New Wi-Fi Distance Record Set In Utah

cold_sake writes "Wireless guru Rob Flickenger details the known records for Wi-Fi link distances on his latest blog. Included is a new distance record for an un-amplified Wi-Fi link, set by the students of Utah's Weber State University. 82 miles was accomplished with 802.11b."

Comments

Hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, new cases of cancer have appeared all over the Weber State University campus.

Re:Hmm..

[Stray7Xi]

But it's unamplified.. it just means they had a really big antennas.

Re:Hmm..

[tzanger]

The Project Information page lists two 1.5W bidirectional amplifiers. But you are right, two primestar dishes with modified feedhorns, that's good for about 30dB of gain per dish/feedhorn assembly.

Rural areas...

[DakotaK]

Neat, FP. I commented on the rural internet access thing in this thread, saying we need a way to get internet access to the rural areas, and the crazy bastards might have enabled just that. As they say, radness ensues.

Re:Rural areas...

[The Clockwork Troll]

Gentlemen, you'll both recall I made fun of each of your respective "observations" in aforementioned article threads prior to either of your discovering the other and certainly before this latest silly debate.

Utah ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Figures the Mormons would perfect this technology ... Gotta get those RFID tags tags ready for all the Polygamists' wives

Re:Utah ?

[batura]

Sorry, but the guy isn't far off point.

here is this news article

It states between 50,000-80,000 people live in "multiple marriage" households. It also talks about a lawyer in SLC that has 30 wives and escapes legal hassle.

here's another good one

Re:Utah ?

[jcr]

Holy crap! A 35 year old man with fifteen wives, and one of them only 16 years old?

That story was from 1998. Did he get sent up the river?

-jcr

Re:Utah ?

[punkass]

Fucking classic...

Re:Utah ?

[azuretek]

You seem to have missed the fact that he was excommunicated from the LDS church. The "Mormon" religion doesn't condone or practice polygamy, just because one guy does it doesn't mean the church does. He is off point completely...

Also parts of that "news article" are obviously against the church. Parts like "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the mainstream Mormon Church prefers to be called" is just one example, the LDS churches registered name is indeed "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and they try to make it sound like they just like being called that for some odd reason or some other stupidity, whatever... it just angers me when people say they are all polygamists when clearly it isn't true

Re:Utah ?

[DarkSarin]

Actually no. ANYONE, as I said earlier, who practices polygamy is out of the church. They may identify themselves as believing some of the same tenets, but they are so far off on some things that it is laughable for anyone to call them Mormons.

The truth of the matter is this: polygamy has been practiced by a wide range of religions, including many Christian faiths (one of which is extremely quick to condemn the Mormons for it would be the Baptists--a little known fact is that at the time Joseph Smith introduced polygamy to church doctrine, it was quite common among numerous other churches). Church literature on the matter is quite clear--it is NOT to be practiced.

As for those who claim that it was changed only due to the legal pressure, you are, indeed partially correct. There was, however, a number of years between the time when polygamy was made illegal, and when the church officially ended the practice. However, to say that this is inconsistent is missing some of the bigger picture, since the church clearly states that subjection to, and obedience of, national governments is part of the religion.

The church has a lot of "baggage", as one poster put it, but compared to that of other religions, it is small. The Catholic church, for example, has much more to answer for. Because while polygamy is legally banned in the US, and the concept makes people uncomfortable now (personally I think having multiple wives would drive me insane--one is enough, even though I love her dearly), certain other churches have baggage like condoned murder, witch trials, and widespread child abuse to deal with.

So while it is fun to poke at the Mormon church, remember that if you are religious, then your own church probably has its own baggage (and strange doctrines) to deal with. It is a part of religion, since humans would really like to make everyone believe exactly what they do.

Oh, and before some genius decides to make a crack about the Mormons wanting everyone to believe what they do, one of the basic tenets is that we believe everyone should be allowed to worship how, where or WHAT they may. That is not incompatible with the idea that information regarding our beliefs should be spread as widely as possible.

For those who think they know more about the subject than a Mormon, I politely suggest to you that you are wrong. We start learning about our church history (all of it) at a very early age. Many of us have served in leadership positions, and we all have a vested interest in knowing all the arguments against the church. I can probably come up with more of the common criticisms than 90% of people outside the church.

I wish you all a good night--gotta finish this paper I'm writing (Organizational predictors of workplace aggression). Yuck.

Re:Utah ?

[DarkSarin]

Oh that's great. Quote Mormon Doctrine. Sorry bud, but that is not an authoritative work.

As far as a woman being sealed to more than one man, you are technically correct, but actually wrong. Young widows are free to remarry, and though they cannot be "sealed", it is believed that such arrangements will be straightened out after this life.

As for myself, I find this doubly amusing, because you are overlooking the fact that it is possible for a sealing to be cancelled (most common equivalent would be annullment in Catholic doctrine). I know this because my wife was previously sealed to a loser husband. She had this sealing cancelled, and we are now sealed. I suppose that under the right conditions, a young widow could have her sealing to her first husband cancelled if she wanted (though I am not certain).

I have known many men who have married young widows, without being sealed. They do so under the belief that it will all be straightened out later.

As for "Mormon Doctrine", again, it is not considered authoritative, though some inside the church make the mistake of using it that way--and it annoys me to no end. Bruce R. McKonkie (sp?) was a very intelligent man, but he was not commissioned by the church to write that book, nor has it ever been officially sanctioned. Compare that to, say Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage, and you will find quite a difference in how it is handled. Church leaders rarely, if ever, quote McKonkie on doctrine. Talmage's work, however, is frequently quoted (and is was commissioned by the Church president at the time).

I hate to tell you, but I've heard all the arguments against the church (numerous times). Yes, polygamy is a difficult spot, since as you say a man may be sealed to multiple wives, but not at the same time. A man may not, at this time, be sealed to more than one living woman. Period. If she is dead, then what do you care?

If you aren't a believer, then our doctrine of sealing and eternal families shouldn't bother you, since you don't believe that anyone is married to anyone after death. The LDS church is the ONLY church that teaches the doctrine of continued marriage after death. Personally, I find the idea to be very wonderful. I love my wife, and to be able to spend eternity with her would be a blessing beyond measure.

As a side note, don't post AC, even on these topics. It really hampers responsibility. I try to avoid it at all costs, even when it means saying something that might hurt me, or cause me to be labeled as a troll.

Re:Utah ?

[DarkSarin]

It's amusing, really. I've heard these same arguments numerous times.

The neat part about having a living prophet is that it is possible to recieve guidance that is relevant to the current times. There are times when things are no longer important, and then it is possible for a prophet to recieve divine guidance (this is providing you accept the idea that there is a prophet).

As for Dr. Quinn's story--there are numerous others, and I have read them. I am still firm in my belief, and will remain so.

Allow me to make one other thing clear--no living prophet in my lifetime has condoned polygamy--yours either (unless you are well over 100 years old).

Re:Utah ?

[Afrosheen]

The "Mormon" religion doesn't condone or practice polygamy

That's not quite true. The LDS doctrine teaches that polygamy is the natural order of things in the highest level of heaven (the celestial kingdom), that our Heavenly Father (GOD) has multiple wives, and that polygamy will be reinstated after the second coming of Christ.

brigham young: "If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives."

Mormon Doctrine, p. 578: "Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millenium.(Isa. 4)"

The LDS church history is full of all sorts of uncomfortable beliefs and dogma. The modern LDS church has been sanitized quite a bit to appear as "mainstream christian" as possible, but there is still a lot of these uncomfortable truths hidden there.

Also check out the changes made to Endowment cerimony text over the years. Mormon's can't talk about what does on inside the temple for this cerimony (and other ordinances) but they have extremely similiar links to acts practiced by the Mason's and other occult influences.

At the risk of being modded down for being offtopic, good point Anonymous Coward. Too bad I don't have mod points or I'd give you props.

Re:Utah ?

[batura]

To redefine, I don't give two-shits if they were LDS or not. Just that they are from Utah. If you look at the top parent, it doesn't say anything about LDS, just Yetah. The parent below that brought LDS excommunication into play.

Re:Utah ?

[PureFiction]

Wow, I thought this had to be a troll, but the link looks legit.

The church calls this guy a prophet, just like the ones in biblical times. Maybe I need to use their "Ask a question" link for info on Chesters in the old testament...

15 years old is too young for this guy no matter how you slice it. Sheesh.

Re:Utah ?

[LWATCDR]

Yet if it was a an all black college and someone made a racial joke it would be flamebait, troll, and off topic.

Re:Utah ?

[PureFiction]

Well, you can slice it in context. In the mid-19th century, the usual age of consent was around 10 to 13.

