Slashdot Mirror
Intel to Release WiMax Chip
david writes "According to CNET News, Intel plans to release their first WiMax chip on Monday. 'The world's largest chipmaker sees in WiMax a potential profit source that it hopes will become as popular as its shorter-range cousin, Wi-Fi. Intel also believes it will stimulate computer sales in emerging markets where high-speed Internet access is unavailable or prohibitively expensive.'"
Are there any major suppliers of WiMax services yet?
wdd
What I like most is that they keep the names simple enough so just by looking at them you know which one is faster, and what range they have. Much like Highspeed USB and Full Speed USB.
I've asked the question here before but didn't get an definitive answer....
Do WiMax do adhoc networks like Wifi does currently? Can you setup a WiMax network at home?
Or do you _have_ to signup to an ISP that runs the WiMax infrastructure.
I think the latter may be necessary due to expensive adaptive antennae used in WiMax.
Wal-mart. 7-11. Citgo. McDonalds. Anyone with a mass franchise presence suddenly has the potential to power an ISP with a 20 mile range by slapping a $500 antenna on top of their stores. Pay as you go validation at the checkout counter and you're off and running. If Exxon put this at every one of their stations they could supply internet to travelers to pretty much everyone within range of an interstate. That's a lot of people.
Can I have what they're having please?
umm... are you talking about centrino?
Would you like to point me to a more popular wifi chipset?
I can steal my neighbors ISP line now!!! Anyway, networking chips have been a good boost for Intel lately. As CPUs become more of a commodity, they have expanded into other chipsets (alot of other chipsets) and this is just one of them. But this isn't practical for home networking which is what they hope. Too many leaches when you have a 20 mile range. But it is good for businesses that need to coordinate mobile people in this type of range. I just don't know how big a market this is. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Or WiMaxPower...
The owls are not what they seem
From0 5.htm
http://www.intel.com/netcomms/columns/jimj1
"Q: What is WiMAX?
A: WiMAX technology involves microwaves for the transfer of data wirelessly. It can be used for high-speed, wireless networking at distances up to a few miles. The term WiMAX comes from 'Wireless (Wi) Microwave Access (MA).' WiMAX is very similar to Wi-Fi in that it uses the same core technology of wireless modulation developed way back in the '60's and '70's. It's called OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing), for those that care about the technical terms.
The real benefit of WiMAX technology is that you can run signals very, very close to each other on wireless channels. You can have super narrow lanes, so you can put a lot of traffic over them and they don't disrupt each other.
Q: How is WiMAX different from Wi-Fi?
A: Although the fundamental technology is the same, over time we can add levels of sophistication to WiMAX. Wi-Fi channels occupy a fixed width of the spectrum. But with WiMAX, we're going to enable the traffic lanes - or channels - to get smaller and narrower. This helps service providers seeking to offer wireless last-mile DSL or cable-type service because they can provide a narrower channel that uses less bandwidth and serve more users. You can take what used to be a fixed Wi-Fi lane and make a bunch more lanes and serve more people.
The other big difference between Wi-Fi and WiMAX - starting right away - is that we're going to use licensed spectrum to deliver WiMAX. To date, all Wi-Fi technology has been delivered in unlicensed spectrum. WiMAX will use one of the unlicensed frequencies, but we're also supporting two other frequencies that are licensed. What that means is that you can turn up the output power and broadcast longer distances. So where Wi-Fi is something that is measured in hundreds of feet, usually WiMAX will have a very good value proposition and bandwidth up to several miles.
Also WiMAX is designed to be a carrier-grade technology, which requires a higher level of reliability and quality of service than are now available in typical Wi-Fi implementations.
Those fundamental differences make WiMAX more of a metropolitan area access technology versus hotspot."
(all taken from the article linked above)
Realistically now - how long before there is ubiquitous single-provider wireless Internet access throughout the US/World? Will I be able to take a laptop on a car trip from LA to NYC and download porn the entire way in say... 2008?
I think buzz on the street is HSPDA.
Neither wimax nor wibro.
HSPDA is triple threats (Voice,DATA,DMB all in one)
I am not sure how us is planning for but it looks like eurpose and asia is ready to jump on HSPDA.
No more trying to angle my laptop in weird directions just to get a single bar of signal in class! I wonder if they're going to charge as much for this new service as Cable internet. Wireless makes a lot of sense; we wouldn't have to string cables throughout houses or apartments. Wireless today can be tricky since passing through zones can cause flakey connections. If the zone is as large as a city... well that problem isn't so bad. In fact, it would be awesome if there could be nationwide coverage, and we could use wireless on our laptops in our cars!
Those StraLites can do this, their only 140000ft high, maybe too far, but just boost the signal perhaps, at least to augment more signal space perhaps.
Might be a bit high for laptops to send to.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"Those StraLites can do this, their only 140000ft high, maybe too far, but just boost the signal perhaps, at least to augment more signal space perhaps. Might be a bit high for laptops to send to." Oh, but I enjoy climbing 140,000 ft-tall towers to connect to the internet! It's what all the cool people are doing :)
After reading the wiki link (Which is like a big ol ad for Wi-Fi) I have some concerns.
