Slashdot Mirror
WiMax Technology Could Blanket the US?
obiwan2u writes "According to an article on WiMaxTrends, the metropolitan area wireless networking technology (MLAN) called WiMax could reach 90% of the mainland US population if about $3 billion was spent on infrastructure. The 802.16 standard specifies a max range of about 30 miles and a max speed of about 70 Mbits/sec, but typical ranges and speeds will typically be smaller. 802.16/WiMax specifies various licensed (3.5Ghz) and unlicensed (5Ghz) frequency ranges but the unlicensed ranges have Wi-Fi like transmitting power restrictions. More background on this technology can be seen at: WiMax starting to make its move and 802.16: Medium distance wireless networking that could change the world?"
Quantum computing is slowly becoming a reality and wireless security will be useless. Wouldn't it be better to get the whole quantum entanglement thing happening?
So a Wimax group says that Wimax is the next great solution to all our wireless data worries. Who'd have thunk it...
That means with many users, each user could end up with dial-up speeds. Correct?
AOL and MSN would fight this tooth and nail.
Plus, could this handle millions of people connecting?
Got Extra Money?
I thought mlan was something else...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Sounds typical.
now where did i put that $3 billion....
Metropolitan Area Network is a MAN. "M" is a much greater scope then "L". M and L don't seem to fit together as being considered the same network.
"metropolitan area wireless networking" could be wireless metropolitan area network, being WMAN.
I can't think of something off hand to add an "O". Oh well.
It will be a welcome change from the jingoism and neo-conservative hate-mongering that is currently blanketing the US.
I believe the 70Mbps is half-duplex, so we are only really talking 35Mbps. Further, if you calculate the square mile coverage for a signal that has a 30 mile radius you will see that 35Mbps shared is really going to suck.
In other news, redundancy and saying the same thing twice will not be tolerated or put up with.
sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
This would still leave 30 million without access.
It's not like they're able to cover 90% of the country.
It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
We have to take this article with a grain of salt. First off, the article is put out by WiMax Trends. Of course they're going to say that. It's like Microsoft saying they rock and the world depends on their software. Second, there are a lot of trends that COULD happen...broadband over powerlines for example. While this is a rather cool wireless application, let's not all be getting all giddy just yet.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
...just sit'n'sniff (or is it scratch'n'spin)?
"Vee do not vear the hello-my-name-ist badge!!" - The Real Mad Scientist
Same order of magnitude of cost - and the benefit touches far more people.
Where here is Jacksonville FL,
St Cloud MN,
Abilene TX,
Daytona Beach FL....
Screw Iraq, or a tax cut, or whatever bullshit subsidy the government wants to spend my money on- we should have this. Now! A $3bn investment in a free, public, high-speed wireless internet infrastructure would repay itself by stimulating all sorts of economic growth in a very short amount of time. Naturally, that means it'll never happen... It'll only get built by a large corporation that will charge us out the asses for it and provide spotty service. Woohoo! Maybe the EU'll do it... It'll certainly benefit places that are further behind in their infrastructure by helping them get past the last mile problem...
I should get this for my apartment. My 802.11g doesn't work 40 feet. (I'm serious, I tried to log on this morning and I had no signal. I can see the laptop from here, right next to the router.)
Why was point to point broadband unprofitable in the first place? Was it cost of subscriber equipment? Congestion at the central point? I had some friends with Sprint pt-to-pt service in the mid 90s and it worked great. But the service came from only two points in the SF Bay Area CA; you had to have line of sight to San Bruno Mtn and Peak on the east side of the Bay. It was $50/mo, cheaper than DSL at the time.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Haven't we seen enough already of 802.xx hoopla? Isn't it about time someone sits down and make just one good, usable, and extensible standard?
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
If this technology becomes affordable enough, it's gonna be the death of mobile phone telcos. Everybody and their mother (with a little capital) would be able to deliver cell phone services in a metropolitan area. The cell phone line could become the new broadband modem at the fraqction of the cost of any type of landline technology. The possibilities are endless.