No, the youngest age of conset was around 10-13, and reading wiki-pedia entries does not constitute research.

Also, when someone married at that age, they were very rarely in their thirties! I'm personally appalled that you can even begin to rationalize this behavior.

Re:Utah ?

[John Harrison]

Seems to have brought the ACs out too.

Re:Utah ?

[PureFiction]

If this is a pedantic discussion let me rephrase:

"The youngest age of consent at the time may be argued at 10-13. A more reasonable interpretation would put this at 12-14"

The age for males was closer to 15. There is a huge difference between a 15 year old and a 12 year old getting married, and a 35+ year old and a 14 year old.

The first is very young to be married, the latter criminal sexual assault / statuatory rape.

Does this not phase you? If this were done today that would be quite a prison sentence.

Please dont reply with "things were different then". Sexual abuse has never been acceptable in any society, and the coersive use of "loss of eternal life for you and your family" against these young girls is abhorrent. ... you never answered my question; doesn't this bother you at all to rationalize / defend this kind of exploitation / rape?

Re:Utah ?

[eqkivaro]

Yet if it was a an all black college and someone made a racial joke it would be flamebait, troll, and off topic

The difference being that one *chooses* to be a moron, er mormon, so it's perfectly acceptable to make fun of them. ;-o

Re:Utah ?

[b-baggins]

Nancy Mariah Winchester was sealed to Joseph Smith two years after his death. Throw that one out.

Let's add some others.

Desdemona Wadsworth FULLMER: 31
Mary Elizabeth ROLLINS, widowed: 24
Eliza Roxey SNOW: 38
Martha MCBRIDE: 37
Prescendia Lathrop HUNTINGTON, widowed: 31
Rhoda RICHARDS: 59

Perhaps the picture isn't as simple as you paint.

Re:Utah ?

[b-baggins]

Check the math yourself. The link is readily available. (Which is pretty stupid if the church were trying to hide all this.) The ages were calculated from marriage date minus birth date.

Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. A marriage date of 1846 would make that a posthumous sealing. In fact, a good portion of the wives listed were posthumous sealings.

All I did was give a more representative sampling of the data and a reasonable observation.

If you look at the death locations for nearly all of these wives, it would seem they followed Brigham Young out to Utah, and many of them remarried. That would imply they remained followers of the faith even after Joseph's Smith's death, and married other men in the faith. Not the typical response of a victim of molestation or rape.

The fact is, the picture is not as simple as the parent tried to make it.

I'm sorry you feel so threatened by Mormonism that you have to attack it.

Re:Utah ?

[b-baggins]

You're thinking John C. Bennet with his teachings on Spiritual Wifery. He was excommunicated for that and then went back east and started writing all sorts of fun things about the Mormons.

I understand that telling yourself Joseph Smith was total slime makes it easy for you to reject the message. Maybe the question you should be asking is: What makes the message so threatening that you have to find a reason to reject it? Personally, I suspect the answer is Joseph Smith brings God a little too close for comfort. If he was a prophet, and Hinckley is a prophet today, then that means God is here. Now. Watching you. A lot of people don't like that idea.

Re:Utah ?

[jimbobb23]

HI. I am an epidemiologist thinking this was a mildly amusing discussion until some craziness got spouted. As you can read in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the Mormons have one of the lowest rates of suicide in the world. Additionally, from an epi standpoint they are a unique religion as being the only religion where education and religiosity are positively correlated, ie the more educated you become, the more faithful you become. Also, they are the only group found where family size has no negative impact on intelligence outcomes (though admittedly, this original research is dubious due to the small association discovered and the constraint placed on them by their tools). So, flame away, but the myths about suicide and depression do not bear out in stringent epi research.

Re:Utah ?

[KnarfO]

"You are probably referring to the Book of Mormon, which is also static"

Heh, sorry, but at first glance I thought you said "satanic"!

My bad :-)

Re:Utah ?

[PureFiction]

Nice spin, captain.

I think your remaining argument is that regardless of laws of the time, the marriages below a certain age constituted exploitation.

Not exploitation, RAPE. Such a dirty word. A 35+ year old man coercing a 14 year old girl into sex is RAPE. Can we agree on that? If not, good day to you sir, and please stay away from children.

You are correct that in some instances there was no explicit statute that delineated ages and penalties, etc.

But that's not the point. This is about sexual abuse and rape of a child, which, again, a 35+ man manipulating a 14yr old girl falls squarely in this category.

But you defend this practice.

It was widely considered beneficial for all parties.

Care to back that up? If I was a paedophile and "all parties" was me, myself and I, then sure. Can you really tell me, straight faced that Joseph Smith threatening a 14 year old girl with loss of eternal salvation if she did not marry and have sex with him is in any way defensible?

Can you tell me that? As a follower of Christ, you see nothing wrong with a 35+ year old man coercing a 14 year old girl into sex: raping her.

Just say it directly (not via this misleading wording about social norms, circumstance, etc).

Furthermore, a fifteen-year-old girl of that time was more socially and emotionally ready for marriage than a fifteen-year-old girl of our time

Does that matter? She was still WAY TOO YOUNG. Quit changing the subject.

It was culturally acceptable for young (even teenaged) women to marry older men (even in their forties) in the 19th century.

Show me the references which state that it was "culterally acceptable" for 40 year old men in the US to marry 14 year old girls. Show me!

You might disagree with the views of the culture at the time, but you cannot place the faults you perceive in it squarely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith.

I put them squarely on the shoulders of any rapist / child abuser who uses a position of power, including significant age difference and religious coercion to perpetrate these crimes.

There are a number of these guys locked up in prison right now, and I lay blame at them too.

This is discusting behavior, and I can't believe you can rationalize it in any sense.

Re:Utah ?

[LWATCDR]

So do you wear swastika or just a sheet? Since you choose to be a bigot and condem over ten million people for there faith I guess it is okay to make fun of you :)

Re:Utah ?

[Schaffner]

What about the recent change in the Book of Mormon where a reference to "white" was changed to "pure"? That was just in the last couple of years.

With Distances this great...

[Azadre]

Will it be possible that wireless internet will become the default in the next five years over traditional phone/cable? With distances this far, would it be too hard to set it up in rural areas and provide low cost broadband?

Re:With Distances this great...

[Beatbyte]

Interesting? You didn't even read the article. Its directional microwave.

Impossible to setup in rural areas. You would have to have a directional antenna for each user. Any more than 10 users and thats going to be a cluster-f$%@ of a guyed tower.

Re:With Distances this great...

[tzanger]

Not with 370ms ping times...

Re:With Distances this great...

[CaptBubba]

Not if my WISP is any indication of the direction wireless is headed.

Current problems I have encountered:
Frequent dropped connections, hourly most of the time, will come back after a min or so
Not able to scale well. As I said a few months ago, wired networks merely slowed down when the viruses hit in Sept, the wireless network simply turned off for about a month until it was fixed
Packetloss, very bad at times
Then there's also the whole security issue

That's not including the company-specific problems I have had (aformentioned month-long blackout, nonexistant after-buisness-hours support, etc). Not to mention that I don't have a real IP address, just 10.0.x.x, useless for a lot of stuff. I suppose this makes sense when you have a wildly fluctuating mass of people on your service, but it is still a pain. All this may just be one bad experience, but it has led to a distrust of the idea of 802.11a/b/g wireless deployed on a large scale

Some of the trouble likely stems from the open frequency band 802.11b uses. I can only guess the packetloss spikes are from somebody else in the complex using the microwave or something. Of course, you can do what my WISP did and get the apartment complex/housing area to ban all private APs ($300 per day of operation fine, ouch!), but that still does nothing about 2.4GHz wireless phones, cheap microwaves, and other devices that could interfere. Not to mention: what happens if it rains? I doubt a long distance microwave link would take too kindly to a lot of moisture in the atmosphere.

On a side note, since I will obviously be dropping this ISP in favor of DSL or cable as soon as my contract comes up, am I pretty much SOL in terms of their wireless AP ban? I mean, running multiple drops of cat-5e to every room is doable, but I'd like to avoid it if possible. I get the feeling that this is a grey area where they can pretty much say whatever they want.

Re:With Distances this great...

[tonyr60]

I would not get too optimistic about the opportunties that this accomplishment appears to offer rural communities. I am not familiar with the area, but it looks like most of the link is over water and I am sure that it is line of sight. I suspect any sort of obstruction, rain, maybe fog, dust etc. would stuff it up. In addition any sort of interference from portable phones, microwaves etc. etc. would also affect it.

Reliable rural connection would need more than 802.11b power for anything close to that range.

Re:With Distances this great...

