Slashdot Mirror
WiMax Formed To Promote 802.16 Standard
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."
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."
Yeah. Damn. *31 miles* of users sharing 70Mbps.
Heck, I'll whip out my trusty ol' 56k modem and get better performance.
May we never see th
With Nokia in there, does that mean their phones will somehow be able to use these networks to make calls?
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.
How long until there's a true standard with every company using different types? I really don't feel like taking 14 different wireless network adapter cards with me everywhere I go to have internet. .11a, .11g, .16, .11b, WHEN WILL THEY CHOOSE SOMETHING?
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.
Sounds great, but 31 miles? How about 50 feet though wood and concrete? Line of sight is nice, but for most interesting home networking, there's just no way.
This simultaneously blows away 3G mobile and 802.11 technologies.
802.16 is designed for fixed outdoor operation and the antennas are much too big to fit in a PCMCIA card, so it won't replace 802.11.
802.16 clients can't move around, so it can't replace 3G.
Obviously if you have a dense population of users it becomes economical to have more base stations in the 31 mile radius, each serving a smaller zone, in the interests of extra bandwidth per user.
From the article, this technology is meant to link 802.11 hotspots, not as a replacement to 802.11.
Free space optics is another interesting field that will give you upwards of 1Gb/s over 2km. More info on free space optics.
All of these technologies are emerging to try to link the last mile to the high speed backbone as the cost of fiber is prohibitive (~$325/m) and the majority of the US doesn't live on top of a fiber backbone.
For those whom are not aware of this technology, I gladly provide the following linkage:
:-)
-- Article @ Network World Fusion
-- Article @ Comms Design
-- Published Standards & Drafts
Enjoy!
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
I'm assuming it's 70mbps/channel. But for 31 miles there had better be a lot of channels. Could you imagine 9,500 square miles (pi*31^2) of people all sharing the same 10 or so wifi channels? It could suck.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'd take decreased range (5-10 miles) and 100mbit/s thank you very much. Screw that whole "backhaul for 802.11x" crap, you know you'll have end users trying to hook into it. I think it'd be great for universities. One or two WAPs and you're covered. As long as people arent trying to use Kazaa from their psychology class you're OK.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
At $10k for a base station and $1k ($300 eventually) for the reciever, this tech is still a bit off. However, improvements like this will be what eventually let wireless give DSL/Cable monopolies a run for their money in the last-mile competition.
Bring it on. I'm tired of 56k. Anybody know the latency on one of these connects?
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.
regular - for 10-55GHz frequencies and that one actually gives even up to 134Mbps. Now, because it uses range-dependent modulation techniques, you'll not have 70Mbps @ 30 miles. At 30 miles you might have about 20Mbps
somewhat limited - for 2-11GHz which is unlikely to be implemented because it runs into almost all possible licensed frequency bands
unlicensed - for 5 GHz unlicensed band - exactly the same as 802.11b
Now, in any case, this is a fixed wireless network - that is stations are not mobile. So, it's NOT a competition for any mobile standards. All of that is very questionable at the moment because it will require quite a large licensed band and unlike UWB, it will transmit at measureable powers. I don't think Nokia would do anything to kill UMTS and 3G.
There are some ISPs using it: installation cost in one I know is around $700 and monthly cost is $40 for wireless T1.
iThink iHate iMod
That doesn't really happen. Microchannel and ED floppies were just flukes :).
Jason
ProfQuotes
if tehy had 2 towers in the service area, would taht give twice the bandwidth to the customers?
not nessisaraly by way of taking one pe4rsons traffic and sending it to 2 diffrent towers but is it not possable to assign half the customers to one tower and half to another and give each twice the bandwidth?
if yu can then this would basicly make bandwith increases a heluva lot easier.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Check out this:
802.16 News
Broadband Wireless Exchange
iThink iHate iMod
Who needs this? a $10 cantenna gets a 30 mile range, and now they even look nice on your desk
I have no pants and I must scream
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!
Last year I witnessed a 928Mhz spread spectrum link over 10m miles using 2 yagi antennas that was a) line of sight with no packet loss a 9600 baud, b) inside a concrete block building with no line of sight and no packet loss, and c) inside the same building but behind a huge diesel engine with about 5% packet loss that required a number of retries before getting through.
If this technology can achieve the same throughput at mbps speeds this will be a sure winner.
What a shocking number of people seem to be missing is that these are for different purposes! It's like asking why the roads have both cars and trucks on them.
The 802.11's are for wireless LAN. Local area net. They are a replacement for/supplement to ethernet. The various sub-standards do differ, that's true... but they are to serve different purposes (different levels of trade-off in price/range/throughput), and as far as interoprablity goes, that is supposed to be one of the purposes of 802.11g.
802.16 is for wireless MAN. Metropolitan Area Network. That is actually somewhat of a new concept. It is something like a replacement for cable modem/DSL or for T1's, but it's not really the same as either. It is supposed to be a cheaper form of high throughput last-mile delivery.
Despite many very cool attempts made over the past year or two, 802.11 is not particularly suited to delivering the last mile. It's fundamentally only good for a small number of computers over a short distance. That's a fact about the construction of the media access control layer and the radio spectrum. However, it does make for a much cheaper and easily configurable network. You wouldn't want to waste the money on more expensive radio equipment and spectrum in order to carry signals over a mere hundred feet to a handful of computers if you can do it cheaply and easily without.
Anyway, I think that 802.16 is just tremendously cool. Cable modems are neat and all, but anything to increase the competition in the last-mile space is great. Another thing that I would really like to see come about is a grassroots mesh network of 802.11. Just simple folk who share their cable modems with one another. You can route to mine if I can route to yours. That sort of thing. Anyway... getting off topic.
:Wq
Not an editor command: Wq
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?