There are other bits of the spectrum that are being looked at as well. Among them is on the 6MHz TV channel.
How long do you think it will be till you read about some joker hacking grandma's old RCA to get online?
What does this button do...
You'll be sharing those 70 Mbits/sec with the people in the 30 mile radius.
DO NOT GO TO THE SITE listed in the Parent. It attempts to install a Trojan.
Website
Haha, now I wont even need to have a car to wardrive!
" About the Author: Caroline Gabriel is Research Director of Rethink Research Associates and Editor of WiMAX Watch, a newsletter providing in-depth analysis of the WiMAX market. She is a featured columnist for Trendsmedia's WiMAX Trends, and is a leading industry analyst on wireless and wireless broadband technologies. She recently authored WiMAX Business Models 2004-2007: How to Make Money in WiMAX, published in the US/Canada by Trendsmedia. For further information, email info@trendsmedia.com"
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I didn't read up all the 802.16?.? stuff, working groups etc., but why are they considering a high data rate standard with just 70 Mbps max?
I mean, we built a 216 Mbps (480 Mbps raw data rate) MIMO-OFDM SoC (+/-802.11a compliant) at the university. 216 Mbps is nothing special for next generation, > x Gbps have been achieved. But our System on a Chip (SoC) seemed to be a low cost solution.
Did anyone read all the workin group notes? Are multiple antennas only considered at the basestation?
Mark C. Stephens, aka, Robert X. Cringely, had an interesting article about this topic a few months ago.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
An $X billion dollar investment in a free, public Y would repay itself by stimulating all sorts of economic growth in a very short period of time. See that's all the economic knowledge it takes to be a central planner. I hear the Communist Party is looking for some! Congratulations.
Guess the cell phone operators who spent all the billions just 3 years ago must be about to enter headless chicken mode.
They spent more than just for the *LICENSE* than what is required for deployment. Check this out for yourself http://www.cellular-news.com/3G/
Licenses are typically upwards of $4 billion dollars.
Carriers have to spend EXTRA for the deployment.
Ok, I know some of you will say that 3G is not exactly the same as Wi-Max (especially with regards to handing-overs). But a wi0fi voip will work just enough for me to use especially if the calls are unlimited and free.
Heads should start rolling just about now...
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
I for one do not welcome our new microwave overloads!
In my town, nobody wanted cell towers. Quest sued us just to put up one tower and the south end of town still has crappy coverage for cell phones. Yes, our town is quite rural, a hold-out against developers who want to pack the hills with developments. WE F***ING WANT IT THAT WAY! I think TFA is addressed to urban folk and technology-steeped youngsters who wouldn't even understand that they are crambing down our throats something that is a solution to a problem only they suffer. I won't be surprised if the whole business is going to be gummed up like floridated water was: years of last ditch court battling by people who don't need the communication and dont want the irradiation. Some will never be convinced that, even at low low power, the radio frequencies used for cell phones, wifi and other techology are without potential health risks.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
LMDS and MMDS never managed to solve the propagation problem. Tree leaves are amazingly good at stopping high frequency RF signals--they hold a lot of water during the spring and summer months. WiMAX for all its great technology does not have an answer for this. In fact it is likely to face MORE propagation problems than earlier fixed wireless attempts because it operates at much higher frequencies.
Yes, WiMAX has OFDM, which is great for urban environments because it handles multipath (bounces) well. But trees don't bounce; they absorb.
WiMAX will certainly find success in many environments. Urban is one. Desert is another (American southwest). Far north is another. Many of the currently profitable fixed wireless installations are in the desert or far north, where there is little tall vegetation to eat the signal.
But in places like rural or suburban Mid-Atlantic, southeast, and New England--places with a lot of deciduous trees--expect the ranges and speeds to be far below predicted, with service "shadows" depending on your exact location.
I live within 30 miles of a major metropolitan area, but I won't get a signal here. How do I know? Because I'm behind a hill. I don't get broatcast TV signals or cell phone signals here, either, and radio is somewhat of a crapshoot.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
WiFi is still an evolving technology. Over time new standards are being developed, and speeds are increasing.