[DarkSarin]

I don't know as much as I should, but since my brother is in the business, I feel I need to comment. Most of your Microwave links are fairly hardened against weather. Yeah, it cuts down range, but you would build two towers at the extreme end of the range.

The upshot of this is that you might consider towers every 40 mi, which is still respectable, but then it leaves you with the rather serious problem of how to connect this to the people on the ground. It sounds to me like a way to shoot data across a large distance, and then distribute. The sad part about this is that they are using 802.11b. The slow speeds make it less than ideal for large numbers of users.

Instead, why not use one of the more powerful antennas available from Proxim (the Tsunami does like 430 Mbps (full duplex) at 5 miles), and if you need greater range, there are antennas that can handle that (although they are slower)), or a similar company. Many of their antennas are license exempt, but still operate outside th 2.4GHz band (5.8GHz, typically). The only one that is licensed operates at 23 GHz (wow!).

At one point I was looking into starting a WISP, but decided that the rollout was a little too high initially. Instead I went back to school.

Re:With Distances this great...

[spectre_240sx]

Actually, I'm making this post currently from a directional microwave connection in a rural area, so there goes that arguement. :)

Re:With Distances this great...

[timeOday]

What's the problem with having an antenna for each user, as opposed to a mile or two of cabling or fiber?

Re:With Distances this great...

[adamruck]

how far away is your house from the street, god damn

Re:With Distances this great...

[CaptBubba]

I just haven't had a good experience with the use of wireless as a last mile solution. I think that these long distance links are a great idea, especially if they are resistant to weather like you say, but wireless shouldn't be used at the ends of them to distribute the data.

I find the different antennta choices interesting. Would there be anything in the way of using a high gain antenna that works with 802.11b for 802.11g? Would the higher data rate cause trouble?

(note, I wrote a 300 word reply, talking about my WISP's infrastructure and potential trouble with it, when i realised that it was all rambling. I saved it in case anyone is genuinely curious as to how they run their network and what troubles they have had. Just say if you'd like to see it)

Re:With Distances this great...

[drinkypoo]

You need a wireless interface for each user, but you can bring in multiple connections on one piece of fiber. You also need a bigass antenna for each user for whom you are trying to get significant range. Other than that, nothing.

However you are better off with a series of stations, maybe mesh-networked, maybe not, with both directional and omnidirectional antennas. The directionals will point either at home base or other stations, and the omnis will handle serving individual users.

Then, the users can have directionals pointed at the omnis. Perhaps you'll only be able to get a five mile range (on average) with a primestar dish on one end and an omni on the other, but you'll be able to get a lot of users connected to one station that way.

Re:With Distances this great...

[DarkSarin]

Yeah I agree that wireless is a poor choice for end distribution, which is one of the reasons I didn't go into the business. Personally I see a great future for apartment builders who want to incorporate internet access into the infrastructure, and have that as a feature of the apartment (FREE! Internet access when you rent from Bob's Apartments! Limited space available! Hurry! Act Now! If you wait, you'll miss this offer!) and so on.

I would love to see high speed wireless connects to the apartments, followed by hard gigabit wiring withing the complex. Of course, security would be an issue (as in LOTS of wiring--can't let people on the network see the computers near them, or you would have serious problems with hackers).

So, while I would love to build this and operate it (and get the money off it), the start up costs are tremendous. The upshot is that if you could convince an existing complex to allow you to wire the apartments, and offered 5Mbs connections to the residents for, say $40 a month, you would quickly fill the apartments with geeks and nerds of the most dire sorts. In a complex with 300 people (assuming 100% fill) that means you make $12,000 a month for one complex. Assuming typical rollout costs, you won't make your money back for several months (which isn't bad--some companies don't expect black for several years). Operating costs would further slow this down. Realistically, you could expect 18-24 months before profit is realized (and that is being optimistic, which is a big no-no in startups).

If anyone knows more about this, I'm still curious. Unfortunately, I am currently in grad school studying industrial psychology (see siop.org for a description), and have quite a bit of time left.

Re:With Distances this great...

[BuckaBooBob]

Think of the bandwidth required to feed the the population in that area.. if you think 11mbit will be enough then you are sadly mistaken...

It would have to be only available to sparcely populated areas... and then even so.. at extreme range throughput would be absolutly minimal... there would be alot of retransmission ect that would tie up bandwidth ect..

Re:With Distances this great...

[marvinglenn]

Of course, you can do what my WISP did and get the apartment complex/housing area to ban all private APs ($300 per day of operation fine, ouch!)

I'm curious as to how they could get away with such a ban. Are you contractually bound by a covenant? If not, they're a non-government agency trying to take over the FCC's jurisdiction.

Re:With Distances this great...

[evilandi]

drinkypoo: You need a wireless interface for each user

Why? Why not one interface with multiple antennas? (I'm new to wi-fi and need to learn; I did used to design antennas for pirate radio stations though)

Re:With Distances this great...

[Beatbyte]

OK, now take your house, and multiply that times 250. What do you think the tower would look like with 250 directional microwave dishes on it?

Re:With Distances this great...

[drinkypoo]

That's an excellent question. I could speculate wildly but I have no scientific answer. I probably should have prefixed that statement with "as far as I can tell." I've never heard of multiple high-gain antennas being used on a single interface, but that doesn't mean no one is doing it. It may be that if the hardware is designed for it, that this is entirely feasible.

Re:With Distances this great...

[elixx]

I was under the impression that they were going to use different channels for each user (or having users broken down into small groups on different channels) to allow more bandwidth for each individual station.
I wonder if they could multiplex the wireless signals to support more users... 802.11 meets xDMA. Hehe.

Re:With Distances this great...

[RealProgrammer]

Interesting? You didn't even read the article. Its directional microwave.

Do try to be more charitable.

Rural areas are generally clusters of people, with each cluster distant from others. There are lots and lots of small towns of 100 people or less. In Illinois they're centered around grain elevators, with typically a little grocery store, and maybe a bar, maybe a church. The people drive 10-20 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart to do their serious shopping. They aren't served by cable TV and the quality of the telephone physical plant is generally awful.

Directional microwave or other signals might be more effective than anything else in reaching these towns. The enterprising ISP just puts a dish at a convenient spot, say on top of the grain elevator, and arranges for cooperative wi-fi to reach the rest of town. In fact, the towns themselves might be relay points in a double-ring network.

Re:With Distances this great...

[spectre_240sx]

This should give you a decent idea of how I'm connecting. There's no need for 250 microwave dishes.

Re:With Distances this great...

[MadHakish]

Having worked for a wireless ISP using proprietary hardware encryption and DSSS, NON 802.11a/b/g/foo but still within the same frequency ranges maybe I can shed some light on the logistics of this sort of operation.

First you have a freznel zone to deal with in any line-of-sight connection. This is presuming you can maintain line-of-sight - through hilly/mountainous areas, valleys, or any other severe terrain you can forget about broadcast wireless. At least in that frequency range.

Ideally you can get a directional -> omni connection out to 5 miles or so un-amplified and maintain good speed. (About 2Mbit) This is during ideal conditions only. Once you add amplification you better get on the horn to the FCC, because you can bet your ass they'll want to talk to you. Especially if you are making money at it. (Here in the US anyways.)

Next you have to think about how your are going to get bandwidth to the locations which you want to serve, in a mesh, say of 5 omni's, you could probably serve 20-40 clients per omni at speeds close to ISDN. Keep in mind this is not a switched technology - a 54Mbit link is "shared" between users, if you can even get 54Mbit to the base.

Antenna and transceiver packages have a cost factor that scares many users off unless it's a dedicated connection to a high-speed link.

Here in Minneapolis there is an omni or twenty on the top of the IDS tower (The tallest building in Minneapolis, MN) - for the past few years a number of companies have purchased and re-sold these antennae and the associated services they are providing to local business and all have had the same problems. Packet loss, downtime, distance limitations, line-of-site issues.

Just because you can see it doesn't mean it will work perfectly - remember the freznel zone? Think of a football (the NFL type football, not soccer football.) between both antennae, anything that interferes with that "zone" affects greatly the speed and link quality. Here in MN, my Wireless PtP would go down in heavy snow. (Not that we've had what you could call heavy snow for a couple of years.. screw you east coast... ;-)

All of this is based on the assumption you don't have 2000 other devices in the same frequency range throwing all sorts of interference, or "noise" into your link keeping your SnR pretty low.

Wireless over distance is *truly* only useful in the PtP sense, it's just to difficult and unreliable for full-time consumer access. Wireless will never be that last-mile solution everyone wants - it's doomed to long-distance PtP in select areas, and T-Mobile hot-spots / public AP's.

