Slashdot Mirror
802.11 vs. 3G For Mobile Access
bobdole34 writes: "A new way to give us fast mobile net access spells further trouble for 3G.Imagine being able to surf the net at speeds faster than DSL from anywhere, at any time - you could watch a live video webcast while waiting for the bus, email photos to your friends while sitting in the park, or download the MP3 of the song that's playing in the pub before it finishes. I smelled vapour until I saw a demo of MeshNetworks at 802.11Planet in Philly."
Connecting things in a mesh is all good and well and certinaly more efficient - but is it efficient enough?
:)
Wireless networking occupies a relatively narrow band of the frequency spectrum, and probably less than the 3G ranges offered to telcos.
I highly doubt that an 802.11 mesh will ever provide that much bandwidth - especially once things start relaying in many directions at once.
Imagine splitting it up into cells, each one where a user is. As something transmits from one cell to the next, it'll use bandwidth (or available frequency space) in the neighbouring cells.
Anyway this could work for dense areas but screws over the people living in the country - worse still, it's not dependable. What if you need to make an emergency call and nobody is within range?
I heard nokia were wokring on a hybrid tech that allows you to use mesh networks when they are around and 3G otherwise - that would be cool
Also i could raise the usual problems of accounting for bandwidth use on this kind of net - who pays for it all?
Yes yes. What you saw was a step up from vaporware, commonly referred to as a "dog and pony show".
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Power.
Think about it. You plug a wifi card into your laptop and start surfing. Battery life cuts from 4 hours to 2.
This study examines current 802.11a solutions... chances are there will be some improvements, but it averages 100 microwatts/sec regardless of whether it's in use or not.
OTOH, 3G phones (with their tiny ickle bodies and tiny ickle batteries) consume power at 25 microwatts in TX/RX, and only 1 in idle mode.
This article talks about how 3G power is a challenge for handset manufacturers even now, designing for 3G. You think your phone is gonna be able to cope with 802.11a? You're wrong.
3G and WiFi are both cool. But they are different.
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
this clip is from Business 2.0:
<clip> Ultimately, however, 3G and Wi-Fi should be able to coexist. "The technology is actually very complimentary, because they are not truly competitive technologies," King says. "I expect that mobile carriers will purchase some Wi-Fi providers, and we'll start to see some integration." </clip>
Ok, first you gotta realise that 802.11b (even) by access standards is fast!
With a contention ratio of 50, and giving each user 576K you get:
11,000,000 / 576000 * 50 = 954 users
That's on a single connection, within say 100m of some user.
So even 11b can allow enormous numbers of people 'broadband' capabilities.
Secondly, that's with current technology only- a more advanced technology would allow multiple networks on the same frequency by using directional aerials- this can multiply up the usage maybe 20 times. Then there's the fact that even 11b allows atleast 3 different channels (in practice). We're talking thousands of people, potentially,in little old 1b land alone.
Anyway this could work for dense areas but screws over the people living in the country - worse still, it's not dependable.
Yes, this is the issue. WiFi is basically line of sight, or 100m range. However that's a regulatory issue, mostly. The only reason that WiFi is so restricted is due to power limits. If the users were allowed to shout louder, they would be able to go further, and then country people would be in range of each other anyway (chances are).
What if you need to make an emergency call and nobody is within range?
Cell phone? Who says WiFi is for emergency calls anyway?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!""A new way to give us fast mobile net access spells further trouble for 3G.Imagine being able to surf the net at speeds faster than DSL from anywhere, at any time"
I could imagine that, except I can't get DSL out here, and likely won't be able to at least until the end of the decade. I'm assuming you mean by very limited definitions of "anywhere." More like "anywhere you would care to be."
"you could watch a live video webcast while waiting for the bus,"
"Bus" = "Public transport" = "population density" = "not me."
"email photos to your friends while sitting in the park,"
"Park?" Another one of those things that suggests population density. See, out here we have these things called "back yards"...
"I smelled vapour until I saw a demo of MeshNetworks at 802.11Planet in Philly."
802.11 is a wireless LAN technology. Do I need to remind you what the "L" in "LAN" stands for? Rigging up local transceivers for a single building is a heck of a lot simpler (and cheaper) than an entire city. And that's only for you folks that live in cities (read "for those of you that matter" as far as just about everybody seems to be concerned, even on here).
On the other hand, 3G is essentially a WAN technology, with its much wider tranceiving radius. It may be a cold day in Hell before BellSouth gets off their good-for-nothing behinds to upgrade the local switches for DSL (let alone somebody setting up 802.11 WAPs every few hundred feet along US 90... not that I live close enough to 90 to begin with...), I at least have some access to Sprint's network out here.
I'm sorry, but trying to say that 802.11 can and will compete with G3 is like saying that Gigabit Ethernet is going to edge out the T-3 market.
Oh, and before somebody brings up how Canada has DSL "everywhere" with their larger land mass and smaller population, ever wonder why the United States seems to have twice as many meters of paved highways per person than Canada? Maybe because the Canadian population isn't as dispersed as the American population?