Wired ethernet is also still improving, but it has hit a point where the existing standard is fairly solid.
Given this, and the very real possibility of security/interference/etc issues with WiFi, I think that building a large infastructure around it is a bit premature. Internet isn't a necesary service, and offices can generally afford to pay for their own. Having the gov't etc pay out billions for such a tech is not justified at this point (besides, it will probably get cheaper over time).
you need some prune juice
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Now they're going to start poisoning the 5ghz bands. Nothing like pissing on your neighbor's lawn.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sarcasm appreciated. And you should see what happens when government and private enterprise work together. It usually ain't quick.
This technology, in addition to radio, television, cellular, CB, satellite, and microwaves, we should be able to drastically reduce the cancer rate in this country.
It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
Damn, I wish slashdot had a mod entry of 'tinfoil'
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Way to contradict your own argument in one sentence.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Not to mention we're already polluting Mars with our killer Cell Phone death rays! No wonder all the Martians left before we got there.
This stands a chance of getting broadband out to people who weren't previously reachable ... so it won't succeed. Remember, this is America, where special interest groups like radio HAMs and cable ISPs can lobby to ban innovative new technology that threatens the status quo.
News: Soon you will not even need a car to wardrive, all you have to do it pull out your laptop in your appt. and turn it on!
but we'd have to kill 3% fewer Iraqi children to subsidise this!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
the article fails to specify how well WiMax penetrates building in a density populated urban setting. If it's poor, carriers will have to spend much much more to get indoor or underground reception. 3 billion is an ideological figure.
The Iraq war is about 177 M USD per day. That makes about 17 days of Iraq war.
Or 1.4 B2 stealth bombers.
So it's not really that lot.
Not all that much, when you consider the Iraq war cost somewhere between $80 and $150 billion.
No thanks, I put out the crap pretty regularly;)
It would be useful if readers note that along with my personal opinion, most of my comment is reportage: I describe the politcial conditions as they really operate in one particular town, atypical as it may be.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Grandpa, tell me that story again about how you didn't want cell towers, Quest had to sue you to get one up, and you still complain of crappy coverage. That was always my favourite.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
Politics will turn the internet into yet another controlled medium rendering the value of ubiquitous connectivity to the lard pots of a few and the present free exchange of ideas little more than a fairy's tail.
The free distribution of ideas offends, threatens and terrorizes those who have no ideas of their own and they are the majority. For this reason we must FIGHT against global acceptance of socialist democracy.
The government has usurped the roll of family and community through cooptation of it's values in the manner of a perverted uncle. The children are spoiled and don't realize they are being fucked by this uncle, be he SAM or the more thouroughly perverted 'old countries'.
Prison rape does not require bars, only a laundered brain and the desire to swap ones ass for a candy cigarette.
Wouldn't that create a potential nation-wide vulnerability? In Europe there have been problems with people "hi-jacking" the bluetooth networks; I'd imagine this would spawn similar problems in the States. Plus, if this interconnects people acroos the entire country (or at least 90% of it...) what happens if someone gains control of it...somehow this conjures up thoughts of The Terminator and Skynet...
From the "about the author" blurb at the bottom of the article:
"Caroline Gabriel is Research Director of Rethink Research Associates and Editor of WiMAX Watch, a newsletter providing in-depth analysisof the WiMAX market. She is a featured columnist for Trendsmedia's WiMAX Trends, and is a leading industry analyst on wireless and wireless broadband technologies. She recently authored WiMAX Business Models 2004-2007: How to Make Money in WiMAX, published in the US/Canada by Trendsmedia."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Every Metro network i've used has been called a Metropolitan Area Network... it allows far more creative naming like FaTMAN :)
Damn those antitrust laws... There has to be a loophole, this is just too good... hehehe... Get daddy on the phone!
Any around L.A. and outside of the city like in 91745?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
This figure also doesn't include spectrum licensing. Any telecom could swing 3 Bil if that were the true costs.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Over 80% of the US lives in a metro area of at least a 100,000 people. This would imply to me that they most likely have access to some kind of broadband. Yeah, more choice is good, but I doubt this will really reach many people that don't already have an option.