Now to have the type of signal penetration a cell-tower or better - TV - AND to be able to deliver speeds of current WiFi would be a vast improvement, but currently even the US military realizes broadcast WiFi != good WiFi, but PtP WiFi == Great way to cover distance without the costs of laying cable.

Did you know backup communications for Camp David are PtP wireless links?

Same with large telco's, cable companies, etc. Anyone Sascatchewan residents out there? Wonder what those large towers with "cone" shaped antennae on top are?

Basically PtP is great for covering long, relatively flat (terrain wise) distances without a lot of installation cost.

WiFi broadcast style for the masses will never take off without the penetration of say cell/TV broadcast frequencies, even then I would be wary if connection stability is a requirement.

I have obviously left a lot of issues, like polarity and such, out of this post - that might get a bit wordy. I'd be interested in finding out what others who do work / have worked in this field think..

Internet? In Utah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless guru Rob Flickenger details the known records for Wi-Fi link distances on his latest blog.

In other news, it was determined that Rob Flickenger's blog is the only internet content generated in Utah (unless you count the "Tech Support Hell" stories from all the call centers in Ogden).

--
Rate Naked People at FuckMeter (Not work-safe [unless your boss likes porn])

Re:Internet? In Utah?

[dbkluck]

>>In other news, it was determined that Rob Flickenger's blog is the only internet content generated in Utah umm... haven't you seen those ubiquitous red-"c"-on-globe icons on the main page? i'd say more internet content is generated in Utah than any other state in the union

Re:Internet? In Utah?

[dwillden]

Actually it's just one call center in particular, the AOHELL call center. And yes, I did my time there.

Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[MikeDawg]

Seems amazing especially because of the close by mountain range.

Now can someone explain to me why I have such difficulty connecting to their wireless network while I'm on campus?

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[iamplupp]

easy. you need the wifi speed spray!>

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[DarkSarin]

yeah, but if you go the OTHER direction, there is essentially NOTHING to see. at all. West of the mountains next to SLC, there is nothing but dry barren dirt (well, okay a big salty lake, but hey).

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[swtaarrs]

Because you don't have a finely tuned antenna pointed directly at their finely tuned antenna. Without amplifying the signal, all they can do is fiddle with the antenna, so that's what they did.

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[helix400]

Heh, in the Weber State computer science building, you can't even get a wireless connection if you're not on the same floor as the hub. And the building is only two freaking floors, and only has about 10 classrooms!

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[MikeDawg]

Heh, in the Weber State computer science building, you can't even get a wireless connection if you're not on the same floor as the hub. And the building is only two freaking floors, and only has about 10 classrooms!

And people think I'm trolling when I say that the campus wide wireless network sucks. . .

I was there last year when Ken finally decided to upgrade the TBE (technical and business education) building classrooms from their 10 mbit hubs, to 10/100 switches. Thank god, too bad it brought the building down for several days, not necessarily a seamless upgrade.

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[dwillden]

Not really when you take the Great Salt lake into account. It's 150 miles long north to south so the distances reached is quite easy to achive. Even more so when they climb mountains.

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[dwillden]

Now can someone explain to me why I have such difficulty connecting to their wireless network while I'm on campus?

Umm probably because there isn't one. Oh there are a few access points that individual prof's have set up but nothing Campus wide or even in the Student Union building.

They intend to fix that deficency right after they arrange for ample parking(16,000+ students, only on campus housing for a couple hundred, and 7000 parking spaces.)

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[helix400]

Try the CS lab in general. They tried to update it this summer. It's never worked right since. Sometimes during the first month, there was no internet access, no printers, and a login took 5 minutes. Go computer science dept. Can't even get the friggin lab to work.

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[uvsc_wolverine]

That's because you're going to Weber State. Transfer to Utah Valley State College and you'll never complain about your wireless connection again (available bandwidth on the other hand...).

I'm connected to their campus-wide wireless LAN and it seems that the only place I can't get a connection is the cafeteria - maybe it's to keep people from dripping gravy onto their keyboards.

Re:Why does my wireless account at Weber suck?

[dwillden]

Amen, Of course I've always had the opinion that maybe they should let us Comp Sci Students do a little work on the network there, particularly the Systems Integration emphasis people.

Sad to say but I think it's gotten to the point that you can get better instruction on running a network from the IS&T dept now. I really regret not choosing that major instead. But at the time it was introduced (about five years ago) the entry exam asked for knowledge of Word Perfect 5.1, I figured I was a bit more advanced than that and chose to stay with comp sci.

So now I've got to go to the IS&T dept if I want to learn about cisco routers.

Inside sources...

[TrevorB]

A new distance record for an un-amplified Wi-Fi link, set by the students of Utah's Weber State University. 82 miles was accomplished with 802.11b.

Sources within Utah's Weber State University state that this amazing feat was accomplished with the aid of an 82 mile long antenna, laid horizontally along the ground toward the Wi-Fi node.

(Yes, dammit, I didn't read the article...)

That's one large hot spot

[Stray7Xi]

and the university bandwidth to back it..

No mention on how (if?) it's secured?

Re:So,

[cold_sake]

Just you. Here it is again.

yeah. here's how they did it.

[interstellar_donkey]

They set up one wireless access point with the SSID set to the default 'Linksys'.

And many, many miles away they turned on their windows machine, and voila! There it was, the WAP with the SSID 'Linksys', wide open just as they had left it!

huh?

[mOoZik]

The link says 72 miles. The slashdot posting says 82. 10 miles is a pretty large error.

Re:huh?

[Stray7Xi]

The blog says 72 but the actual site says 82..

WSU Students Break Wi-Fi - National Record 82 miles @ 2.4 GHz.

Two-way DSSS communication via 2.4 GHz band at a distance of 82 mi.

Re:huh?

[Russ Steffen]

The slashdot posting converted the distance to metric miles.

Re:huh?

[use_compress]

This proves the poster was wardriving in the area.

Re:huh?

[frazzydee]

check the blog- it says that the site originally said 72 miles, but now it says 82. Hope this clears things up. Maybe there was a mistake on the original .edu website which they corrected later?

Re:huh?

[kayen_telva]

nothing insightful about this post.
they tried three distances 30, 70, 80
they all worked.
I know. I know, noone wants to actually RTFA or actually visit the links.

Re:huh?

[dwillden]

Well being a CS student at Weber, I had no knowledge of this except for the local newspaper.

However the discrepancy in the distances is due to the time frame. The newspaper The Standard Examiner www.standard.net reported that they reached the 72 mile distance last week. And that they would attempt a longer distance over the weekend. They were going to try for 90 miles but I guess they settled for 82.

Re:huh?

[satterth]

well when i calulate the distance between the Lat/Long's they give for their 80mile attempt

41 37.798'/111 22.478'
40 29.381'/111 52.523'

its over 80 miles indeed.

In my area

[Unixfreak31]

In my area of the world we have something simliar to this. The main thing holding people back is cost of equipment. This is still about 400 dollars plus 39.95 a month with something like 512k down 128k up. We use this at work and it seems to work pretty good. http://www.planetc.com/

Scary

[BassAkwards]

Jeez, with that kind of range wardrivers no longer need to back the Chevy Tahoe out of the garage.

What was the SSID?

[Phrogz]

Just out of curiosity, they didn't happen to link to an SSID named 'linksys', and think it was the right network, did they? :)

I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

The 802.11b MAC layer is fairly sensitive to timing latency. (I go into more detail on this article on timing in long 802.11 links)

Did they use the old ad-hoc demo peer to peer mode, which has no ACK's and performs much better over longer links?

Cisco cards are also well known for their quality; perhaps the cisco MAC can adapt to high latency long shots while also working well in infrastructure mode.

Does anyone have more details on exactly how tenuous this link was, and how they pulled it (card settings, cables, antennas?)

As a side note, myself and some others have been wondering how we might go about discerning the exact timing characteristics of different 802.11 MAC implementations using non-exotic hardware (like regular cards in monitor mode).

When you need to measure microseconds (or fractions of them) it gets tricky...

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

Arg, the information link looked like the college site nav bar...

Some observations:

1) It's an illegally amplified system. No one cares about the FCC anyway, but it would be illegal for you to sell or operate this kind of link.

2) The extremely long ping times seems to imply that they were using a regular IBSS connection with the ACK's likely timing out frequently.

The delay's at the IP level are caused by retransmission at layer 2 for links like this, indicating that the link was probably spotty and in need of some timing tweaks.

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[mindstrm]

how do you determine it was illegally amplified?

Respectfully.. did you (or they) do the math and show that it violated FCC regulations, or are you just assuming that because there is an amplifier, it's illegal (which would be wrong)

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

Arg, I hate doing the EIRP limit math! *grin*

Here is the FCC law (which no one cares about, but I brought it up)

1. The limint for directional links is 4W EIRP at 6dBi. That means 1W dBm output (from radio), plus antenna gain. The 6dBi bit is important. The higher gain your antenna, the more you have to reduce output power.

