125-Mile WiFi Connection

The distance is... by hayalci · 2005-08-01 00:52 · Score: 4, Funny

201.16800 km for us metric guys :)

--
hayalci

Re:The distance is... by Freexe · 2005-08-01 00:58 · Score: 1, Funny

Or 0.005 the circumference of the earth for those who like distances to mean something

--
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Re:The distance is... by aaribaud · 2005-08-01 01:14 · Score: 1

Well, for those who like distances to *really* mean something, how about converting that to leagues? I can understand walking for one hour more than I can grasp the circumference of the Earth. :)
Re:The distance is... by hayalci · 2005-08-01 01:18 · Score: 1

Well, 201 km means something to me.

It is a little bit shorter than the distance between three times my hometown and the city that I currently live in. :)
And it may take as long as three hours to travel that distance by car--depending on the traffic conditions--

Humans mostly imagine by comparing, and IMHO circumference of earth is not something that we can easily imagine without help of "shorter" distances ;)

--
hayalci
Re:The distance is... by zigler · 2005-08-01 03:31 · Score: 1

Did anyone notice the irony that "Wired" magazine is the elite sponsor of this "wireless" contest?
Re:The distance is... by ray-auch · 2005-08-01 04:41 · Score: 1

that wooshing sound is the joke flying over your head...
Re:The distance is... by cthulhu11 · 2005-08-01 21:14 · Score: 1

I'd be delighted to see a practical solution, ie., one that doesn't require advanced machining skills, for a 200-5000' link across forested land so I could share a leased line with neighbors.

The real question is... by Laivincolmo · 2005-08-01 00:52 · Score: 5, Funny

.. were they allowed to use those illegal cantennas? :)

Re:The real question is... by Council · 2005-08-01 00:55 · Score: 1

Illegal?

*looks with concern at Pringles can on desk*

But yeah, what do you mean? What sorts of cantennas are illegal?

--
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Re:The real question is... by Irongeek_ADC · 2005-08-01 00:58 · Score: 3, Informative

I think he is referring to Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department's Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force comment in this article:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_28868 79

""They're unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," said Lozito of the Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force."

--
Irongeek's Hacking Videos / Security Videos and Articles
Re:The real question is... by Eccles · 2005-08-01 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Note that other reports claim that Lozito claims he was misquoted there.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 01:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Depends. If your a LICENSED Amateur Radio Operator, cantennas and this dish used for the record are legal. Anyone else, like 90 percent of us who use WiFI, it's not legal. Only the antenna that comes with your equipment or is designed for use with that equipment (like DESIGNED to work with it)can guarantee that you stay udner the FCC's regulated ERP rules. Will the FCC do a enforcement action? Not likely. Does podunk Police officers have the right to confiscate your equipment? NO. In the US, the FCC is the ruling body responsible for regulating RF. The local law has no jurisdiction on it. It would be called a Federal Premption.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 01:57 · Score: 1

Hate to reply to myself, but the local law confiscating your cantenna and other equipment is only illegal if that podunk law enforcement officer is just taking it with out evidence of you using it for illegal activities (hacking wifi networks). If you use it to leech bandwidth from your neighbor, then the local law CAN and WILL arrest you. Law enforcement usually has no idea what is illegal or not antenna wise so they would likely pass info on to the FCC and then the FCC can decide if a enforcement action has to occur.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by dougmc · 2005-08-01 02:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Note that other reports claim that Lozito claims he was misquoted there.
Well, any time I say something stupid or incriminating, well, I was misquoted there too.
This includes cases where I'm quoting myself, like this one. If this is stupid, I was misquoted.
Re:The real question is... by Alrescha · 2005-08-01 02:31 · Score: 1

"If your a LICENSED Amateur Radio Operator, cantennas and this dish used for the record are legal. Anyone else, like 90 percent of us who use WiFI, it's not legal."

And in case anyone is curious, the team are all licensed amateur radio operators:

http://www.wifiworldrecord.com/team.htm

A.

--
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Re:The real question is... by dougmc · 2005-08-01 02:43 · Score: 2, Informative

If your a LICENSED Amateur Radio Operator, cantennas and this dish used for the record are legal.
Of course, it's legal for anybody to use antennas like that for receiving as well. It's not the antenna that's illegal ... it's the possible use that might be illegal.
And while hams can use any antenna they want, they can only do this on the ham bands while following ham rules. In the US, this means IDing yourself every 10 minutes, no encryption, no pecuniary interest, third party traffic restrictions, etc.
Only the antenna that comes with your equipment or is designed for use with that equipment (like DESIGNED to work with it)can guarantee that you stay udner the FCC's regulated ERP rules.
Hate to burst your bubble, but 1) no antenna can guarantee this (after all, things do malfunction), and 2) there is some room for a hobbiest to legally make his own transmitters, antennas and such without a ham license and without FCC certification. Using this antenna with a standard WiFi card probably won't qualify, but it can be done.
Does podunk Police officers have the right to confiscate your equipment? NO.
Not if you're trying to break some world record like this. But they probably can if you're using your cantenna to leech off your neighbor's WiFi connection and you get caught.
(Nice use of the word `podunk' in there. It's totally irrelevant (as large police departments don't have the right either), and yet it's a nice jab at Lozito.)
Re:The real question is... by toph42 · 2005-08-01 03:05 · Score: 1

If you use it to leech bandwidth from your neighbor, then the local law CAN and WILL arrest you.
Incidentally, does anyone know what U.S. laws would allow such an arrest? It seems to me that it is hard for the end user to know the intent of the network provider. How is it legal to sit in the coffee shop and surf on an open network and not in your living room? Is the end user supposed to be able to distinguish between a dumbass who puts his WiFi router on his LAN with default settings and a philanthropist who knowingly shares it?
Re:The real question is... by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2005-08-01 03:20 · Score: 1

Funny, Cantenna.com says:

Is it legal to use your Cantenna?

Yes, our Cantennas and Pigtails have been tested and comply with part 15 of the FCC rules. Make sure other wireless devices that you use also comply. Compliance with FCC regulations is your responsibility. Check with your Internet Service Providers to find out if they permit sharing of their Internet connections.

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Re:The real question is... by LordHunter317 · 2005-08-01 04:40 · Score: 1

Anyone else, like 90 percent of us who use WiFI, it's not legal.
Nope. This is utter tripe. As long as you stay within the power requirements for Part 15 operation, you're legal. Doesn't matter what antenna you use.

Only the antenna that comes with your equipment or is designed for use with that equipment (like DESIGNED to work with it)can guarantee that you stay udner the FCC's regulated ERP rules.
Well, duh. But there's tons of 3rd-party antennas that are designed to worth with consumer equipment and not exceed part 15 regulations.

Who modded this tripe up?
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 05:31 · Score: 1

Good to know. Actually, I attended a very good presentation on a team who was trying to sustain a WiFi connection from somewhere near the Kings Island area, to an area near downtown Cincinnatti. Not quite as far as this, but still impressive. The Amatuer Radio community are at the forefront of hacking WiFi access points for use in Amateur Radio. Since we are licensed, we can use large parts of the existing WiFi band for doing various things. One thing that's being looked at is using WiFi for voip radios. Another is just for long distance data connections. The technology at the core, Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum has been of intrest to hams for a while now and now hams have a easy way to get a radio. Hams definitly want to take advantage of cheap wifi access points.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 05:38 · Score: 1

Things DO malfunction and in those cases it usually does not INCREASE ERP. This shows you don't know anything about antennas.

