WiMax: When, Not If

Omega1045 writes "An article over at SiliconValley.com got me excited about the new WiMax Technology that over 140 companies and organizations are pushing. The article is a little low on the technical side of things, but discusses a possible 10-mile range for the wireless technology. Many see this as a nice solution for the "last mile" problem. Similar technologies have seen a lot of hype before, but with the likes of Intel, Dell, British Telecom, AT&T and bunch of the Ma Bells, I think one can be forgiven for getting a little excited. If you are still skeptical, you can download the 'Complete Guide to WiMax.'"

Comments

Rural accounts target for Wimax

[Anonymous Coward]

Wimax has been in the planning stages for a couple of years now. I can't believe it's just now hitting the radar screen..
In any case the specified range is 30km (a lot more than 10 mi), and over rugged terrain. Perfect for rural, or forested areas (where I live).
BTW, Intel is one of the biggest names pushing the standard.

Since there is no broadband or cable service here, I have been bugging the local providers to put a base station on my property in exchange for service. We'll see what happens.

So, what's so cool about it?

[adolf]

Not to brag, as I have no idea how fast WiMax professes to be, but:

I've already got a functional network, where endpoints are all about 10 miles away from a central access point. It runs 5.7GHz Motorola Canopy, and shoots several megabits per second in any direction over flat terrain.

No funky amps, no wacky antennas, no broken FCC regs, and no lossy coaxial feedlines. Just a clear line of sight and some out-of-the-box Canopy gear. It works well enough that I don't particularly care that it is proprietary.

What advantage does WiMax offer? (And remember, over here in the real world, tens-of-GHz frequencies are usually not advantageous.)

Re:So, what's so cool about it?

[andrews]

And WiMAX won't change the LOS issues. LOS is a function of the frequency used, not the encoding or standard.

Microwaves are LOS. Yes, different materials are transparent to RF at different frequencies, but the bottom line is that if you're above about 900 MHz you have to have (radio) LOS or you don't have a connection beyond a few tens of feet at part 15 power levels.

To really provide true non-LOS service, you have to be down in the UHF or lower frequencies. Yet another reason to push TV into digital and free up all that inefficiently used analog TV spectrum.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It is amazing

[tonsofpcs]

How so did the FCC de-regulate part of the spectrum? The FCC doesn't de-regulate anything, they just stop requiring licenses, but they still regulate it. Just like the old CB Band, its still regulated, they just stopped issuing as many fines as they used to, but if they want, at any time, they can just start handing out the fines again, they still officially regulate it.

Re:Wide industry support != consumer adoption

[rpdillon]

Umm, I think you're missing the point. 802.11 and 802.16 are not in competition. i.e. no one is going to say "I have 802.11, screw WiMax". 802.11 is good for the home that already HAS broadband. 802.16 allows people that don't have broadband in the home to access it the way we access the cell phone network now.

Re:10 miles isn't anything special.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.redlinecommunications.com/

So here, checkout the gear.
802.11B is prone to ineterfearance from your microwave, Remote control and any other 2.4 Ghz appliance.

Now here's the really nice feature of 802.16.
1. OFDM (Means the signals bounce off of buildings and such, used in conjuction with band scattering it's faster and more relaible than most 3G cell standards.

2. Directionless, LOS is needed only for HIGH Bandwidth consumers, but for the rest uf us I think 20MB/s to the base station is good?

3. It's not designed for the consumer yet, you can get it if you are a business and here in canada we already have ISP's offering both the Motorola sollutions (proritary and expensive) and these 802.16 solutions.

Re:Power

[freqres]

Its interesting about the head aches - WiFi is currently operating over 2.4Ghz (the resonant frequency of water, which is a signifcant component of humans).

More pseudo-science/urban legend BS non-facts. 2.4 GHz is NOT the resonant frequency of water. Here's a link explaining why microwave ovens use ~2.4GHz, Microwave Oven Principles of Operation, which is where this so called 2.4GHz resonace seems to originate from. And here's a quote from that page for those too lazy to click the link and read.

What is significant about 2.45 GHz? Not that much. Water molecules are not resonant at this frequency. A wide range of frequencies will work to heat water efficiently. 2.45 GHz was probably chosen for a number of other reasons including not interfering with existing EM spectrum assignments and convenience in implementation. In addition, the wavelength (about 5 inches) results in reasonable penetration of the microwave energy into the food. The 3 dB (half power) point is about 1 inch for liquid water - half the power is absorbed in the outer 1 inch of depth, another 1/4 of the power in the next inch, and so forth.

Industrial ovens still often operate at 915 MHz and other frequencies near 6 GHz are also used.

Water has numerous resonances over the entire spectra range, but the lowest frequency resonance is the rotational resonance is around 24 GHz. Other resonances occur in the millimeter wave range through the infrared.