2. For every 3dBi over 6dBi in antenna gain, you need to reduce output power by 1dBm. This means that your effective signal output is higher, while the transmit power from the radio is lower than 1W.

So, here is a handy table of legal radio + antenna pairs starting with the most powerful radio combination first:

1.0 W radio + 6dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
500 mW radio + 9dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
250 mW radio + 12dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
125 mW radio + 15dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
62 mW radio + 18dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
31 mW radio + 21dBi antenna == 4W EIRP

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

I need to quit posting sans-caffeine. The above are for multipoint. For directional the table is as follows:

1.0 W radio + 6dBi antenna == 4W EIRP
500 mW radio + 15dBi antenna == 16W EIRP
250 mW radio + 24dBi antenna == 63W EIRP

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[mindstrm]

Cool.. I didn't think there were differnet specs for multipoint though... how you set up the network, or the particulars of the air protocol used aren't supposed to matter... you could just be broadcasting data over DSSS and that's that...

or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by multipoint.

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[mindstrm]

Okay so....

Give that's not hard at all.. I find it funny the students are unaware if they are within FCC regs.. I would think especially a univeristy teaching stuff liket his would have a proper site license for experimenting, and would also be teaching the rules. It's not hard.. highschool math.

They used a 27dBi gain parabolic... so that's 21dBi over 6dBi, so they should have reduced the input power by 7dBi..
Which should be, well, less than 500mW.
They siad they used a 500mW amp... so without even doing any more math, it looks like this setup would be illegal in the US.

I suppose if they were using the amp only to overcome antenna cable loss and a wimpy radio to begin with... it would be okay.

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[A]

If you bother to check the actual page out, you will see that they had a liceneced ham at each end and as such fall under part 97 NOT part 15 where you are getting all your limits.

http://classes.weber.edu/wireless/Project%20Info rm ation.htm

And yes I know that they broke ham rules when the sent "music" in a tranmission, but that is a slap on the wrist at most, and there is no way that anyone at the fcc could prove that it was music and not some random text file with the wrong extention.

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[mindstrm]

I am referring to the setup itself, and whether or not it should be considered a "wifi distance limit".. as it's not legal wifi.

I'm fully aware that with the proper licenses (such as ham) this can be set up and tested. That doesn't change the fact that joe average can't legally go out and set up the same thing, and especially not commercially.

I'm not at all saying "they broke the law".

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[A]

1) The other "record" that everyone is talking about from europe was using FHSS modulation and as such isn't wi-fi.

2) By your same logic any modified system isn't wi-fi certified as deamed by the industry group that sets the standard and owns the trademark to wi-fi. http://www.weca.net/

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

Any kind of encoding (from WEP to MP3) on the link is going to nullify the HAM angle. I hear this often (get a ham license!) but from non trusted sources who dont even know that you cant encrypt across ham bands.

Where have you seen the FCC OK the use of encoding/encryption for HAM bands if it 802.11b? I think even the frequency multiplexing might be a disqualifier ... [ off to scour for info ]

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

Interesting results!

I would be curious to find out how much improved the system is if you did the following (you may need linux / bsd to do it):

1. Use the demo ad-hoc mode designed by Lucent prior to IBSS mode standardization. This has no ACK, and thus will suffer much less when the SIFS and even DIFS is exceeded.

2. Fix the cards at a specific rate. You could start at 1Mbps and work up, see what you max out at. If you have short pigtails going to the amps, going almost directly into the antennas, you should be able to use 5.5, maybe even 11 consistently.

3. The antenna problems sound similiar to things I have encountered on dual port cards with antenna selection gone awry. Can you confirm there is only one port, or if dual that the "master" or "primary" is the one being used?

It could also be the cisco car detecting significant and continued SIFS timeouts and trying antenna diversity as a workaround? Weird ...

One last thing that may be useful is fragmentation, but I suspect this wont make a lot of difference...

Re:I wonder what they tweaked

[PureFiction]

There isnt anything specific you need for multipoint, just that the antennas are usually radiating in a much wider path than the highly directional point to point.

For example, many WISP's use 90 degree sector antennas for point to multi-point and have around 9dBi to 12dBi of gain (sometimes as high as 15).

So for these systems you are allowed 4W EIRP max, regardless of antenna gain, and 1W dBm from the radio max, regardless of antenna gain.

So the highest radio output allowed would be a 1W amp on a 6dBi panel antenna.

If you go with a 15dBi sector, you would need to cut the radio output down significantly.

Home-made (rigged) Sat. Dish

[MikeDawg]

Do you think that they did use a large "fruit can" (8" long x 4" diameter) in this test? Or do you think they modified it from the original posting on how to make a 802.11b receiver from an old primestar satellite dish?

Re:Home-made (rigged) Sat. Dish

[MikeDawg]

No!!! In a bold move WSU students elected to use a used Tupperware dish as opposed to the more popular "fruit can". Maybe that is the secret to their success!!!

Once you pop, you can't stop...

[rohan_leader]

That must be one hell of a pringle can..

Re:Once you pop, you can't stop...

[pherris]

rohan_leader (731431) said:
That must be one hell of a pringle can..

Actually they used something more native to the area.

Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[isdnip]

Weber State is famous for having launched its own satellite, Webersat, one of the OSCAR series. These kids are really at home with UHF and microwave radios!

In practical terms, the range of a microwave link, such as 2.4 GHz, is based on having line of sight without attenuation. The radio line of sight path is based on the horizon, with a simple guideline of roughly horizon (miles) = 1.4 * sqrt(height-in-feet). So if you have totally flat ground and 100-foot towers, your range to the horizon is 14 miles. The range of a hop is the sum of both sides' horizons. Now if you have a 2500-foot-high mountain to stand on, then your horizon is stretched to 70 miles.

The path loss is a function of distance, which antenna gain can make up for. The legality of doing this with unlicensed WiFi is a different question. Ham radio operators do this stuff routinely, but ham power limits are much higher, and there's no ERP limit. The 10 GHz band in particular is said to be popular in England. The crowded 144 and 430 MHz bands respond to similar rules. Attenuation by moisture in the air (serious form: rain fade) can get in the way, though. So if you're really looking for good distance, a nice place might be, oh, the Utah desert. Flat and no humidity.

So while it's possible to hack a good range with enough effort, conventional WiFi equipment is still not reliable getting from one side of my house to the other. It's really not a threat to the phone companies, especially in non-rural areas.

Re:Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[MikeDawg]

. . . These kids are really at home with UHF and microwave radios!

I'm going to go ahead and take it that you have never listened to KWCR 88.1 FM -- The college's radio station. You can't pick up a signal from the radio station once you're 10 miles away from the school!

Re:Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[BoyPlankton]

UHF is 300 - 3000 MHz ... 88.1 is well outside that ...

Re:Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[PureFiction]

So while it's possible to hack a good range with enough effort, conventional WiFi equipment is still not reliable getting from one side of my house to the other.

I hear this complaint often. The problem is that AP's use weak radio's, especially the cheap ones. Sometimes as low as 30mw.

Client cards use low power, almost always 30mw.

You want good signal? Use two 200mw senao/engenius/teletronics cards (boy, these companies change hands quickly...)

They sell them for $100 at teletronics.com and you can still find the old senao/engenius models on ebay and elsewhere for less.

200mw on both ends of a link lets you cut through the walls in your house, through the neighbors house, and out into the street :-)

Re:Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[BoyPlankton]

Weber State is famous for having launched its own satellite, Webersat, one of the OSCAR series.

Actually ... Webersat was their second satellite. Nusat was the first. Jawsat was the third. WSU is also where the Phase3D spaceframe was built.

Re:Fine tradition of microwave hacking

[A]

Hey Mikey don't go talkin shit on your old stomping grounds. ;)

Hey and we got her turned all the way up to 500 watts ERP! Roy here we come! Actualy I should say turned down, as the transmiter is every winter. Something about a lightning struck fm transmitter out of texas not liking the utah winters.

Lessons Learned

[numbski]

Lessons Learned

1. Unsure of FCC regulations. Experiment could not be put into commercial application

The part15 rules would allow this so far as amplification goes. The part that would get you into trouble in a commercial application is the fact that your antenna, radio, and amp are not FCC certified as a system. You can't take a certfied amp, a certified radio, and a certified antenna, throw them together and call it a 'system'. You have to certify each combination individually, which costs roughly $10k. That being said, if you were were going to sell more than 10 of them, it would be worth the money.