That is CORRECT. You are REQUIRED to ID every 10 minutes....if it's a VOICE or CW transmission. Using your name in the Base Station ID (and not hiding it) is usually adequate. This is what I have learned at Hamvention when attending a session on a similar long distance trial. They did A LOT of research into this. I think they evencalled the local FCC office to make sur ewhat they were going to do was kosher.

ALSO, in the case of unlicensed spectrum, licensed ops usualy have the right of way. Now that does not mean you should be an idiot, but if some non-licensed individual complained about it, the FCC would tell the unlicensed party to pound sand and to move to another channel.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by Atzanteol · 2005-08-01 05:39 · Score: 1

Apparently you've never been quoted by the press. I give them a 1 in 5 chance of actually getting anything somebody says both correct and within proper context...

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:The real question is... by HardCase · 2005-08-01 05:44 · Score: 1

Who modded this tripe up?

mmmmmmm...menudo...
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 05:48 · Score: 1

Power requirements are MORE then just the transmitter power. FCC ALWAYS uses ERP or Effective Radiated Power for measurement. It DOES NOT MATTER that you did NOT mod your AP with Sveasoft or amped up your signal if you put a cantenna on it, it MAY be ok, but it may not. Only way to tell is to measure it.

Of course there are third party antennas that will work. Otherwise, they would not be able to SELL them. The ducks Linksys makes usually do not provide ANY gain. In fact, they usually cause a power loss. If the AP you have is UNDER the required wattage, then you MAY be able to get away with a higher gain antenna.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by hobbit · 2005-08-01 05:50 · Score: 1

That's amusing... I was just thinking to myself, "yeah, but if you're stealing someone's bandwidth from 125 miles away, how are they going to catch you?" Then I looked at the picture.

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Re:The real question is... by dougmc · 2005-08-01 06:12 · Score: 1

Things DO malfunction and in those cases it usually does not INCREASE ERP.
If the resistor you're using to limit output power in your transmitter shorts out, you may very well INCREASE ERP. I didn't say that only the antenna could malfunction.
This shows you don't know anything about antennas.
Or it shows that you're not very imaginative about how things can malfunction. My point was that your antenna cannot guarantee that you stay udner [sic] the FCC's regulated ERP rules as you claimed.
That is CORRECT. You are REQUIRED to ID every 10 minutes....if it's a VOICE or CW transmission.
The only way you can transmit under the ham rules and not ID yourself every 10 minutes is if you're doing telecommand -- R/C, radio control. In that case, you're supposed to put your call sign on the transmitter instead. (And indeed, my 50 mHz module for my Futaba 9C has a sticker with AD5RH on it.)
Using your name in the Base Station ID (and not hiding it) is usually adequate.
Assuming that you meant callsign instead of name, of course. In that case, you are IDing yourself at least every 10 minutes, are you not? (Unless you don't even transmit, of course.)
As for hiding it, every WiFi packet has your SSID right there in cleartext. Even if you're using WEP (which would not be allowed under the ham rules.) Cloaking merely removes the SSID from beacon packets (but it's still there if data is transmitted) and turning off beacon packets (data packets still have it, of course.)
My point was that merely possessing a ham license is not enough -- you have to follow all the ham rules. Which is fine for trying to set a `world record', but makes it pretty impractical for many of the things that people want to use these long distance WiFi links for.
Re:The real question is... by LordHunter317 · 2005-08-01 06:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Power requirements are MORE then just the transmitter power. FCC ALWAYS uses ERP or Effective Radiated Power for measurement.
No shit, and my statements aren't contradictory with this fact.
And actually, no, they don't, always use ERP in all bands under all different parts. Part 97 isn't ERP restricted, but rather transmitter PEP restricted. Had you said 'Part 15', you'd be correct, of course.
Only way to tell is to measure it.
Or you know, take the manufacturer's numbers and add them together, and compare them to the rules. The FCC will not fine if you, in good faith, designed your system by the numbers and they found that something performed better than specified. Especially given the fact that numbers are most likely to be high, not low.

Of course there are third party antennas that will work. Otherwise, they would not be able to SELL them.
Not quite true. You don't need a ham radio license to buy a ham radio transmitter, necessarily, nor is the sale illegal. The operation would be, but for many devices, including antennas, the onus isn't on the seller to ensure legal operation.
The ducks Linksys makes usually do not provide ANY gain. In fact, they usually cause a power loss.
Nope, they're usually 2dBi or so, which is a small gain. It's pretty hard to build an antenna that causes loss, if you're even remotely competent.

If the AP you have is UNDER the required wattage, then you MAY be able to get away with a higher gain antenna.
Seeing as the ERP requirement for omni-directional systems is 1W (30 dBm), and most consumer units have output in the 15 mW range (11.7 dBm), you have a lot of room. And the rules are different for fixed, point-to-point systems, allowing for almost 100W (50 dBm).
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 06:29 · Score: 1

Your right about iding every 10 minutes, but CW and phoen are usually the only modes I know that you have to be aware of it. Packet usually handles this via your TNC.

IF every transmission is attacthed to YOUR BSSID you are ID'ing EVERY time you transmit a packet! You are using your CALLSIGN. I guess I forgot to mention this and that's my bad.

I know of NO malfunction of transmitting equipment that will increase ERP. If your antenna is wacked off by a overhang, your will LOSE power. If your coax is crap, you will lose power. The ONLY malfunction I can see causing a increase is a sudden surge of power and then you radio will not likely last long in this method. I GUESS parisitic metallic elements may likely increase your signal marginally and could be considered a malfunction, but mose malfunctioning radios and antennas will not increase power. It may be possible, but it's DEFINITELY not likely.

Posessing a ham license IS enough because as a licensed operator, you ARE obviously required to follow the rules else you will lose your license.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by LordHunter317 · 2005-08-01 06:39 · Score: 1

I need to correct myself. For omni-directional systems, the maximum ERP is 36 dBm (about 4W), allowing for 30 dBm of transmitter power and 6 dBi of antenna gain.
Re:The real question is... by dougmc · 2005-08-01 07:08 · Score: 1

Your right about iding every 10 minutes, but CW and phoen are usually the only modes I know that you have to be aware of it.
Aware of it or not, it has to be done on all modes except for telecommand. For TV (SS or FS) one often transmits a frame with their callsign. (For FSTV, often one holds up a card with their callsign every few minutes :) For PSK31 one types it out like they would with CW. For packet, yes, your TNC includes it for you, but it's certainly there.
IF every transmission is attacthed to YOUR BSSID you are ID'ing EVERY time you transmit a packet!
Isn't that what I said, but in a way that's not quite as clear?
I know of NO malfunction of transmitting equipment that will increase ERP.
I've already mentioned one. Do you really need more? Anything that increases the gain on your final amplifier will increase your output power, and therefore probably your ERP. (It'll probably also increase the distortion of your signal, but that's another matter.)
For example, the gain of an op-amp is usually determined by the ratio of the feedback resistor to the series input resistor. If a bad solder joint or a drop of sweat gets into the circuit board and adjusts this ratio, the output power will be adjusted -- possibly down, possibly up. It depends on what exactly was adjusted. And if the new power isn't too much higher, it may not even fry something.
It's not worth arguing about, but my original point still stands.
Posessing a ham license IS enough because as a licensed operator, you ARE obviously required to follow the rules else you will lose your license.
Not all hams follow the rules. Some don't follow the rules, and eventually get smacked down by the FCC and often lose their licenses.
Merely having the license is NOT enough. You have to follow the rules, and that's NOT a given.
Re:The real question is... by PyroMosh · 2005-08-01 08:22 · Score: 1

Most places have what is called "Theft of services". Which can be used for all manor of thigs, and usually makes sense. For instance, if you take your trash to the local office park and dump it in their dumpsters, well, they pay a trash disposal company to remove their trash. You don't. That's theft of services.