BFE Kansas is not going to be covered by this and will still be screwed.
Did you not compose your entire post in front of an electron gun? Enjoy Television? How about your telephone? You good ol' boys like your CB radios don'tcha? Friggin' neo-Luddites. Either embrace tech or go join a Mennonite colony :) .
then we can get wiFi with perfect reception everywhere.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
its always cute when a bunch of luddites demand that time stop around them.
its called progress...move to montana if you want to be a backwards hick, the rest of the world is going to keep moving on.
you know what it means.
Quantum "cryptography" is based on a two-party communication being carried out in a focused, unbroken beam of single particles, for example photons. It is not encryption in the traditional sense, not exactly. Instead the general idea is that if something starts interfering with your transmisson-- say by eavesdropping-- you cease transmitting until they stop.
Wireless technologies such as WiMax are not compatible with this paradigm. They are radiative in nature, and naturally and unavoidably so-- since they must deal with people who transmit and receive while moving, as well as inconveniences such as walls. Moreover many participants in the protocol, in particular hubs, must be able to communicate with many parties simultaneously; and ALL participants in the protocol must not only accept the presence of interference, but have an active plan for working around it when it occurs (in the case of 802.11 this is done by frequency hopping, but I am not familiar enough with WiMax to know their methods here). Quantum cryptography has yet to be shown compatible with any of these requirements; conceptions of quantum cryptography that are being researched in the lab now are compatible with none of them.
It may be conceivable that future research into quantum cryptography will uncover alternate forms of the quantum cryptography concept which will allow it to be the basis for a WiMax-like protocol. It is also conceivable this will never happen. However if such forms are discovered, they will definitely not be applicable to WiMax itself; quantum cryptography or anything like it will never just be a drop-in for WEP or whatever WiMax uses, since rather than an algorithm they are a fundamentally different conception of how to transmit information.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Did they try using a landline for the same length of time? Or some other kind of communication with similar characteristics to a mobile (i.e. crappy, unreliable signal, pathetic microphone and speaker, background noise, poor volume so you have to half-shout all the time).
These seem like the major problems with mobile phones to me. Just holding something up to your head for 4 hours a day probably isn't very good for your wrist or your face...
Maybe it is the RF, but there are a lot of potential factors there, not only physical, but the mental stress of being in constant contact can't be good for you either.
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Phone and Cable companies are now the new Luddites(google it).
They are obstructionists of new technology.
They don't want anyone messing around in their guaranteed profits.
Cable broadband = 200-300k sec downloads ? LOL . What theft ! Broadband should only be mentioned with fiber to the home. FTTH(google)
Ironically, even Montana isn't full of backwards hicks (at least the portions I have lived in). Sure, we've got ranchers...but most ranchers are more "high tech" then your average city-ite.
I thought it was going to be 802.20!?!
You'd better stay anonymous! In Missoula, they plow the snow from the bike lanes...right up to the Espresso shops and at the state level they managed to register enough voters for the Dems to hang on to some power...doesn't sound like you have ever been to Montanna and it would be better for both if you kept it that way. [and yes, cell phones work fine around town there, mine sure did.] /. account or even knows what /. is is kinda remote. Use your words with care so people will listen to you.
Its becoming clear that a technophile mob is no kinder or more clear headed than a technophobic mob. The chances that anyone who could accurately be called a Luddite actually has a
"not in my back yard" is a perfectly real part of politics, licensing and regulation in a lot of communities. The point was worth making although I could have found a less inflamatory way, as several other commentators have, of saying this "carpeting the map with WiFi" notion is not a demand outside of urban areas and maybe not even an option.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Teligent spent $1.3bn in a year building its network but only signed up 35,500 customers by the time it filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
One of the biggest problems I have with government subsidized wireless access is the misconception that it can be done with minimal cost to taxpayers.