2. Better inventory of equipment.

Spectrum analysis would probably be good too. Search for the least impeded part of the spectrum using peak hold, and use that area. Probably could have gotten better throughput that way. Just plug your antenna into the SA and viola!

3. Better P.R. and release of information to the public.

Local newspapers have been latching onto wireless broadband around here...especially ConvergeNow, which claimed a launch a year ago...one of the biggest wireless broadband scams EVER. And I had the misfortune of being a tech in a legally binding contract with them to help deploy. Screwed individuals out of thousands on their credit cards.

4. Smaller teams with designated responsibility and tasks. Groups were to large for interactions

Makes sense. ;)

5. Defined budget - working within a budget

That being said...someone want to lend me about $50k to finish up deployment in St. Louis? We're not on 2.4Ghz, and it's good tech! :)

Re:Lessons Learned

[rednaxela]

Certification shouldn't cost you 10k. Next time you need certification call these guys. Ask for Al Cerwithian - he did real well by us.

PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc.
6660-B Dobbin Road, Columbia, MD 21045
Tel: 410-290-6652
Fax: 410-290-6654

Web: www.pctestlab.com

Re:Lessons Learned

[numbski]

...and this was a very low amped, narrow beam-width p2p link.

The FCC would probably applaud these students for their work. I've sat in on an FCC seminar on WiFi, and they're 100% behind WISP technology, and see it as a small bright spot in what has been a very bleak period for technology.

Quite spreading FUD.

In Related News....

[Tsali]

SCO servers were shut down in an apparent hacking attack via Linux drone computers bypassing security with a hyperbundle of Pringles cans...

News at 11.

latency

[UnderAttack]

The screen shots show a latency in the 2 second range. Why so long? Are they actually bouncing off some satellite with their dishes ;-).

BTW: This data is actually bad news for wireless networks. It tells you that you will have more and more interference issues as more people use them. Forget about full WLAN coverage from east to west coast. ;-)

watson_come_here.mp3

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article (yes, the article):
After verifying signal strength and quality the group in Bluffdale prepared an MP3 file for file transfer.

So this was really just a way to evade file-sharing restrictions on the campus network?

Utah record not valid

[RealProgrammer]

Actually I've been following these experiments.

They bounced the signal off Darl McBride's head, and the resulting distortion caused a rip in the fabric of space-time. That's why some reports have 72 miles and others 83. There was some heavy magnetomoronic craniorectal inversion in the signal.

This is similar to wind-aided records in track and field, and so the methods will have to be retested after Darl returns to his home planet.

BFD

[avgrunt357]

Big F'n Deal.

If you look at the map, they punched the signal over water.

No wonder these eTards were able to get the distance out of it.

Try it over land and get back to me.

Re:BFD

[kayen_telva]

wipe the vaseline out of your eyes and check it again.
only a small portion goes over "water".
its the great salt lake and the part they went over is actually dry.
the map is just denoting the border of the "lake"
many dry lakes in california are mapped the same way

Re:BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously some dicks speak before they know... Water actually causes greater atmospheric disturbances than over land. The only way land would cause a greater challenge is when attempting to locate line of site. True a mountain in the middle would likely cause a greater transmission barrier than a lake, but then again common sense is obviously not your strong point! Hence the reason rain, snow, and other water vapor cause problems with your satellite dish. Know before you show your true inteligence!!

http://www.ce.rit.edu/~fxheec/wireless/48
http: //www.hamuniverse.com/anttheory1.html

Re:BFD

[avgrunt357]

Than how is it that almost all radio broadcast attennas are set up over bodies of water/wetlands??

Of course, FM and AM are just that; they are not in the GHz range.

Hmm, you said "Water actually causes greater atmospheric disturbances than over land. "

No shit sherlock, but we aint talkin bout no flyin water in da atomsphere.

I am talking about a lake.

Over a cold body of water, a "Surface Duct" can occur just fine, allowing a channeling effect of the signal. This "ducting" provides shelter from other spurious signals above the duct to interfere; ala the sun, other nearby microwave channels.
Submarines use a similar principal by changing there depth to different Thermal levels to escape sonar.
The Thermal barriers channel the sound waves.

OK then, lets see:
The 70 mile attempt was done from Promontory to Magna. Almost 90% over water.
I am guessing that these guys got good results and said, "shit" its still flat as hell out to Draper, lets try it there.
And , they got good results.

Now then, to kayen, yes, I did see their map vs mapquests version, and it does seem to show that the portion of lake they shot it across is dry; but is it dry now? It is winter. The pictures they had of the day they did it, there were some nasty clouds in the air.

To the Anonymous coward:
Check this out http://classes.weber.edu/wireless/News.htm
It even says in the Article you guys shot it directly over the lake. And if there wasn't any wind to cause white caps, all the better.

Umm, this was line of sight. For that distance, you are not gonna get much out of any spurious reflections.
And no, you would not be able to punch it through a mountain, or any type of dirt based hill. Not with the power levels you used.

Again, air borne water is another subject completely. Yes, Snow, rain, Misty fog all cause problems with Microwave Broadcasts.

So, NO, there is no "Hence the reason" support that airborne water is the same as a lake. They/You didn't punch the signal through the lake; just directly above it.

Big friggen differnece!!
Btw, thanks for the RF review there @ ce.rit.edu.
But, if you want a real primer on RF, I will let you borrow my College Textbook.

Now then, what I would really like to know is, What are the exact modifications to the feed horns. (other than a Weber University sticker slapped on)
What kind of test Eq. was used to make these modifications.
I see that the final link speed was 1 and 2 Mbps.

My guess Coward, is that you are an Junior in college with less than half of you first semester in an RF class.

At best, your major is Telecommunications; hardcore RF stuff.
But, more than likely, you are a Computer Science major, all juiced about some RF stuff.

Stick to ripping Jenna Jamison dvd's in your dormroom while mastering the latest Shockwave utilities.

Re:BFD

[avgrunt357]

not when its cold.
hmm , winter olympics in salt lake.

typically, if there's a lot of snow on the ground, the air is pretty dry.

it's not texas

Looks like it was amplified

[rednaxela]

Equipment List:

2- Primestar Satellite Dishes with modified feedhorns
2- Laptop computers with 350 Cisco wireless cards
2- Bidirectional Amplifiers (1.5 watt)
Compass & GPS
Tripods
Cables and wires - MMCX RT ANG male to N Male on RG174, 72".
http://classes.weber.edu/wireless/Project%20 Inform ation.htm

They also stated they weren't sure of FCC regulations in the Lessons Learned page.
http://classes.weber.edu/wireless/Lesson%20 Learned .htm

FCC Regs state that the maximum power level for unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz range are:
Field Strength of Fundamental (millivolts/meter) - 50
Field strength of fundamental frequency harmonics (microvolts/meter) - 500

See http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2002/15/249/

In other words, it's cool, but it's illegal.

Re:Looks like it was amplified

[rednaxela]

Perhaps I should say that it *might* be illegal. I have no idea what the field strength generated by a 1.5 watt amp is at 3 meters (the distance that should have been mentioned in parent).

Re:Looks like it was amplified

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Even the use of a high gain antenna is amplification in a way (ie. effective radiated power (ERP) is increased). Dunno about the states, but the ERP is often limited in many countries.

Given the timing issues in 802.11b one wonders how effective the link was (ie. what throughput they got).

Re:Looks like it was amplified

[NIVRAM]

The (anonymous) coward above seems to be correct. The amateur band has some of the same frequencies as the 802.11b spectrum. Looking at their equipment, it is quite clear that the signal must have been amplified (1.5watt?) but not received and re-amplified along the way.

In order for it to be legal with the ham licenses they better have been sending their call signs out too. I didn't see any of that in the informaton or the photos... but I would assume that any wise amateur op would know that this is required by part 97.

Re:Looks like it was amplified

[mcdade]

Ya.. you can see the amplifier sitting on top of the support just before it goes into the antenna.. this is false advertising.. I would have been impressed if it was un-amplified.. seeing how that's changed the record for amp'ed wireless is like 320KM, this isn't even 1/2 the distance.

bogus.

No they won't.

[numbski]

For two reasons:

1. They don't care. It's a p2p link. If they were using an Omni, then perhaps. But that fact that it's a narrow spread and p2p, they're fine. Not to mention it was an educational endeavor and not a commercial one.

2. 1.5 watt amp is fine. Given the strength of the radio and the low gain of the antenna, they were well within range. I'm too lazy to look up the limits right now, but they're well within the legal limits.

Re:No they won't.

[A]

There was a licenced ham at each end so they fall under part 97 rules not part 15. Check the page again and look for ham call signs.

soudsn about right

[Brigadier]

after driving through utah I woudl say it's abotu the onl place desolate enough and rid of any disturbance be it microwave or otherwise. My cell phone was dead for about 2/3 of the drive. I think it's teh I80 or I70 or I76 no exits no trees no cars nothing just rocks.