I recall one case where some sleezy landlord had installed hidden cameras in a woman tennant's apartment she was renting from him. She found out, sued. IIRC, there was nothing on the books they could make stick to the video taping (no audio, so easedropping didn't stick, for some reason) so they got him on theft of services, since he wired the cameras to use the power she was paying for.

I don't see any reason using someone else's wifi, (or hard wire) connection wouldn't be prosecutable under theft of services also.

As for how you tell betwrrn a "legal" open network and one that's not intended to be shared / has a EULA against sharing, I don't have a good answer for you there.

--
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Re:The real question is... by Eccles · 2005-08-01 11:38 · Score: 1

Googling "lozito misquoted" will get you a number of hits, including this one: (quote is about 1/3rd the way down the page)

I emailed Lt. Lozito, here's what he said...

I have received several comments about my "Quote" in the article.
Suffice it to say, that the media does not always capture everything
said in a phone interview and then translate it to paper as it was
intended.

What I was referring to was the use of the devices to locate an open
port or signal and then once found, accessing the system to conduct
unlawful activity.

The possession of the device itself is not illegal however I believe
that in time, the law may look at such devices much as it does for
burglary tools for someone that has been convicted of burglary or
related crimes.

If my comment caused some confusion, I apologize.

Lt. Bob Lozito
Operations Commander
Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force
4510 Orange Grove Ave. Sacramento, CA. 95841
office: 916-874-3030 fax: 916-874-3006
email: rlozito@sacsheriff.com

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:The real question is... by Chanc_Gorkon · 2005-08-01 12:54 · Score: 1

You obviously have not built antennas for HF then where it's EXTREMELY easy to built a antenna that causes losses. It's not really that hard to do it on 2.4 GHz either.

ERP is used for Repeaters. I also would not be a bit surprised to see the FCC swich to ERP for all parts mostly because of invalid environmental concerns (OH my you might get brain cancer and such......NOT).

Fixed point to point (unlicensed) is restricted to 4 watts EIRP(unless things have changed since 2002 when this http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/1 144391 was wrote. ). That would be 1 watt plus 6 dBi gain. That's is relaxed compared to Omni Directional rules. In any case, if you homebrew and antenna, you better hope whoever designed it thought about all of those things when designed. According to the same article, the maximum gain you'd likely be allowed from your antenna is about 8-9 dBi for a omni-directional. At least according to that article I linked to.

--
Gorkman
Re:The real question is... by LordHunter317 · 2005-08-02 04:28 · Score: 1

You obviously have not built antennas for HF then where it's EXTREMELY easy to built a antenna that causes losses.
Like I said, only if you're incompetent

Fixed point to point (unlicensed) is restricted to 4 watts EIRP(unless things have changed since 2002 when this http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/1 144391 was wrote.
That's not even what the article says, learn to read. It very specifically says, "For antennas with gain greater than 6 dBi, the FCC requires you to reduce the transmitter output power if the transmitter is already at the maximum of 1 watt. The reduction, however, is only 1 dB for every 3 dB of additional antenna gain beyond the 6 dBi mentioned above. This means that as antenna gain goes up, you decrease the transmitter power by less. Thus, the FCC allows EIRP greater than 4 watts for antennas having gains higher than 6 dBi. Of course these higher gain antennas would mostly apply to point-to-point solutions having longer-range requirements, which is not common for most indoor applications," (emphasis mine); actually, this portion of the rule applies to fixed, point-to-point systems only. Non-point-to-point systems are limited to 36 dBm. The article is in keeping with my post above, which was derived from the applicable Part 15 rules directly.
Re:The real question is... by Math,+The+Ancient · 2005-08-02 12:52 · Score: 1

Sort of. Depends on the authority/enforcement specifically granted, but I do believe you are essentially correct in this (please note however, IANAL). For example, your local police will not actively chase you down (or even have the authority to) because you evaded paying your taxes at tax time. But they will be used to track you down should you hit the FBI's most wanted list (independent of your original crime).

That said...most, if not all states, have their own consititution and local laws that coincide or even copy/follow the federal version to be sure that enforcement IS allowed. Usually the federal portion is referred to only for discrepancies and/or conflicts in enforcement. Oregon's medicinal marijuana law comes to mind as an example...local police might not arrest a grower because they're allowed by state law, they can only enforce their own laws, but federal marshalls can come in and supersede the enforcement and the local enforcement may have a current law on their books that tell them they have to turn you in (even if they don't arrest at the time).

--
If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.

Great!... by Metteyya · 2005-08-01 00:53 · Score: 1, Flamebait

...now all we have to pass through is (very likely to occur) incoming "using Wi-Fi causes brain tumor" FUD-campaign. And then off we go to 21st century wireless-networks world.

Re:Great!... by bsd4me · 2005-08-01 01:46 · Score: 1

I used to work with an RF engineer who used to say he would retire once they made the office wireless...

--
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Re:Great!... by e2d2 · 2005-08-01 02:38 · Score: 1

I don't know if wi-fi can cause potential health problems, but as far as I know neither does anyone else. Every study usually admits that even if they don't find evidence there needs to be more research.

Re:Sweet! by Virak · 2005-08-01 00:54 · Score: 1, Funny

And now I can buy that small country I've always been meaning to get!

Working at 300 miles? by MichaelSmith · 2005-08-01 00:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

How are they going to wrap their wifi signal around the Earth, assuming that they don't have their own satellite?

I don't think ionospheric propogation is going to work at wifi frequencies. And you won't get 11 Mb/s at 27Mhz.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:Working at 300 miles? by Nerftoe · 2005-08-01 00:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Very tall towers. :) I'll let someone else do the math.
Re:Working at 300 miles? by strider44 · 2005-08-01 01:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Going from the top of one mountain to the top of another.
Re:Working at 300 miles? by LiquidCoooled · 2005-08-01 01:02 · Score: 1

Mountains make for very tall starting points as well.

Whoever modded you as troll must be on something, its obvious the higher from ground level you are, the greater the distance your signal can travel before the earths curvature stops you.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Working at 300 miles? by adavies42 · 2005-08-01 01:27 · Score: 1

Interesting idea. You could start by talking to the ham crowd--I'm sure someone's done moonbounce packet radio by now.

