Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves 802.11b Phased Array
n6zfx writes "802.11b Networking News is reporting that vivato received FCC approval for the 802.11b AP that has a range of 4 miles... This was discussed recently here on slashdot -- There were comments that it might not be totally legal. Hopefully, this paves the way for more WISPs, bigger hotspots, and replacement of outdated wireless technology that seemed to be the only competitor to DSL and tv-cable for the last mile."
Vivato's bases reach groups of users on existing laptops and other computers, with an operating range up to 7 kilometers outdoors, the company claims. Software controlling the antennas detects Wi-Fi clients in the area and adjusts the signal across the array many times per second.
Which is great, except when they overbook in order to maximize revenue, much like cell phone companies. Then we have spotty, intermittent coverage serving only a percentage of paying customers, as the system struggles to keep up.
Yay technology!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
So, if the Starbucks a few blocks over installs this, is it going to stomp all over my home network? I mean a WiFi hotspot with a 4 mile radius is great, but hopefully wouldn't affect home users. That'd be like some new cellular tower killing my cordless phone...certainly not appreciated.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
I need an alternative source of domain packets!
The quality of 802.11b security implies the need to lock down the bandwidth with something.
Could this turn into the killer app for IPv6/IPSEC?
Well, Sprint Broadband works, it delivers >3Mbps, it's fairly easy to install, and it costs $50/mo. And I doubt it's a money losing venture, otherwise they'd have discontinued the service entirely rather than just not taking new signups.
If companies will compete with Sprint broadband using Vivato technology, that would be great. But with the Vivato APs being released in 2003, I think it's at least another year away until you are going to see viable commercial broadband services based on it springing up.
So how exactly do people with pie in the sky Wi-Fi plans intend to overcome 802.11b's inherent scalability problems? How many people can one AP REALLY serve?
From my experience I'd say that answer to that question is not very many. Having more than a couple people on a single AP is a recipe for pain and suffering. As the number of users on an AP increases so does the chances of packet collisions. As collisions increase the viability of the network decreases and you eventually reach a collapsing point where the network is unusable. A corollary to that rule then would be the larger your coverage area the higher a chance of collisions and thus a higher chance of the network collapsing.
You run into a similar problem with 802.3 which is solved by switching the network. With a wireless network you don't have the ability to add a switch in the middle of the network to keep the number of collisions down to a minimum. You're only got a bunch of nodes waiting their turn to talk. Switching channels isn't an option because APs can only serve particular channels.
With a coverage area of four miles then, the number of potential collisions on a channel is pretty high because your entire customer base could be in that four mile coverage area. Sweeping a broadbast between different nodes doesn't do much good on their end where all the static from other connections is an issue. On current networks you've got a small number of users because your coverage area is pretty small so problems aren't evident. You don't have problems on a wired network with only a 5 port hub either.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Last I checked, playing Quake, even on a laptop, didn't make someone a jackass.
I think you may have missed my point. I was expressing amusement that public service's are finding use for a consumer system that is regulated such that it won't 'interfere' with, or be useable in, the function of public services. The correct conclusion to reach is that it would have been much better to allow the services to co-exist and benefit eachother (more so the public service sector).
You know, there were several reasons that 10base2 only allowed 30some hosts per segment, but a not insignificant one was that collisions don't increase linearly as you add hosts.
Despite what some believe, 802.11 is basically a single pipe, shared with everyone. This simply isn't the solution you're looking for, even if it is the only one available.
Reminds me too much of idiots who use USB for cd burners and the like. Then they wonder why the mouse cursor is unresponsive.
I'm not a troll... I do sympathize. I want to figure out how to get broadband to everyone too. But this isn't it.
It's shocking that the new administration is following the greedy, ignorant policy of it's predecesor. If such services flop, those who opposed the specturm auctions can say, "I told you so," and that will be that. It's not like the telecomunications has been a stable source of employment for most of the people working there. If the government forgives the auction debts, it will ammount to a huge bail out of big corporate interests. That's bad because it give an advantage to those who bid irresponsibly and continues the ineficient specturm use but at least it will provide service to people at something closer to its cost. If the government legislates 802.11 out of practicality, it will be a huge scandal as the only reason will be to prevent new entrants from ruining these silly third generation services. Yet this third option is the one that keeps comming up. Keeping the public from building their own communications networks, which are technically possible, ammounts to a denial of first amendment free speech rights.
Bandwith scarcity is a lie and services that operate on that principle, metering out kilobytes of data, are a rape.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.