Re:soudsn about right

[MikeDawg]

You haven't travelled much have you? Obviously you have never been through Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, or a number of other states, and to call Utah the most desolate is pretty sad.

But then again, I may be misunderstanding the statement you made because of the quality typing ability of the author.

Re:soudsn about right

[ZackSchil]

Are you driving through there right now? Your post seems to be breaking up. :)

Re:soudsn about right

[dwillden]

True, I-70 from CO to it's end point in central Utah is very desolate. I haven't been along it for a couple years so I don't know how good the cell signal there is. However all the major carriers have full coverage along the I-80 and I-15 corridors.

And isn't that desolation just beautiful? Sometimes it's nice to be able to drive for an hour or more at high speed without passing a single Wal-Mart Superstore.

Re:soudsn about right

[LilGuy]

No doubt... try driving across the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Nebraska without going insane from the drab scenery. If you like the occassional tree and flat land, then I suppose it wouldn't be the worst, but for any sane person it will drive you to the point where you're playing stupid games like counting car colors.

Re:soudsn about right

[dwillden]

True you've got Utah on drab, but not on desolate.

The only State in the Union that has more land under BLM administration than Utah is Nevada, and Nevada doesn't win by much. Then add the fact that this land is practically free for the taking. Live on and work it for five years and 160 acres are yours with just a small fee. This is courtesy of the Homestead Act. Yet nobody is taking this land. Why? Because it is totally worthless except to let the airforce drop bombs on. And thats just the west desert (home of the Bonniville Salt Flats, only place on earth where you can see the curvature of the earth)

Then we have the eastern and southern Utah deserts each with their own unique features.

Gotta love the endangered dirt around Zions Nat Park.

Un-amplified?

[erp6502]

Hmm... According to their project info page, they used two 1.5W bidirectional amplifiers. Probably not legitimate under part 15.

Effects

[Anonymous Coward]

I can feel some of the effects of the experiment even from here and hey... I live in NYC!

Google Cache of ConvergeNow link.

[numbski]

ConvergeNow

Bastards. Byron Farrington (CEO apparent) is one of the grandest scumbags ever. I've met him personally, thought he was pretty cool...until he screwed over so many people, including my own company.

NOT A RECORD AT ALL!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the actual blog entry, Rob refers to the actual record of 310 km (192 miles) by a Swedish team.

Man, I know this is slashdot and no one reads the articles, but you thing the editors would once in a while.

Re:NOT A RECORD AT ALL!!!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The record is qualified as being a National record. I guess when someone turns up an alternative National Record, it will become a state record or area code record or whatever.

Sweet....

[numbski]

Thanks a ton. I don't use 2.4Ghz usually, too crowded, but good info nonetheless. Thanks!

pronunciation

[bobsledbob]

it's pronounced 'wee-ber' not 'web-er'

don't worry, sportscasters get it wrong all the time.

Re:pronunciation

[cujo_1111]

Then spell it with an extra 'e' to avoid confusion. Reminds me of the British sitcom with the woman who pronounced her surname of 'Bucket' as 'Bookay'.

It is spelt the same as the kettle BBQ, so it is pronounced the same way... Web-er

also:

[mindstrm]

Just because it's not amplified doesn't mean it's within power limits either.. the amount of transmit gain from the antenna is regulated as well.. though the US restrictions on this are more forgiving than other countries, effectively allowing for longer links.. if I remmeber correctly. Still, it is quite possible to blow the FCC limits without using an amplifier.

1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[Burdell]

If you read the actual pages, they used 1.5W amplifiers. Their "lessons learned" page says "Unsure of FCC regulations"; more like FCC regulations ignored. FCC regulations for unlicensed use of the 2.4GHz spectrum for communications limit you to 1W ERP; with 1.5W amps and high gain antennas, they were well beyond the FCC regulations. Give me a big enough amp and a good antenna and I can transmit 2.4GHz a lot longer distance, at least until the feds track me down.

Re:1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[general_boy]

Close but check part 15-247 again. It's max 1W (+30 dBm) transmitter power into up to a 6 dBi gain antenna (+36 dBm EIRP). For a point to point link the TX power must be backed off 1W by 1 dBm for every 3 dB of antenna gain over 6 dBi.

Let's say their hacked together antennas had 16 dBi of gain at 2.4 GHz. *For a certified combination* their max legal TX power would have been around +27 dBm (500 mW). Silly thing is, even with 1.5W of TX power they were throwing away more than the difference in 72" of RG-174 cable - and they still closed the link. Yecch.

So, they were busting more than one reg - over the absolute power limit of 1W, the EIRP limit for the antenna gain, and using an uncertified combination of radio/amp/antenna.

Re:1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[Glonoinha]

I seem to remember something from the last discussion about using Primestar dishes to focus Wifi - I was under the impression that the FCC limit on unlicensed broadcasts to 1W was only for non-directional (Omni-directional antennas) and they had some other (higher?) limit for tight beam communications.

I may be totally wrong on this one, but it is worth determining one way or the other.

Disclaimer : I'm pretty good at using my wifi gear stock out of the box, configuring it etc ... but I wouldn't know an FCC regulation if it walked up and bit me on the leg.

Re:1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[Burdell]

I always forget that it is 1W in, not 1W out. Someone at work even called the FCC and talked to them about that to verify it, and he has to correct me every time. D'oh!

Re:1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[niko9]

I think it would pay for at least 2 of these chaps to earn a no-code Amatuer Radio license. You have pretty much free range from 900Mhz and upwards.

You could use upto 1500 Watts of power and it would all be legal.

P.S. You would have to transmit callsigns, but thats really no biggie.

--

Re:1.5W is one heck of an "un-amplified" amplifier

[A]

I am a fellow student at this university and I know many of the people involved with this project. The professor has his extra ticket and there was a tech class ham at the other side. Now i'm not sure if they transmited call signs, and there choice of file to transfer wasn't the best, but as far as ERP they were well within limits as far as the FCC is concerned.

Actually

[anethema]

It seems it was amplified. I dont see unamplified on their site, and in the project materials it lists bidirectional signal amplifiers (1.5 watt).

Not to say this isnt still amazing. I'm setting up some long distance point to point WiFi myself, albiet with a bigger dish on one side for testing. Not 82 miles, but im doing it for practical reasons.

Primestar dishes seem to have a gain of around 20dB at 2.4ghz if you have a decent feedhorn. (20dB is a gain of around 100). I'll be using at least one old c-band dish. It should have a gain of 30dB or more. (thats a gain of around 1000)

My eventual plan is to set up a site on a mountain with a fairly high gain omnidirectional antenna, and then anyone who wants to connect to the LAN just points at it with a primestar dish. If i can find sponsors I will even make it 802.11G and connect it to the internet.

This way anyone can have wifi access, at least from home, and I wont need to blanket the town in access points, interfere with cordless phones/other networks, etc because without the high gain of the primestar dish you shouldnt even be able to see the network. Should be fun.

Re:Actually

[PureFiction]

My eventual plan is to set up a site on a mountain with a fairly high gain omnidirectional antenna, and then anyone who wants to connect to the LAN just points at it with a primestar dish.

The problem you are going to run into with more than a few clients associated over a long link like this is contention and timing. You will see network throughput plummet as multiple clients associate and begin talking; leading to massive interference/collision (see timing issues).

Maybe by then someone will have a reversed driver for the atheros / broadcom devices and we can tweak the MAC as needed for this kind of use...

Re:Actually

[YrWrstNtmr]

My eventual plan is to set up a site on a mountain with a fairly high gain omnidirectional antenna, and then anyone who wants to connect to the LAN just points at it with a primestar dish. If i can find sponsors I will even make it 802.11G and connect it to the internet.

Hope you have bulletproof lawyers.

Re:Actually

[aXis100]

We had this problem on the WaFreenet, so we set about creating some software to fix it.

The result was frottle. It's a bit of a kludge, but essentially provides a virtual token bus over ethernet. It runs at the wrong layer (UDP), but is suprisingly effective. Before, with 14 clients to the HillsHub AP (many clients in the 10's of kilometers), we'd get crippled throughput rates below 10kB/sec. Now multiple users can sustain data rates above 80kB/sec (or better depending upon load).

Re:Actually

[anethema]

I didnlt realize it was so bad, but yes something I have definatly considered is multiple access points around town. (On buildings or mountains, so you'd still use the dish) They would also have to link with their own antennas so this begins to become a complicated problem.

Honestly networking and WiFi arent my strong suit. Me and a friend are working on this, I'm more the electrical engineer and hes the software/networking guru.