--
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Re:Working at 300 miles? by kd3bj · 2005-08-01 01:37 · Score: 1

Two words: meteor scatter.
Re:Working at 300 miles? by dougmc · 2005-08-01 03:43 · Score: 1

Going from the top of one mountain to the top of another.
This is modded as funny for some reason, but it is exactly the right answer.
This comment of mine goes into it a bit more detail.
Re:Working at 300 miles? by dougmc · 2005-08-01 03:56 · Score: 1

And you won't get 11 Mb/s at 27Mhz.
In theory you could, if you could use enough bandwidth. A WiFi signal takes up about 30 mHz so if you could use the entire band from 20 to 50 mHz, you could probably approach 11 Mb/s. (Of course, you'd have all sorts of problems, ranging from the FCC smacking you down to all sorts of antenna problems.)
If you could use 27.000 mHz to 27.999 mHz, you probably couldn't squeeze 11 mb/s out of that, but 1 mb/s should be doable. (Of course, this wouldn't be WiFi, so the entire point is moot. And of course the FCC would smack you down ...)
The data transmission speed is not directly related to the frequency used. Instead, it's related to the bandwidth used. The frequency comes into play only because the higher your frequency, the more bandwidth is available (as a general rule.) One WiFi signal takes up the same bandwidth as everything from 0-30 mHz combined -- AM radio, all the ham HF bands, shortwave, Loran, CB radio, six R/C channels and lots and lots more.
I don't think ionospheric propogation is going to work at wifi frequencies.
It won't. Meteor scatter or tropospheric ducting might. Meteor scatter would certainly work, but it rarely lasts long and tends to distort the signal (which would make WiFi unusable.) I don't know if 2.4 gHz signals are subject to tropospheric ducting or not.
Moon bounce is another option, though you're going to need either a lot more power or MUCH larger antennas. But it would be cool if they could make it work -- they could do distances approaching 12,000 miles ...
Re:Working at 300 miles? by Shakrai · 2005-08-01 05:09 · Score: 1

Moon bounce is another option, though you're going to need either a lot more power or MUCH larger antennas. But it would be cool if they could make it work -- they could do distances approaching 12,000 miles

And a new protocol. I don't think the collision avoidance mechanism of Wi-Fi is calibrated for a two light sound round trip time. At the least to make this work you'd need separate radios for transmit and receive with separate channels assigned to them to rule out the collision problem.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Working at 300 miles? by Detritus · 2005-08-01 05:25 · Score: 1

It's bandwidth and SNR. See Shannon limit.
You could transmit 11 Mbps in 1 MHz of bandwidth with a 33 dB SNR.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Working at 300 miles? by M1FCJ · 2005-08-01 08:13 · Score: 1

miliHertz and milibits/second? Damn, my 300 baud acoustic coupler is way better than your WiFi!
Re:Working at 300 miles? by strider44 · 2005-08-01 13:58 · Score: 1

I was very serious :) It's never going to be practical to do this in real life situations but for competitions and the such it's how it's done.

And by a.different.perspect · 2005-08-01 00:55 · Score: 5, Funny

2.12639285 x 10^-11 light years for us space-faring people. But we already have Wi-Fi anyway. Surrender your planet!

Re:And by Mudcathi · 2005-08-01 01:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Thank you, Google calculator:
36.2073434 leagues
440,000 cubits
1,980,000 hand
1,000 furlongs
40,000 rods
1,000 stadia

--
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
Re:And by Ziviyr · 2005-08-01 06:30 · Score: 1

Or about 0.671 light-milliseconds...

--

Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Re:And by nickptar · 2005-08-01 12:45 · Score: 1

Really! I wonder how they got 0.01ms ping times then...
Re:And by Headcase88 · 2005-08-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Ludicrous speed.

--
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"

300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Bad_Feeling · 2005-08-01 00:56 · Score: 5, Informative

There is just no way they can maintain 300 miles/480km without using relay stations. Multi megawatt FM stations cannot get that range simply because the curvature of the earth causes the signal to disappear into space before reaching its destination. 125/200km is about the maximum range that is possible on frequencies much higher than HF, even with captain picard's private satellite link to france they are not going to get 480km out of it.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...

Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by megla · 2005-08-01 00:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Multi-megawatt FM stations are omni-directional. A uni-directional signal requires only a fraction of the strength to be heard over the same distance.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by t_allardyce · 2005-08-01 01:05 · Score: 1

I think they mean 300 miles line of sight, so maybe it could be useful with satellites, space stations or really tall mountains.

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by thebes · 2005-08-01 01:09 · Score: 1

curvature of earth + high frequencies + infinite power = maximum distance dependant on the height of towers as a result of the curvature of the earth. Hence his argument is correct. You could crank it up to 1.21 GW, and still not make it very far.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by MichaelSmith · 2005-08-01 01:21 · Score: 1

or really tall mountains.
yes

300 miles == 990 km == 8 degrees of arc

y = 990 * tan(8)

..which is about 150 km in height

In other words at that distance you would need a mountain 150 km high to see that far over the horizon.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by TheSync · 2005-08-01 01:27 · Score: 1

Given the right weather situation (atmospheric inversion layers), you can get some atmospheric ducting. There is also meteor scatter. But both are a little tough to get serious sustained throughput.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by imsabbel · 2005-08-01 01:29 · Score: 1

Try using the right km/miles conversion, and think about mountains at _both_ ends of the line-of sight, and it becomes more more realistic...

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Dunbal · 2005-08-01 01:49 · Score: 1

Umm, it's 1.6 km to the mile, last time I checked...

that's about 480km, not 990.

You multiplied by 3.3. that's roughly the number of feet in a meter.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by div_2n · 2005-08-01 01:59 · Score: 1

multi-megawatt FM stations

There is no such thing. The most powerful FM station ever was (and maybe still is) 500,000 watts (half a megawatt). The FCC has limits now in place that make is such that no FM station will ever be multi-megawatt. I do not know about other countries.

Regardless, you can't possibly compare the FM frequencies to 2.4ghz. FM is so much lower on the scale that it has no trouble travelling as far as the curvature of the earth will allow. 2.4ghz will not since the size of its Fresnel zone is huge at long distances whereas FM isn't.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by SatanicPuppy · 2005-08-01 02:47 · Score: 1

That doesn't matter. No matter how directional your antenna, you're limited by line of sight, and when your line of sight goes flying off into space, so does your radio signal.

The only way to beat the whole "curvature of the earth" problem is to bounce the signal off something above the earth. A lot of this can be done by bouncing the signal off the upper atmosphere, if you are using a low enough frequency but a high frequency transmission will just punch right through.

Therefore you need a satelite, a pair of high mountains, or the ability to push the signal hard enough to bounce it off the moon.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by dougmc · 2005-08-01 03:01 · Score: 3, Informative

There is just no way they can maintain 300 miles/480km without using relay stations.
Well, obviously they did it, though the site is down so I can't actually read their article.
Multi megawatt FM stations
You're probably thinking of UHF TV stations. FM stations don't get that much power.
125/200km is about the maximum range that is possible on frequencies much higher than HF,
Under normal conditions (i.e. not much altitude), maybe. But if you can put your two antennas on top of mountains, you can get further.
This page may help you determine how far the horizon is given a certain height. (And don't forget that a nautical mile is 1.15 miles.)
If we assume that each antenna is on top of a 5,000 foot mountain, with nothing in between this gives a line of sight distance of 190 miles. If we raise the mountains to 15,000 feet, the distance becomes 320 miles (though I'm not sure that sutiable mountains even exist that are that tall, that close, and have nothing inbetween to interfere. You could use an airplane or balloon instead of a mountain, but then aiming the antenna (and even getting it up there) becomes very difficult.)
This is certainly possible, and in fact if you could find the proper location (i.e. two tall mountains with nothing in between) and even bigger antennas, you might be able to go even further.
even with captain picard's private satellite link to france they are not going to get 480km out of it.
Ok, if you're talking to a satellite this all goes out the window, because it's all line of site. In that case, it's only a matter of how good your antennas are. But yes, you can get a signal to a satellite with only a watt of power or so -- hams do it all the time. And this doesn't even require really fancy antennas if the satellite is low, like the ISS is.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Zakir · 2005-08-01 03:01 · Score: 1

First off, we're comparing HF to VHF (FM) to 2.4 ghz. and that comparison is very hard! I must say that a moon bounce with wi-fi would definetely be very cool. you can also bounce radio waves off of the northern lights and there are many odd tricks that happen with propagation, with so many possibilities, everything is possible. Look, people have communicated accross the world with 5-10 watts of power (10 meters) and great engineering and research. and also, power isn't everything. antennas are what makes it or breaks it. I don't know a lot about the 2.4 ghz area, but some of the things people are suggesting are just crazy. zakir. (and yes, I have a ham radio license.)
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by div_2n · 2005-08-01 03:30 · Score: 1

I don't know what things are like in the realm of Hams (as I am not one), but in the Wifi world, antenna quality is important, but not more than radio sensitivity. Since the data stream is sensitive to loss, if the S/N ratio isn't sufficient and the radio/processor is losing parts of the data and/or the processor is overwhelmed sorting out the noise, then there will be massive resends and that just makes a connection unusable.

