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?"
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?
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.
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.
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
Where here is Jacksonville FL,
St Cloud MN,
Abilene TX,
Daytona Beach FL....
I think "slowly" is the key word here. I don't know about you, but I don't plan to avoid encryption for the next half century because it's theoretically possible to build some sort of computer to crack it.
:)
I think the "worry" here is all of the anti-RF nuts protesting this. Not that I think they could stop implementation, however, but they'll try
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
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.)
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.
" 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!
Maybe you could use it to transmit data? If you hooked up, say, your average Bush voter to a blood-pressure machine and then had someone several miles away talk about how bad the war in Iraq was, I'm sure you'd see a spike on the graph. By using carefully timed conversations and statistical analysis, you should be able to get at least some bandwidth.
The problem would be isolating the signal from the noise. A passing planeload of French tourists would produce so much interference that you'd probably have to give up and resend. And if a Michael Moore film was shown in the same state, you'd probably burn out your surge protectors...
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.
Fox News has a wireless network?
They must. After all, they seem to get their 'facts' out of thin air.
There must be a lot of packet loss though...their news is an extreme distortion of reality.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
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.