Slashdot Mirror
Alternative Wireless Broadband for your Neighborhood
An anonymous reader writes "TelephonyOnline reports Motorola has announced a new line of 5GHz *unlicensed* Wireless Broadband point to multi-point solution with a 2 mile range called Canopy.
Pricing may allow neighborhoods to gang up and be their own ISP."
Yes maybe unlicensed over in the states, but does it apply to the UK?
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
I've heard horror stories about 2.4 ghz wireless with devices like a microwave or 2.4 ghz phone being used at the same time as your internet connection. Granted we wouldn't have that problem off the bat with 5ghz, since there aren't any devices that are using this band, but what happens when everyone and their mother uses the 5ghz band and clogs it like 2.4 can be clogged so eaisly now?
- tristan
5200 SM - Canopy Subscriber Module
Measures 11.75" X 3.4" X 3.4"
Single cable - standard RJ45, 8-pin Ethernet
Simple indoor AC adapter
UL-approved
This is the spec on the box that the user has to have in his home. Small isn't it? Couldn't it be a lot smaller in a short amount of time?
alex
--- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
This one IS cost effective.
And much more funny to set up.
- Please, ignore everything written above.
This is a great idea in theory. However if you look at the real Internet there are a handful of major backbone providers due to the fact that it makes sence to aggrigate your traffic to a few major pipes them many multiple smaller pipes.
Chances are that if something like this were to pop up in several ajacent networks the users on the networks would be interested in getting to the outside world, not the next neighbourhood over.
You would still need at least one point of entery to the net, and if you wanted multiple points you would most likley need and AS number, and largish, expnsive routers.
The single biggest obstical is the cost of the equipment, and even more so, the skills set required to configure and maintain the network.
I have had dreams about setting something like this up, but the amount of time to maintain it is too high. When you can get a better routing protocol, cheaper equipement, I can see it taking off. But it is a little ways away, except for the volunteer efforts by some dedicated geeks out there.
~Sean
How much does it cost to lay a cable to 1200 people? It's also 10Mbit both ways.
Against 802.11b it isn't quite so hot, but it's a *turnkey solution* to the last mile problem where you'll probably have to roll a whole load of your own software and hardware out of 802.11b kit. Plus it'll get cheaper with negotiation and time.
Basically they've taken a leaf from the 802.11b book and put it in the telco space. For the telcos, it's a cheap turnkey solution to the last mile problem.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
there already is a bunch of nodes here in london, run by activists and usually gives the users free access by sharing a dsl connection with the one who sets it up. means limited bandwith the more people are on, but hey, it's neat.
www.consume.net
(1) You meant "there". (2) Looks aren't everything.
The Musenki system doesn't look at all comparable. As for TechsPlanet, you might want to check your math. The system you reference is designed for 500 users total. The $30K Canopy system includes 6 APs supporting 200 users each for a total of 1200. Also, the 30-mile radius you claim is very highly questionable even with a directional antenna; it's totally out of the question with the antennas specified in the document you linked to. Lastly, both Musenki and TechsPlanet make quite a point of the fact that their installations involve custom design and installation, instead of being out-of-the-box capable.
You might very well be right that this is not significantly superior to a properly designed 802.11b setup. That ceased to be the point a while ago, if it ever was. The fact of this technology's commoditization is still newsworthy even if similar capabilities were already available in custom form, and your habit of trying to make what might be a valid point with BS and misinformation is simply annoying.
BTW, "a lot" is two words. Get literate.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
For an ISP, yes. Especially when you consider an outfit that is willing to go into an exclusivity agreement with them will probably get another 20-30% slashed of the prices.
A few words on the technology, from what I read on their site. The modulation is BFSK (Binary Frequency Shift Keying) which is one of many different methods to implement frequency hopping spread spectrum and direct sequence spread spectrum. Unfortunately they don't delve into any details into the method they use.
Since it is spread spectrum, other units (not colocated) will not directly interfere. Spread spectrum signals look like wideband noise to other receivers that do not have the same hopping pattern. Activating one of these units will raise the noise floor in the LOS of it's signal.
If the equipment uses DSSS, well, that's ok, but not too exciting. DSSS has a problem with interference with other DSSS radios, and manifests itself by a sharp drop in bandwidth. If in the other hand this is using FHSS, then awesome. The only interference will be an increase in noise floor, which can be absorbed with a good enough link margin.
Link margin is what counts here. Several people have already mentioned questionable reliability as a mark against these technologies. That is simply not a problem with a properly margined link. In a wireless link, several factors affect your reception (and ultimately bandwidth and reliability). You will have signal losses in the feed cables, signal gains at the antenna, and signal losses due to free space propagation. Yes, rain and other atmospheric conditions do raise the term used in calculating free space losses at these frequencies.
Now, by a properly margined link, here is what I mean. Take the amount of power going out of one unit into its feeder cable, add the gains for the antenna on each end, subtract maximal expected freespace propagation loss. Now, based on your equipments specified signal to noise ratio (SNR) you can find the minimal power your receiver needs to decode the signal. Subtract it from the previous number, and you have a link margin. A higher link margin is a better link. What this measures is the "additional" power above and beyond what the receiver needs to pickup the signal. As long as this margin is enough to cover things like unusual atmospheric conditions, and nearby band interferers, you have a good, reliable link.
Finally, back to cost. These prices are decent for a local ISP exactly because of amortization. Think like cable companies that lease you the cable modem for a few dollars a month. If you disconnect your service, they get the unit back and can redeploy it. Next, focus on business users before the residential ones. Business customers are more willing to purchase equipment outright, instead of paying a lease amount (at least in my experience). This lets you concentrate your tiny pile of cash on building the POP end of the network, instead of footing the bill for each customer premise unit.
Yeah... I used to do this for a living. Headed the engineering department for a midsized wireless ISP that used technology like this. My email is listed if anyone has any questions.
Dave
It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.