In audio communications, you can have static and such and still consider it a usable signal. Not so in data communications. But I am sure you already know that.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Zakir · 2005-08-01 03:37 · Score: 1

yeah, that's true, but it's also possible to deal with static, with good engineering.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by dougmc · 2005-08-01 04:03 · Score: 1

The only way to beat the whole "curvature of the earth" problem is to bounce the signal off something above the earth.
Really? Consider this -- why do people like to put antennas on top of tall hills, buildings and mountains?
Using a satellite, moon bounce or meteor scatter may get you further than a tall antenna, but tall antennas certainly do overcome the curvature of the Earth to a signifigant degree.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by dougmc · 2005-08-01 04:09 · Score: 1

Of course, you did mention mountains so obviously you're aware of the concept, though to say that the curvature of the Earth can only be beat by bouncing the signal off of something isn't really right.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by mikael · 2005-08-01 04:32 · Score: 1

It might happen if there's an electrical storm due t o solar flares or extreme weather conditions. Radio listeners in Scotland were able to listen to East European FM channels for an afternoon/evening due to a disturbance in the ionosphere.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by LordHunter317 · 2005-08-01 04:45 · Score: 1

There is just no way they can maintain 300 miles/480km without using relay stations.
Yes, they can, from two moutain tops with clear line-of-sight at the horizion.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. Hams have done >200mi distances before on the microwave bands. 300mi is tough, and 300mi on 802.11b would be very difficult.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Bad_Feeling · 2005-08-01 04:56 · Score: 1

If we assume that each antenna is on top of a 5,000 foot mountain, with nothing in between this gives a line of sight distance of 190 miles. If we raise the mountains to 15,000 feet, the distance becomes 320 miles (though I'm not sure that sutiable mountains even exist that are that tall, that close, and have nothing inbetween to interfere. You could use an airplane or balloon instead of a mountain, but then aiming the antenna (and even getting it up there) becomes very difficult.)
So I stand corrected, it can be done by climbing a couple 15,000 foot mountains and assuming the conditions you mentioned exist. But thats an extradonary feat, and although I think its very cool that they were able to get 125 miles, i just don't see them going through that effort just to get a couple laptops talking to each other.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by dougmc · 2005-08-01 06:06 · Score: 1

i just don't see them going through that effort just to get a couple laptops talking to each other.
I certainly do. People will do almost anything to get their name next to `new world record'. And this isn't even particularly dangerous or expensive, unlike many other things that people do in their attempts to set world records.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Almost-Retired · 2005-08-01 07:06 · Score: 1

I have serious doubts that moonbounce could be made to work at anything like a usable bandwidth.

Why? First: Well, the moon is not a flat object by any means, its highly irregular at those frequencies, which would cause a pretty severe smearing of the reflected signal in time, an effect that will raise hell with any attempts at decent bandwidth even with the cofdm encoding used.

And second, at those frequencies, I expect it (the moon) is rather absorbant. With a 300 milliwatt uplink power, and a satellite dish good for 40db (bigger than the average home dish folks) on each end of the circuit, let somebody thats good with path math figure it out. I recall that the first mile is a 140db loss if the antennas are isotropic but these are not, and from there, its a 6 db loss per doubling of the distance. With the moon about (IIRC) 270k miles away, what would be the incoming signal level assuming the moon itself was a 26 to 30 db loss in its reflectance?

I suspect whoever is doing this will need a calculator good for more digits in internal accuracy to be able to get reliable figures than my TI-51 which only does 13 + 2 IIRC.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by Almost-Retired · 2005-08-01 07:26 · Score: 1

300 miles=990km? Not in this universe, wanna try that again, based on 8km = 5 miles?

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by fatboy · 2005-08-01 08:17 · Score: 1

Next weekend I am launching an access point on a sounding balloon. Estimated peek altitude should be around 109,000ft. That should give me line of sight of just over 400 miles, however, the antennas are very small and I do not expect such range unless someone has a serious groundstation.

--
--fatboy
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by dougmc · 2005-08-01 11:41 · Score: 1

I have serious doubts that moonbounce could be made to work at anything like a usable bandwidth.
Depends on how you define `usable'. Even 10 bps would be `useful' to some. But certainly, WiFi bounced off the moon would be very difficult, especially with only 0.250 watts. (The VHF moonbounce guys often use a full 1500 watts and high gain antennas, just to bounce some CW off the moon, and even that doesn't always work.)
But I do suspect you could do CW at 2.4 GHz easily enough. The larger frequency would mean your antennas could be much smaller, or give higher gains, or some combination of the two. The only real issue would be how reflective the moon is to 2.4 GHz signals.
suspect whoever is doing this will need a calculator good for more digits in internal accuracy to be able to get reliable figures than my TI-51 which only does 13 + 2 IIRC.
I suspect you're right -- it'll be next to impossible. However, I'm not sure why you'd need a lot of signifigant figures on your calculator. Merely adding dB loss figures can usually be done in your head.
Looking it up, the round trip path loss starts around 242 dB and goes up from there.
Also, when dealing with large or small numbers in your calculator, you don't always need lots of signifigant digits. What you need is something that can keep track of the mantissa and the exponent seperately. For example, 3e56 only has one sigifigant digit, but you know it's 3 followed by 56 zeros. If your calculator doesn't understand scientific notation at all, you can keep track of the exponents in your head or on paper, and just let the calculator calculate mantissas.
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 15:54 · Score: 1

That's why it is a theoretical range. They searched around, but were unable to find another point that they could get more than 125 in the area. There was a point tried that was 145 miles off, but there turned out to be a mountain in the way. It was, however, fun to drive up the mountain. -Derek, one of the judges
Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen by rocca · 2005-08-04 03:37 · Score: 1

Consider this -- why do people like to put antennas on top of tall hills, buildings and mountains

There is a big difference between a 125 mile link and a 300 mile link. Specifically, at 125 miles you have 1953ft of earth curvature to deal with (so towers need to be higher than that at both ends), whereas with 300 miles the earth curvature is 11250ft. Given the tallest mountain, being Everest, is only 8848ft you're out of luck using mountains for 300 miles.

I can just see the spam now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-08-01 00:57 · Score: 5, Funny

inCREASe your WIFI distance NOW!

Over-the-counter WIFI enhancers!

Make it go FARTHER!

Just think by WebHostingGuy · 2005-08-01 00:58 · Score: 1

If they can really increase the range they can just stay home and connect to Defcon from the top of their house.

--
Quality Hosting e3 Servers

500 miles also done by bvdbos · 2005-08-01 00:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

At whatthehack there was someone telling about how he managed a 500 km connection (which is 311 miles says google)...

