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.
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?
As what the atricle says:
"Unlike Wi-Fi, whose ad hoc networks can be set up by anyone to connect a single house or office, WiMax is engineered to cover an entire city via base stations dispersed around a metropolitan area. So-called client devices, akin to a cable or DSL modem and built with a WiMax chip like Intel's, then pick the signal up. When connected to a PC, the signal becomes a high-speed wireless connection. "
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)
Hopefully never. I hate dealing with 18-wheelers on the interstate as it is... The last thing we need is for them to be distracted by porn.
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
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!
I'm assuming of course that the widespread availability of wireless porn will be necessarily accompanied by the introduction of self-driving vehicles. Or, perhaps more realistically, one handed steering mechanisms.
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.
Engineered, yes. But question is, can it be hacked so as for private people in a town to set up a mesh- style self regulating network? Now that would be cool. Or imagine a school with a good netconnection. They could allow their kids to keep on surfing from home.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
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.
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
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.
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"
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.