Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WiMax Formed To Promote 802.16 Standard

Posted by timothy on from the is-standard-the-right-word dept.

The Original Yama writes "Intel, Nokia, Proxim, and a bunch of other companies have launched WiMax, a non-profit group founded to certify and promote the IEEE 802.16 wireless networking standard. What's interesting about this standard is that it allows "up to 31 miles of linear service area range and allows users connectivity without a direct line of sight to a base station," all at a shared speed of 70Mbps. This simultaneously blows away 3G mobile and 802.11 technologies."

8 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. Cellular by idontneedanickname · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They claim that WiMax-powered hot spots could cheaply offer wireless broadband access to citywide areas, bringing Wi-Fi closer to cellular network levels of ubiquity.

    With Nokia in there, does that mean their phones will somehow be able to use these networks to make calls?

  2. Huh... by Squidgee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this seem like something which could be used as a replacement for DSL/Cable in areas where there is none? I personally live in one, .5mi out of range from Cable. So, the 31mi range is most likely more than that of DSL and/or Cable. So, while it is slower, this does seem like something which could be used to replace and/or suppliment DSL/Cable.

    1. Re:Huh... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does this seem like something which could be used as a replacement for DSL/Cable in areas where there is none?

      Yes, that's what 802.16 was designed for.

  3. I could see Apple leading the charge with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Imagine the next generation of AirPort:

    Apple builds 802.16 into their future laptops and iPods, and partners with one of the nationwide infrastructure providers of 802.16. Then they offer "get-online-with-your-Mac-anywhere" service, and iPods can receive internet radio, wherever they are. That would be pretty sweet.

  4. 31 miles? by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's really interesting is that it is only 25 miles to a typical horizon. 31 sounds like marketing hype to me, since it would be useless unless you're dealing with relatively non-terrestrial points-to-point.

    1. Re:31 miles? by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      R = 1.23(sqrt(ht) + sqrt(hr))

      Where ht is the height of the transmitting antenna and hr is the height of the receiving antenna (in feet, I don't feel like looking up the conversion). R is in nautical miles.

      One nautical mile is 1.1508 miles in distance.

      Thus, to get a reception of 31 miles assuming a receiver that is on the ground and ideal conditions...

      You would need an antenna that was 480 feet off the ground.

      To obtain a 25 mile horizon, it is almost 170 feet less.

      This is, of course, under ideal conditions (no atmospheric distortions, ideal antenna, no silly things like mountain ranges blocking the signel, &c).

      This is also assuming my memory, the original reference, and my math are all correct :-)

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  5. Wireless is the future by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wireless technlogy is progressing at 1.7x the speed of Moore's Law - pretty amazing.

    Look at what is already available from places like Vivato, Motorola (Canopy) and Proxim - and this is *just* the beginning - wireless technologies weren't a serious factor just 5 years ago.

    Add in cogntive radio, software defined radio, ad hoc and mesh networks, etc., and you have a wirelss technology juggernaut forming that is unstoppable.

    Of course, the solutions will keep coming, and there will be confusion in the market, but that didn't stop the auot, the PC, or the digital media.

    We will look back in 20 years and be amazed!

  6. Billing and charging? by yehim1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One difference between 803.11 and 3G technologies, apart from the obvious physical layer, is that 3G spectrums are licensed property, and would require permission from governing bodies for access to the specified frequencies and channels.

    WiFi, on the other hand, resides on the unlicensed 2.4Ghz spectrum. Therefore, it lacks the lawful enforcement of any usage for the spectrum.

    With this lies the problem of billing. Even though hotspots are booming all over the world, one day access providers will realise that they cannot provide internet free forever, and would need to charge for WiFi access (this is already true in some airports). However, some business (i.e. cybercafes), use WiFi as a tool for attracting customers; but they still have to charge for the coffees!

    Now, WiFi won't die because of the lack of billing and charge systems. It is _designed_ for home and office use anyway, as a wired LAN replacement. Wifi can still be used in the closed premises to share the internet we already have (i.e. ADSL) to our users in our network (our employees and family).

    Question is: now that this 802.16 is used for MAN (metropolitan area networks), how does it fit into the current situation of these wireless networking standards?

    Would control be in governing bodies to grant access rights to use certain frequencies (just like in 3G)? Or would it be like WLAN's where nobody has control over the frequencies and everybody can use as they like?

    If the latter is true, it could provide good competition against 3G and 803.11a, but how can access providers gain control over the use of a certain frequency in a certain area to provide internet services?