Re:500 miles also done by beef3k · 2005-08-01 01:11 · Score: 1

Yes, but it's not possible to establish a 11mbps connection using that kind of technology.
Re:500 miles also done by bvdbos · 2005-08-01 01:12 · Score: 1

Oeps, mistyped the title, 500 km ofcourse...
Re:500 miles also done by Ingolfke · 2005-08-01 01:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Interesting, but the connection wasn't 11-Mbps. It was actually only 3kbs. This is an interesting project, I'm certainly not trying to bash the work their doing. Just want to point out that the goal of the original post was broadband wi-fi, and the article you linked to was just trying to pass data over a very long distance wirelessly.

A few snippets from the article.
Non IP data were succesfully transmitted over 350 km. Speed: 3kbs troughput.

Their goal is to create a radiomodem that is capable of 64Kbs in a multislotted system
Re:500 miles also done by bvdbos · 2005-08-01 01:22 · Score: 1

Of course you're right...
I didn't make the presentation in time, had too much of a hangover from the night before (many thanks to the volunteers working behind the bar pouring me all that beer and to the dj's for playing the great music...)
Re:500 miles also done by Ingolfke · 2005-08-01 01:28 · Score: 1

Good drink and loud music is more important than accuracy on /. any day!

Re:Sweet! by TheViciousOverWind · 2005-08-01 00:59 · Score: 1, Funny

And now I can.... uhm... How far is it to the moon again?

--
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick

Two birds with one stone by markov_chain · 2005-08-01 01:01 · Score: 1

The 300-mile record will break the highest altitude Wi-Fi as well ;)

--
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!

Good for Cuba? by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2005-08-01 01:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps this could mean real internet connections for some Cuban citizens again. It's close enough to Florida, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic to make it feasable.

Not many would be able to make use of it, of course, but every bit helps when you're living under a government such as that.

Re:Good for Cuba? by MichaelSmith · 2005-08-01 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

but every bit helps when you're living under a government such as that.
Actually its a fantastic idea. I always thought it should have been tried in Iraq: flood the population with free communication from outside and wait for change to start from within.

Perhaps the wifi links could be supported with covert donations of old PCs running free software, with cryto built in so that it is hard to track usage at the Cuban end.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Good for Cuba? by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2005-08-01 02:33 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I'd imagine that crypto use itself would be immediate grounds for persecution if it was discovered.

We have a chance to get started *now*, unlike with ham radio, which is already controlled tightly by the government. Of course, ham usage is much easier to track. Directional wi-fi should have some decent safety in its use, so long as it's a secret.
Re:Good for Cuba? by utexaspunk · 2005-08-01 03:33 · Score: 1

how does a cuban get a hold of a computer? or does he build it out of wood? :)
Re:Good for Cuba? by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2005-08-01 03:51 · Score: 1

Well, computers in Cuba are not completely unheard of.
Seriously, though, they do exist. They are not common, though, and generally only informaticos have the chance to get internet access--usually surreptitiously.
Re:Good for Cuba? by technos · 2005-08-01 04:05 · Score: 1

You'd need to find a 6,900 foot mountain on the beach in Florida to make wireless to Cuba work, and that ain't happening. If you were shooting from the highest point on Cuba for Florida, you'd need a 27,000 (twenty seven thousand) foot aerial in the US because it's over a hundred miles farther from Florida than the coast.

The only reason they made this kind of distance is both ends were up on medium-sized mountains.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!
Re:Good for Cuba? by mrogers · 2005-08-01 04:26 · Score: 1

I'm sure the CIA will pay for a balloon at the American end.
Re:Good for Cuba? by utexaspunk · 2005-08-01 04:27 · Score: 1

Yeah- when I made my original reply, I was reminded of these works I saw once in Austin by Abel Barroso, a Cuban artist. He had made a Cuban "Internet Cafe" which consisted of wooden boxes made to look like computers with images on scrolls that you could change with cranks. Aha- found them!
Re:Good for Cuba? by ray-auch · 2005-08-01 04:56 · Score: 1

Why the F*** would they do that - surely if they wanted to do this they would just stick a large mast up at gitmo - ie. the american end _of cuba_.
Re:Good for Cuba? by mrogers · 2005-08-01 05:57 · Score: 1

Cuba is over 500 miles long.
Re:Good for Cuba? by peekitty · 2005-08-01 08:00 · Score: 1

There's already a tethered balloon (nicknamed "Fat Albert") on Cudjoe Key (about 90 miles north of Cuba) that is supposedly capable of flying at 10,000 ft, and it's done Cuban broadcast duty before. It's housed at a 60's era missile tracking site, and is said to have been used for everything from tracking smugglers to transmitting TV Marti (anti-Castro propaganda) to Cuba. The blimp famously broke loose in the early 90s and drifted north across Florida Bay into the everglades.

I still don't see it happening with standard wifi of course, you'd still need a powerful radio on the other end, and it would be simple to track users down. "Yo tengo Kismet!"

Now try it with wimax by jurt1235 · 2005-08-01 01:12 · Score: 1

Are there any hacks yet for wimax, that should even be better.

--

My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me

Slashdotted by Rhoon · 2005-08-01 01:19 · Score: 2, Funny

They maintained a full 11Mbit unamplified connection for 3 hours

That is until the were slashdot'd

--
"If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door." - Paul Beatty

Re:Slashdotted by KylePflug · 2005-08-01 03:41 · Score: 1

This seriously sucks, though. I mean, I, can't even maintain a full 11Mbit unamplified connection for 3 hours, and my router is downstairs :(
Re:Slashdotted by JBHarris · 2005-08-01 04:33 · Score: 1

From The Team Redwire iFiber site:
The team has shattered their previous world record of 55.1 miles, and the groud to ground amplified record of 82 miles set in Utah, Team iFiber Redwire achieved a 125-mile, 11-Mbit connection for 3 hours.
Lower down on the page they thanked another sponsor for the 'amplifiers & pigtails'. Whats the deal? Is the signal pure, or amplified?

The death of land lines? by tulsadano · 2005-08-01 01:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

So a single WiFi point atop a city's tallest building could provide the entire metro region with high speed wireless internet access (hswia)? If this feat can be reliably duplicated, even at a relatively high cost it will lead to a revolution. With just a hundred or so hardware modules 80%+ of the US's pop would have free hswia! It could be the highest impact innovation since the explosion of the internet itself. Certainly it would overshadow the rise of residential broadband access. All those cable and phone companies would have to get out of the data business (since it would be free) and get back to the cable and phone businesses.

Re:The death of land lines? by cnettel · 2005-08-01 01:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Sorry. The point is that both parties are using highly directional antennas. And, well, a single access point wouldn't be able to serve much bandwidth with that many users anyway. (As the contention management protocols are not really designed for 1000+ users, you will get even less than your theoretical slice.)
Re:The death of land lines? by jurt1235 · 2005-08-01 01:22 · Score: 1

This is not going to work, it is a directed signal, not omnidirectional, so you could provide any single point with a line of sight with a connection, but not all points at once.

--

My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Re:The death of land lines? by robfoo · 2005-08-01 01:32 · Score: 1

Easily solved - make the antenna rotate! That way it could beam a directed signal to everyone!