It's supposed to be backwards compatible yes? But wi-fi G and B have far lower ranges (let alone A) so I'll likely be blanketted with several wimax networks which my card won't be powerful enough to respond to. How long will my auto handshake take to resolve that?
Also since it doesn't support Ad-Hoc are we sure this won't be run by ISPs and not leave us a chance to run personal networks?
Third I know there has been a breakthrough in power consumption and moving to higher frequencies makes data transfer less power hungry but these kind of distances seem to make wi-fi in hand helds and laptops impractical, it would be nice not to wire things but wiring is probably a better solution then hamstringing 802.11b when that has the possibility of universal deployment and replacing the cell networks.
Who's going to want to put a wimax antenna in a subway? Or on a train?
Let's hope this isn't going to stamp out the old standards...
Don't get me wrong I'm looking forward to it, just some concerns.
But I thought that Sony's BetaMax lost out years ago???
It's a different market. WiMax is last mile, WiFi is hotspot.
Your house or local cafe might be conneted via WiMax to the ISP, and then there's be a WiFi AP transmitting that around the local area.
i mean, can my laptop connect to an area with wimax without buying additional equipment?
Combine WiMax and VoIP in a small handheld device and you've basically re-invented cell phone. But you'd be able to add features way easier. Put in a server and update the "phone" software and now youv'e got email (or text messaging or paging or a teleconference, or streaming audio/movies, or the web) on you cell.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I'm not trying to be snooty, but if there is a new chip involved, then it most definatly needs new hardware. No matter, just slap a PCMCIA card in when they come out. Most pc laptops (centrino ships in pcs only) have PCMCIA card slots.
How long do we have to wait for Linux driver support this time?
The major difference between WiFi and WiMax is that the latter will be on a _licensed_ spectrum. This is the only way that you can have a range of 10 miles and not have constant interference with the 500 other people who also have WiMax towers.
So yes, it will be used to give wireless internet access over a large area - but it'll go to large companies who buy access to that spectrum. Which isn't so bad, so long as those licenses include clauses to keep costs low and access open.
My Journal
Rural areas will benefit the most from this. People that normally can't get cable or DSL high speed will now be able to get on high speed Internet at a, hopefully, lower cost than unreliable (and expensive) satellite.
Token Ring From the wikipedia reference 'info'. "...token ring...An important aspect of the IEEE 802.16 is that it defines a MAC layer that supports multiple physical layer (PHY) specifications." So these things will act as nodes on a token ring network? The referenced article is a bit confusing as it suggests that current WiFi, "...uses the same link layer controller...", will also work with token ring. Or is this a 'slices, dices, cleans foreskin, ..." bit of marketing hype?
HSPDA is triple threats (Voice,DATA,DMB all in one)
I figure that it's probably not Dave Matthews Band streaming wirelessly that you're talking about, though that might be a "threat" to RIAA.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
We track solar events in the GHz frequency range all of the time
l
l #R ADIO
http://sunbase.nict.go.jp/solar/denpa/index.htm
or
http://www.ips.gov.au/Main.php?CatID=5
Lots more can be found at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IAUWGdoc.htm
Wont these events cause interference? Or is the intensity from the solar events just too low?
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
At least it will be a year or more before we start seeing broad adoption of WiMAX.
Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
The reason is simple: it is by far the cheapest way that the USA will be able roll out broadband Internet on a truly large scale, thanks to the fact putting up WiMax antenna arrays is vastly cheaper than hardwiring every residence and business for T-1/T-3, xDSL and cable broadband access.
Remember, unlike Europe, Japan and South Korea, much of the USA doesn't have enough population density per square mile to justify the exorbitant costs of installing and/or upgrading landlines to get xDSL and cable broadband access; this is the so-called Last Mile Problem. WiMax avoids these issues, especially given the potential for using current cellphone tower arrays for WiMax transmissions, which means the vast majority of the USA population could be within line-of-sight reach of a WiMax antenna setup.
Today, no. But, give it some time, like a year, and you'll see WiMax onboard with a lot of laptops.
I'm currently working to implement some software for a WiMAX provider in Europe.
Very interesting. You can take your laptop & ADSL with you around the city, no problem. Next, they will do voice, all without the wire!
As a sailor, WiMAX is very intriguing!
Imagine being anchored out in the harbour (which is usually free) and still being able to play Battlefield 1942 on your WiMAX-enabled laptop!
i hear that they're working on a software/hardware suite designed to pick up voice and digitze it (over a proprietary network), allowing for two-way communication. apparently, they're hoping to fit it all into something as small as a pocket calculator.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
A must-read overview of WiMax in its present state appears on DailyWireless.org, with a link to Intel's white paper, the state of competition, data on cost and performance, spectrum requirements, the whole ball of Wax.
Here is Intel's press release announcing their WiMax product.
Vote for Pedro
The article above states that WiFi is WiMAX's "shorter range cousin." In fact, the fundamental physics say that, given the FCC limits on signal strength and modulation schemes, neither can go farther than the other. WiMAX is slightly better at handling clients that are widely distributed geographically, but most of the claims that it is hugely better than WiFi or will go farther are simply hype. What's more, it's sure to be more expensive than WiFi.
IEEE 802.22 sounds like a much better alternative because it uses UHF frequencies and because I'm biased against intel.http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.p hp/3483426/