If it hasn't been done by the market yet, then it most likely cannot be done till you have the right market. Trying to push "free" wireless on people who will be paying the tax for it, and may or may not have access, is a pain. Especially if the people paying for it get tired of latency issues or cannot access it and have to keep paying for their already overpriced cable/dsl.
I also find it VERY interesting that this individual claims it will only cost $3 billion to cover 90% of the US. I'm assuming she means population, and I'd like to figure she gets to that number at $100,000 per zipcode (approximately 9,000+ zipcodes). That's $900 million for just the equipment. Half assets, 450 million, is for energy to keep them going. Double assets, $1.8 billion, is for employment to upkeep, handle network issues, etc. This estimate does not consider upgrades, maintenance, raises, or energy conservation. It's likely to need continual re-evaluation.
3 billion dollars paid for by 130 million taxpayers? (IRS estimates 130 million income taxes were filed in 2003) That's $23.07 per taxpayer, per year, regardless of whether you end up getting service or not. And regardless of the uptime or latency of said service. Sounds great, right? Ask the French about their "videophones".
I can see something like this working in Korea, but not the US.
You are assuming that the country has uniform population density. Obviously, this is not so.
Urban and suburban areas already have increasingly cheap, increasingly fast DSL and cable modem connections. Wireless of any form costs more, has more parts to break, and suffers interference that DSL and cable don't see as often.
For rural areas, the city center is probably covered by DSL and cable. You can't beat BigCable and BabyBell on price with wireless: how do you amortize at least $400 in customer-premise equipment at $30-40 a month, not counting the cost of bandwidth? Who warranties it when lightning strikes?
And bandwidth isn't cheap in the sticks, either. I just got done with a 3 year T-1 contract that cost $768 plus tax, and the renewal is still at $532.
How many people do you want to over-subscribe on that, especially when more and more of them want to run their p2p apps full-bore, all day long? How much time do you want to spend trying to out-filter the next p2p app?
It almost makes me think I should get into the business of dial-up. A modem is a great rate limiter.
A previous poster mentioned the Kuro5hin article from last December. There's plenty of wisdom in it. Go read it. And I say all this as one of those mom-and-pop small-town WISPs.
Curator of the Jefferson Computer Museum http://www.threedee.com/jcm
You are argument seems very similar to issues that are raised where I live and work. Its seems people come and visit, then move here, and want the landscape to stay the same from when the visted. Except when the move here, they want power, cell phones, DSL etc....
So the State says how about some wind power? Oh noo, they will change the way the mountains look! Then 5 minitues later, how come my cell coverage is so crappy? Verizon/Unicel, can we put up a tower here? NO! it will change the landscape!...
Gimme a break.
The effects are waining but can still be felt...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
From the blurb:
metropolitan area wireless networking technology (MLAN)
LAN means "LOCAL area network"
WAN means "WIDE area network"
MAN means "METROPOLITAN area network"
You can't be both a LAN and a MAN. Given that that the current terminology is WLAN for wireless local area networks, this would be a WMAN, not a MLAN.
Just being pendanic.
I'm curious, tangentially, what the specific mode of data transmission generally is: amplitude modulation or frequency modulation. (AM/FM) I'm asking this because FM usually requires a suitable chunk of spectrum; FM radio is chunked into 200khz pieces. ie, 88.5 MHz then 88.7MHz, they don't ever license 88.6, though. FM transmitters make use of the whole 200 Khz band to transmit their signal.
Couldn't you get more bandwidth using AM transmission on 200,000 channels, instead of frequency-modulating across 200 Khz of the spectrum? Even if you had to pair the channels (or even pool them) for error correction (AM transmissions are prone to interference), you'd be left with several thousand if not many dozens of thousands of channels with which to transmit high-speed 3.5GHz data.
So I'm curious how this technology works. Is it numerously-channeled AM based, FM based, more-precise FM based (not using the whole 200kHz necessarily, but maybe 100kHz or 50kHz)... or? I'm curious about the nitty-gritty of the underlying tech. How are they doing it? Why? etc.
indeed, a tangent.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Er... I think the entire point of the grandparent's post was that, in fact, population density is not uniform.