That should work, right? :p
Re:The death of land lines? by ICLKennyG · 2005-08-01 01:33 · Score: 1

So if you can deliver a data stream to everyone, why wouldn't they go to VOIP, or go to some sort of streaming content system. Simple... this was a single direction. This was not a radio broadcast to a 125 mile radius circle, this was akin to hitting someone in the forehead with a laser beam from 125 miles away. DON'T MOVE!!! It's also safe to say that one of these towers wouldn't suffice an 11mb connection. Actually most of these cities wouldn't suffice an 11GB connection. In Chicago alone there are over 1 million private computers on the internet. So your beloved 11MB, becomes 11 bits a second... even at 11GB - assuming fair distrobution - and zero overhead you get something like 11Kb/sec. Not even close to broadband. So this is little more than an interesting proof of concept.
Re:The death of land lines? by DarthBart · 2005-08-01 01:35 · Score: 1

Not gonna happen....

1) 10,000 people on a single access point? Ugh.

2) Power limit on an omnidirectional link is +36dBm. Thats 300mw out of the card, plus about 10dB of gain at the antenna. These folks were running probably in the neighborhood of 55-60dBm.

3) Symmetrical links. You can't run one end of the link on a Big Freakin Dish and the other end on a smaller dish without drastic output power differences.

4) Since it would be free? Uh. How? Someone's gotta pay for the bandwidth it connects to.
Re:The death of land lines? by jurt1235 · 2005-08-01 01:41 · Score: 1

It requires some timing, but in theory it should work (-:

--

My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Re:The death of land lines? by morie · 2005-08-01 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

the city of Leiden is doing the same by providing high points with directional antennas to form a grid and omni-antennas to connect to the users who use directional antennas to reach the omni. the whole thing was supposed to be plugged into a landline internet connection at some point, but for now it is just a networked system.

http://www.wirelessleiden.nl/english/

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Re:The death of land lines? by Orgazmus · 2005-08-01 02:12 · Score: 1

Think of the children!
(Playing CS on a laggy wifi connection)

--
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
Re:The death of land lines? by indelible · 2005-08-01 03:23 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that no one is going to set up a nation-wide free wireless isp. What would be the point? The government wouldn't do it either because it would put A LOT of us ISP's out of business. And also, bandwidth is not free. Someone has to pay for it in the end. Just because it is wireless, doesn't mean that it's free. We are setting up a WISP right now and are going to be charging for access. Ask yourself. Who would pay for the bandwidth for this "free" wireless network? Who would pay the millions for the equipment? Who would pay for the antenna locations that house the equipment? Who is going to pay the techs that maintain it?
Re:The death of land lines? by timeOday · 2005-08-01 06:26 · Score: 1

Sorry. The point is that both parties are using highly directional antennas. And, well, a single access point wouldn't be able to serve much bandwidth with that many users anyway.
Your two objections address each other... with directional antannes, the airwaves aren't such a shared medium any more. And many people already have directional antannes on their homes - they're called satellite dishes, so why not slap on another for Internet? The dishes required to go 125 miles are unreasonably large, but 15 miles would probably be enough.
Re:The death of land lines? by Shakrai · 2005-08-01 06:37 · Score: 1

Actually most of these cities wouldn't suffice an 11GB connection. In Chicago alone there are over 1 million private computers on the internet. So your beloved 11MB, becomes 11 bits a second... even at 11GB - assuming fair distrobution - and zero overhead you get something like 11Kb/sec. Not even close to broadband. So this is little more than an interesting proof of concept

Umm, not to knock your logic because your original point about 11MBits is valid but telecommunications systems never have enough capacity to give everybody the promised speed/performance at all times.

They are sold on the theory that not everybody will be using it 24/7/365. Do you really think that Roadrunner actually has ([num users] * 5Mbits) of bandwidth available? I'd have to say that 11GB probably would be more then enough bandwidth for a million PCs. All the more so in a residential setting.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

more info by NickCatal · 2005-08-01 01:30 · Score: 1

The team's story and some more technical knowledge

--
-nick

Re:more info by pedestrian+crossing · 2005-08-01 02:11 · Score: 1

Too bad that is a story about the 2004 shootout... Still, it is a good read, thanks!

--
A house divided against itself cannot stand.

What happens if they use... by Mudcathi · 2005-08-01 01:33 · Score: 1

high altitude weather balloons?

--

"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

Re:What happens if they use... by adamjaskie · 2005-08-01 01:44 · Score: 1

They would probably have trouble aiming the antennas.

--
/usr/games/fortune

Developing nations by erbmjw · 2005-08-01 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

This would be useful for many developing nations. No expansive infastructure required for internet connections in remote locations. Wondering when "wired" will have the article on the competition out. Also wondering what the power requirements for the entire setup are ie -- can the whole setup be run off of micro dams, solar power, etc.

Re:Developing nations by The_Wilschon · 2005-08-01 04:43 · Score: 1

Wondering when "wired" will have the article on the competition out.

Wondering when "Wired" will change its name to "Unwired"...

--
SIGSEGV caught, terminating

wait... not that kind of sig.
Re:Developing nations by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 16:02 · Score: 1

Considering that the only power used was a little laptop with a wi-fi card, yeah. I'd guess so. Also note that the card was NOT operating at the full 300mw. They bitbashed the card and had it running at it's minimum power output, somewhere around 30mw.
Re:Developing nations by erbmjw · 2005-08-01 16:41 · Score: 1

Yes, but on their website they also admit to using 12 volt DC motors ( 2 per dish I believe ) to aim the dish as well as using the amplified version to attain the original signal lock. I am considering the set-up to have a least use power drain for regular connection usage, but also having the power based capability to re-align and/or re-amplify the dish as required. Still I hope that the "wired" article gives enough information so that this hopefully low expense approach can be tried.

Next: How to secure your AP by happyEverGeek · 2005-08-01 01:34 · Score: 1

Nice juxtaposition - this article immediately following the one about the UK prosecuting an illegal WiFi hijacker (article). What's next, one about how to secure your AP?

--
To a politician, one email equals one voter.

Re:Next: How to secure your AP by agent4256 · 2005-08-01 02:46 · Score: 1

This would be nice, I said F' it and just dropped mac filtering + 128 bit encryption on my wireless. Although, I would like to see atleast half my neighbors end up in jail for stealing my internet.

125 Miles tropospheric propagation by kalevi · 2005-08-01 01:44 · Score: 4, Informative

All communication for longer distances than so called line of sight communication is due to tropospheric propagation.

In summertime it is very common in areas of extreme high pressure condiftions. Today it might work just fine, tomorrowe no connection.

Best of luck with your experments!

Kalevi Nyman
SM0NTE
---

Re:125 Miles tropospheric propagation by rv8 · 2005-08-01 03:01 · Score: 1

Radio waves in certain frequency bands wil bounce off the ionosphere, and this is used to establish communications over very long distances. Higher frequency radio waves zip right through the ionosphere, so normally communciations are limited to line of sight. But, if there are temperature inversions in the atmosphere, it is possible to get conditions that will cause the radio waves to follow along the "duct" created by the inversions. More info

I ran into this twice, when many years ago when I was flying S-2 Trackers on maritime patrol missions in Canada. The first time we had departed St. John's, Newfoundland, heading east over the Atlantic. I had left the VHF Com radio tuned to the airport control tower frequency, as there was no one else I needed to talk to after I left their control zone. It was quiet on the radio after we went below the radio horizon from St. Johns. We were over 200 miles east of St. John's when I dropped down to 100 ft above the water to inspect a boat. Suddenly I could hear St. Johns control tower on the radio. After I finished the work at that boat I tried talking to St. John's tower, and they answered me. If I climbed up, I couldn't hear them, but at 100 ft they were as clear as a bell.