But yes, I've seen large scale wifi and an acesss point every 20 feet (some have thousands and thousands of them) seems like a wasteful brute force way to do things. Imagine if the cellular network operated like that. Bleugh. I cant even imagine the routing nightmare.

But yeah, thanks for your input..things are just getting off the ground now, various companies have sent me access points to test/etc.

A divine gift

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think they got the plans for it by reading off some gold plates in a hat?

in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

New Wi-Fi Connection Record Set In Utah... .... most permanent connections to a single node...

One key-press errors are insignificant

[Qinopio]

Now excuse me while I go and finish formatting my hard dick.

So they finally got a signal...

[Aadain2001]

..from earth to the planet that Darl McBride is living in. It'll be a loooooooong time before any one is able to get a distance greater than that ;)

Simple answer

[AndroidCat]

It was in Utah. Perhaps it just seemed a lot longer?

Will the Third World Please Step Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my mind, the greatest implication for long distance transfer of data is going to be in the third world where standard phone and data lines just don't exist. I've read a few articles on the attempts to set up long distance wireless networks in Africa and other places by a variety of means. The end result? The end result is that information is given to people who wouldn't otherwise have access to it. I've also read that farmers in the US rely upon computer/internet data for information on things such as weather and disease, important things if you farm for a living.

If we can offer this type of information in rural third world areas it can only improve on the quality of life. Let's think of the third world (in a very simplistic manner obviously) as the US 150 years ago. The telegraph revolutionized the US. Maybe a long distance WiFi connection in a country with no FCC worries can do the same thing.

Maybe this experiment won't change the world, but then again, maybe it will.

Water

[Detritus]

RF paths over water are also susceptible to weird propagation effects, such as tropospheric ducting, and dynamic multipath from waves on the water's surface.

Back when AT&T used microwave relays for long distance telephone calls, they had to design in a very large link margin to get the all-weather reliability that was needed for the telephone system.

HOWTO: Drop Your Price

[Vagary]

Presumably they stuck with 802.11b because they wanted their customers to use off-the-shelf receivers?

There's nothing technologically novel about sending digital data over radio waves, the reason that its so popular right now is that it's standardized which has lead to it becoming very cheap. So anything that doesn't follow that standard is not benefitting from economies of scale.

Re:yeah. here's how they did it.

[uvsc_wolverine]

I did a little WarDriving on the freeway between Victorville, CA and Los Angeles. Did you know that the Disney Channel building has an unsecured wireless LAN?

I laughed every time I came up with an access point where the SSID was 'linksys' AND it was unsecured. I think the final tally was fifteen of those. I got a total of thirty hits going down the freeway and only five were using any sort of encryption. Granted they could have been secured via MAC address, but I was just playing around, and didn't feel like checking (besides I think CHP would have arrested me for stopping in the middle of the freeway just to check for an open node).

Wireless is best for rewiring anyway...

[Kjella]

Every new student housing I know (and a lot of old ones retrofitted) *and* the two latest building projects I looked at directed at young people had added cables to the housing. Why? Because the cost isn't really that high when added at build time. Pulling cables everywhere afterwards would be expensive.

Same with new housing areas. They drop the cables in the ground now, whether they use them or not. Compared to digging up the entire area again, it's cheap. Ok this long-distance wireless is cool, but for anything like relatively densely populated areas, I think wired is the future.

The great thing about wireless is when the wires are actually in the way... like e.g. to your laptop or something else you'd actually move around. If not, I'd rather have a 100Mbit switch (as I do now) and a 1Gbit switch in the future :) Though the next one will probably be a combo with wireless for my laptop...

The only other good use I've seen for wireless, which would be a "everywhere" access like my cellphone, is currently insanely priced. Right now I wouldn't consider it for anything, and even in the future I don't see it as my primary internet connection. Again, maybe workplaces, universities and other places where you have a laptop you carry around. But in general? No. Not until the prices come waaaay down.

Kjella

Re:Wireless is best for rewiring anyway...

[gpapilion]

I couldn't disagree more with your thought.

The digging of the hole is expensive, whether the housing subdivision exists or not. Each additional cable put in the ground is relatively cheap when compared to the initial wire, but whether the area is in use or not makes very little difference.

By extenstion, wiring your home is still an expensive propisition, since almost all the runs are individual wires. The reason more home are coming pre-wired is to avoid the surface mounted raceways, and jacks. Things just look prettier when they are in the walls.

Real costs savings are achived by installing reusable infrastructure like cabletrays, and conduits since it cuts down on labor time during future expansions, and upgrades.

Wireless also helps in the regard since a single access point can serve ten or so users at once. This does come at a price, which is a lower connection speed. But, for most applications, wireless speeds are more than adiquite, and users enjoy the lack of cabling. Internet applicaitons are often limited by the outgoing connection speed, which for many offices is less than 10 Mb/s. If they are sharing document, most often they are small enough so that users don't notice the slower load time.

Re:yeah. here's how they did it.

[interstellar_donkey]

I've seen that. It surprises me how many WAPs are unsecured. Big corperations, government agencies, homes. Schools seem to be pretty bad (not colleges, but high schools and elementary schools). As I've taught at many of these schools (and had permission to use their network), I would turn on the laptop and immediatly get an IP via DHCP and be online.

Simply amazing.

Now I can't have kids....

[Dj Stingray]

Since they have been doing this (testing/calibrating) up in Ogden I can't have kids. I live in Salt Lake (within 80 miles).

The doctors say to buy a lead cup to protect what remaining sperm I have...

smart smart smart smart smart.....

I don't have a signature.... but if I did, it would say:

All your base.... = the worst signature ever.

Thanks and goodnight.

Not to mention...

[dtmos]

Phuket, a delightful resort in Thailand.

That's nice but ...

[BallPeenHammer]

I don't think wireless coverage in Utah is a major issue just yet.

How about all the dead zones in major cities like New York?

passive WiFi reflector tower?

[Doc Ruby]

I've got a 200m tall tower on a hill 400m away from my roof. Can I somehow point my WiFi AP at some kind of reflector on top of the tower, to cover the neighborhood with WiFi? How do other nodes return a signal via the reflector? Is there a way for this to work with mobile devices to the reflector to a stationary AP?

The accademic approach of problem solving: reboot

[sfmarco]

Note the accademic approach to address the signal strength:

After rebooting, the problem was resolved and signal strength and quality was restored. We then were able to FTP the MP3 file and have net meeting conversation.

They truly used off-the-shelf components!

Re:Utah ? NOW THIS IS FUNNY!

[kin_korn_karn]

So how does this differs from any other organized religion?

Pringles

[dedalus2000]

anyone notice the can of Pringles in picture 19 looks like it was a primestar parabolic and a Pringles yagi. :D

Re:The central precepts of Mormanism never mention

[Anonymous Coward]

18. The Mormon Temple endowment ceremony is without a doubt taken from the Masonic ceremonies Joseph Smith participated in just weeks before he introduced the temple endowment. The grips, tokens, covenants, secret words, keys, etc. were word for word the same when first introduced. Members who were Masons previous to Joseph joining the fraternal order unashamedly referred to the Mormon endowment as "celestial masonry."

Bravo! One of the most liberal Mormons I've ever met. Did you know this post could get you in hot water with your Bishop or Stake President?

You're well on your way. You're almost there. If you have a good reasoning mind you'll be an apostate before you know it. I think you'll find the information on Joseph Smith enlightening. Make sure you do some study on the Book of Abraham too. You'll start to see where the seed of hatred were sewn for the African race.

No, no, don't bother to find out for yourself, just go around spouting hacknyed half-truths to anyone who will listen.

HUH? you pretty much confirmed almost everything this poster said. You are ignorant to a number of points that are based on what has been preached by your early church leaders but that will come with time.

Okay...

[mindstrm]

Look. You can debate exact definitions all you want, okay?

Joe average cannot legally set up a link such as this, and use it for whatever.

The distance challenge with wifi is all about power, and precision.. if you are allowed to violate FCC regs, I could build you a wifi link to the moon, it's not a problem.

I don't really care what modulation technique is used.. if it's in an unlicensed band, and available to joe average, that's what matters. Nothing more. For that matter, for a point to point link, it doesn't even matter if it's 802.11 at all.. a proprietary protocol in the same band is just fine, and might even work better.

802.11, btw, includes specs for FHSS systems, and is indeed 'Wifi"

Yes, it's cool that some students made an 80km link. But it's not surprising, nor really a large feat of engineering, though I"m sure it was a fun project.

Showing all the calculations for gain, cable & path loss, timing adjustments to the protocol, and showing how it all stays within FCC regulations for joe average would have made a much more interesting read.