saw on TV is apparently the primary router.

    --
    XML causes global warming.
  23. Line of sight by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Up at 75GHz, line of sight means line of sight, as in antennas pointed right at each other. Look at this 75GHz rig. See those sighting telescopes attached to the microwave dishes? Read about the unsuccessful trials when they couldn't get the dishes aligned quite right. And note the comment: "The low relative humidity (around 42%) and fine weather obviously helped a lot!" This stuff does not go through rain, fog, or clouds.

    Fixed point-to-point links over shorter ranges should work fine, but you can do that now.

  24. This range contains protected bands by jqpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 70-95 GHz range is a critical radio astronomy band. Much of the gas in the Galaxy emits spectral line radiation in this band. See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/pub9835. Portions are protected in some areas

  25. Re:frikin laser beams by Budgreen · · Score: 2, Funny

    the word of the day is

    "Gunnplexer"

    look it up :)

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  26. "They" by sulli · · Score: 3, Informative
    There ain't no they. Disney wants to stop sharing. The Baby Bells (and most other isp's) couldn't care less about it. The cablecos would like it if they weren't under bandwidth pressures (shared media performance sucks when a few users are up/downloading isos and boxset zip files).

    Anyway there is a ton of legal and non-useless content out there. emusic and mp3.com are but two examples. Universal also just announced plans to sell mp3s of its library IIRC. Even if all the sharing utilities/services died tomorrow (HA!) these would still be there.

    VPNs are incredibly useful for telecommuting. It still amazes me that some cablecos block VPN traffic - causing users to disconnect and switch to DSL! - out of some weird view of the world that includes not selling as much service as possible. BUt I digress - again, VPN is another killer app.

    And in any case the demand for bandwidth and network capacity continues to grow, just as the demand for computing power continues to grow, the current telecom shakeout notwithstanding. So I suspect that we will see more, not fewer, of these developments in the next several years.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  27. Re:Telepathic Network the way to go by sharkey · · Score: 2

    With all the electricity going through the human body it only stands to reason that we could pass data from human to human

    But how many bytes could be transferred before you have to put on tube socks and scuff around on shag carpeting to recharge?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  28. Assuming of course. by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    This assumes that information can survive the tunneling process. There's been several quantum teleportation stories over the past few years. One feature I remember from each of them is that it tends to work well with things like lasers because unmodulated lasers have a minimum of information content. What I think your hypothetical hardware may do is provide a featureless laser at the other end of link that shares a few characteristics of the transmitting laser. That is the receiving beam may have the same frequency, polarazation, etc minus any modulation that was induced in the transmitting beam.

  29. Let's take this to its logical extreme... by joshv · · Score: 2

    June 18, 2002 - Washington DC,

    Today the FCC has begun the process of licensing the 600-700 THz spectrum, also known as the mid-nanometer band. Radio waves of this type are infinitesimally small, on the order of several hundred nanometers (one billionth of a meter).

    Creating radio signals in this band is not terribly difficult. Says an FCC representative "Boy scouts have been using this unlicensed spectrum for communication purposes for decades with no problems - I still have my old signal flashlight".

    The communication protocols used in this band will have to be updated, as the current system, know as "Morse Code", lacks the error correction and flow control algorithms neccessary for robust communications.

    One problem will be the interference caused by the wealth of prexisting unlicensed radiators in this spectrum. Says the FCC representative "Yeah, it's a really noisy spectrum, we admit, and there is really not much that can be done about the sun, but we'll work with existing users of this unlicensed spectrum to do whatever we can to eliminate the potential for interference with licensed devices."

    The vast bandwidth potential of this spectrum makes it a likely candidate for a 'last mile' broadband solution. This spectrum is estimate by scientist to be able to carry the equivalent data capacity of approximately a bajillion T1 lines, meaning a user could download the entire contents of the Library of Congress in approximately 2 femtoseconds.

    -josh

    1. Re:Let's take this to its logical extreme... by moncyb · · Score: 2

      When I read this post, I got this image of the FCC trying to blot out the sun! "Those damn freebanders...don't they realize they need our permission to use the spectrum!" I wonder how long it'll be until a government agency actually tries that... ;-)

  30. Another "Last-Mile" Alternative: 802.11b by valmont · · Score: 2
    A week ago EarthLink released another form of "wireless internet access" thru a partnership with "Boingo". It's 802.11b.

    Their coverage is pretty good in my area too. cool.

  31. Re: Amending the SCSSA? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2

    WHEREAS Congress notes the slow take-up of broadband internet services in the US, we reccommend that copyright protection be reduced to three (3) years, so that people can buy lots of WiFi kit to share newly public-domain films, music, and artwork...

    Nah, that would be too much like common sense!

  32. Re:frikin laser beams by nehril · · Score: 2

    from the gunn faq:


    20 GUNNPLEXER TIPS AND FACTS

    NEVER peer into powered waveguides or loaded gun barrels !! Microwave heating can especially damage the eyes and testes.


    not only should you not "look it up," you should probably not feel it up either.

  33. Funny math. by GoNINzo · · Score: 2

    1,000 T1s == 1.5Gb ~= OC30
    12.5 GB == 100Gb ~= OC650

    a very minor disparity, don't you think? Why can't press releases say 'VERY FAST!' instead of quoting fake numbers?

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
    "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
    1. Re:Funny math. by TheSync · · Score: 2

      Why can't press releases say 'VERY FAST!' instead of quoting fake numbers?

      You really can't take x GHz and convert it into x Gbps, because you are missing the modulation mechanism, that is, how many bits per Hertz.

      And you don't know the modulation mechanism until you know the signal to noise ratio, which will depend on your signal strength (which depends on the gain of your antenna) and the noise (which depends on your antenna type, receiver type, etc.) The modulation type will be the fastest you can do given your signal to noise ratio.

      For example, DVB satellite systems with 1m receive dishes use QPSK (four bits per symbol), whereas I am playing with 6m receive dishes that can do 8PSK (8 bits per symbol) at the same bit error rate because of enhanced signal gain.

  34. New Visual by Micah · · Score: 2

    speaking of "last mile", is anyone familliar with New Visual (OTC:NVEI)?

    They claim to be developing a last mile solution that uses regular copper wire that's already installed.

    I have a fair amount of their stock, which seems pretty undervalued if anything they're saying is halfway true.

    http://www.newvisual.com

    Any thoughts?

  35. Re:frikin laser beams by TheSync · · Score: 2

    NEVER peer into powered waveguides or loaded gun barrels !! Microwave heating can especially damage the eyes and testes.

    Important notice: Eyes fry up like egg whites...clear at first, then they turn white.

    During a UHF/Microwave amateur radio contest, a poor fellow on the top of the tower was working in front of a waveguide when someone at the bottom turned on the transmitter.