E for effort, F for comprehension.
No. 70Mb/s per end user.
It's not 70Mb/s shared. It's 70Mb/s per channel. This service is competitve with DSL and Cable.
Vote for Pedro
Yup, thats exactly how it is in my town.
development crept a a near stand-still for 30 years after the town changed zoning to require 2 acres for siting a house. It took yuppie money from the 80s and dot com money from the 90s to put up the next round of 6000sf mansions. The old people are not especially well off except for the value of their land and they vote against any expenditure the can. The new people exhibit exactly the schiziod demands you suggest: "more conservation land, and parking lots and better cell service" go figure! The utilities hate us because of the low subscriber density..we were about the last place to get cable. My next door neighbor and I were hatching a plan to put up a dish and share out the bandwidth to the neighbor hood when comcast finally brought in broad band.
As for me, having to commute to work on a mountain bike is, as they say in the ads, priceless.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
you talk like that's a bad thing...
...of assuming that one technology must serve the entire population of an area. For WiMAX to "find success" it merely means it has to provide a service in a manner that is profitable long-term. It doesn't have to replace DSL or cable. It just has to cherry-pick the under-served, the price-conscious, or other niches (for instance--the highly mobile). In fact two of its competitive advantages are that it is low-cost (no wires) and easily scalable (just bolt another unit to the tower).
"Spatial reuse" is not unique to Wi-Fi. The balance between # of customers served and area covered is common to most interactive RF services. WiMAX cell size will certainly be smaller in urban areas than surburban or rural--just as it is for phone service.
^_^
So what is your point exactly? That you don't want no technology, no way no how? Wimax is supposed to cover like a thousand square miles per cell or whatever its called. Or just that you want it to be asthetically pleasing? But you attempt to make a distinction between yourself and those who fight against munincipal water / electromagnetic communications.
Clearly somebody thinks there's demand for the services, or else they wouldn't be pushing for it. I feel sorry for the poor kids who live there; they're suffering under what amounts to a politically connected retirement community resolute to maintain the status quo against inevitable population growth.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Why, I can get 256K DSL service for only $29/month! So this would cost 15% of the price for (fairly slow)wired broadband. Stupid inefficient government, they should be able to do better than that!
Folks, you can't even get dial up for anywhere near that price.
Sheesh, what a nimrod.
How about setting up a semi-private entity to handle this, the we way handle the mail? The Post Office may not be perfect, but it's better than Enron, or Comcast for that matter.
Can Wi-Max do adhoc networking?
I mean, is it necessary for Wimax subscribers to talk to the access point, or can two Wi-Max equipped notebooks in a desert with no infrastructure talk direct to each other?
my point was to point out to a crowd that contains hardly a soul who'd question the desireability of uniform connectivity that there are places and people who don't share that unquestioning stance. Beside my technophobic townsfolk, here is another instance where your solution is my problem: /. are a rather specialized, gadget happy bunch and not unlike a convention of parapelegics telling each other "yeah lets get ramps EVERYWHERE, who needs stairs?"
I work in a DOD funded lab where being awash in WiFi from off premises base stations would drive them nuts. They'd be jambing it or erecting faraday cages all over the place. We don't bring in cameraphones, we turn off cell phones...or else.
Yes there is a demand and no I wouldn't personally mind replacing my cell phone with something that is more like a computer...I could really use that. Its just
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Cringely asks, "What if WalMart got into the WiMax Business?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Do they have faraday cages now for WiFi?
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
We keep hearing all these WiMax - but where's the radio for home or for people that want to start up their own WiMax? The reason WIFI become such a hit is the hardware is cheap, available from multisource.
So far - where's the hardware for WiMax??
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, a modulation technique for transmitting large amounts of digital data over a radio wave. OFDM works by splitting the radio signal into multiple smaller sub-signals that are then transmitted simultaneously at different frequencies to the receiver. OFDM reduces the amount of crosstalk in signal transmissions. 802.11a WLAN, 802.16 and WiMAX technologies use OFDM. It allows a lot of chatter!