One other night we were cruising south at 1500 ft, on our way to a naval exercise. The radar operator said that his radar was painting a fleet of ships about 150 nm ahead of us, which would normally be well below the horizon at our altitude. I took the range and bearing he gave me and plotted it to get a lat and long. Sure enough, once we got closer we found that the naval fleet we were going to play with was right where he had said it was.

But, radio ducting is apparently not been seen at frequencies over 1.2 GHz, and is rare at frequencies over 50 MHz. Source

--
Kevin Horton

Depends on their licenses by bluelip · 2005-08-01 01:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Hams get the neat ability to modify their equipment to pump out more power and use better/stringer/faster toys. (Legally)

This is also true when using cantennas.

Read up here for the commercial aspects:
http://www.michwave.com/bbnetwork/faq/fcc.htm

Here for the amateur side:
http://www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/ham_wisp.html

--

Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he

"linksys" by jzeejunk · 2005-08-01 01:49 · Score: 1

i think they connected to my "linksys" instead of theirs ;)

--
sarchasm

Also, by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2005-08-01 01:58 · Score: 1

1000 Furlongs for those resembling equidae here

What? by Transcendent · 2005-08-01 02:10 · Score: 1

They maintained a full 11Mbit unamplified connection for 3 hours using Z-com 300mw PCMCIA cards, surplus satellite dishes, Linux, and a great deal of hacker ingenuity.

Unamplified... with a satellite dish? How did that work out? That's one hell of a passive antenna.

Re:What? by bani · 2005-08-01 07:19 · Score: 1

most 802.11b devices only transmit around 30mw-50mw. 300mw is considerably more :)

with directional antennas you can get quite a lot of gain (20-30db). 300mw lets you punch that pretty far.
Re:What? by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 16:05 · Score: 1

The card was NOT outputting the full 300mw. It had been bitbashed and nerfed down to about 30mw.

Also at boingboing.net by amcdiarmid · 2005-08-01 02:10 · Score: 2, Informative

They had corporate support to go to DefCon.

They used the VCom 325hp+ PCMCIA cards running at a built-in power of 300 mw on each end of the link
They used two antennas with 802.11b. One was 10', the other 12'.
Yes it is fast enough to support VNC, they had a 12ms ping time.

They are going to try to break a 1Mile bluetooth record.

Oh yeah, for the guy wo said this was impossible due to the curviture of the earth: one team was on top of a mountain.

Message for Timothy... by jhesse · 2005-08-01 02:15 · Score: 1

http://www.ralinktech.com/

USB wireless dongles using the RT2500 chipset aren't too hard to find, and they do have OSX and Linux (well source anyways) drivers.
http://www.ralinktech.com/supp-1.htm

(currently working on interfacing an original iMac to a Primestar dish...)

--

--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten

Re:Message for Timothy... by jhesse · 2005-08-01 09:38 · Score: 1

Have you tried the new driver that is specifically for 10.4? (the 10.2/10.3 driver will not work)

There is a support forum at http://61.222.76.235/phpbb2/

--

--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
Re:Message for Timothy... by /dev/trash · 2005-08-01 12:15 · Score: 1

I was using ndiswrapper on my Averatech laptop wireless card but then I found the ralink drivers and they work just as well.

+++
My new Home

some rough calculations... by Everleet · 2005-08-01 02:30 · Score: 1

Where d is the distance across the earth's surface, r is the radius of the earth, theta is the arc angle around the earth, and x is the height of each tower:

theta = d/r
cos(theta/2) = r/(r+x)

cos(d/2r) = r/(r+x)
r+x = r/cos(d/2r)
x = r/cos(d/2r)-r

r ~= 4000 mi., d = 300 mi., so x ~= 2.8 mi.

--
It's tragic. Laugh.

Re:Nice editing... by tarp · 2005-08-01 02:56 · Score: 1

Mod parent up... he makes a good point.

Re:DEFCON by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2005-08-01 03:16 · Score: 1

Most people skipped DEFCON because of warrent issues.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:"The best part: by Overzeetop · 2005-08-01 03:40 · Score: 1

Um, actually, your off by three orders of magnitude. Shuttle orbits are 200-250 miles. Unfortunately for your astronaut spamers, they'll only have seconds to send the message, as the shuttle has a ground speed of over 250mi/min (don't quote that last one, I'm basing it off 25k mi/90min orbit).

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:And astronomers prefer to say by andersa · 2005-08-01 03:49 · Score: 1

6.51940523 × 10^-12 Parsecs

Humph by JohnnyLocust · 2005-08-01 03:55 · Score: 1

and I can't even get mine to reach my bedroom.

--
Havoc Video

Re:Great result, but it actually IS amplified by HermanAB · 2005-08-01 04:16 · Score: 1

Senao is the manufacturer. Engenius and Zcom are resellers.

--
Oh well, what the hell...

SSID was Linksys by Lost+Penguin · 2005-08-01 04:22 · Score: 1

The Link on both ends was Linksys; the same as the 87 KM link a few years ago .....

--
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.

times they are a changin by fliplap · 2005-08-01 04:35 · Score: 1

What's really amazing is that our team won this category in the same event 2 years ago with a massive 5.1 miles. We were bested 10x over by last years winner with something like 62 miles. And now this. Times they are a-changin.

"Truly OOTB Linux friendly adapters" by joel48 · 2005-08-01 04:51 · Score: 2, Informative

I've recently purchased several of the RALink 2570 (USB) based adapters and they work fabulously. I personally bought the Gigabyte GN-WBKG and have been quite pleased. Good to see this hardware with full support from the manufacturer. For PCI cards they also have 2500 chipsets equally well supported.

List of brand/model numbers with the chipset: http://ralink.rapla.net

RALink's own GPL linux driver here.

Further development of RALink's codebase here.

300 Miles? Not gonna happen . . . At what bps? by RosenSama · 2005-08-01 05:16 · Score: 1

Because this guy has already done it at 3kbps http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/08/01/10132 18&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=13213 122

Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen . . . At what bps? by Bad_Feeling · 2005-08-01 05:30 · Score: 1

He did it using HF, i was pointing out it was going to be extremely hard doing it with UHF. It's not that hard establish long range at HF. http://wiki.whatthehack.org/index.php/Wifi_over_50 0_km%3F_Impossible%3F I dont want to be one of those ppl that sits around and tells other what they cant do, BUT, im really skeptical on the concept that these guys will lug two huge 8 foot dishes up a 15,000ft mountain to establish a wifi link.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...

WiFi Record by klept · 2005-08-01 05:24 · Score: 1

Unable to access the technical details link in the post, and therefore have many questions about this transmission. Please allow for my ignorance if some of these questions seem stupid. Was this transmission digital or analogue? Did you use the alloted WiFi wavelength? My understanding is the wavelength for WiFi is very very sensitive to natural and manmade conditions. Noticed your picture showed a reltively clear sky. If the transmission was done on a rainy or other inclement day would the transmission still have been possable with the wavelength you used? Do the attennas make all the difference to these questions? Needless to say after knowing more technical details, would probably have more questions. Glad amateur radio is involved in these projects. Incidentally have an extra class license myself By the way one other question. What was transmitted and what was it's mode? I mean, was it what would regularly be done on a WiFi net with a WiFi mode? Or did you use something like psk31? Again sorry if these questions may seem dumb.

Re:WiFi Record by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 16:17 · Score: 1

Was this transmission digital or analogue?

Digital. Wi-fi is digital.

Did you use the alloted WiFi wavelength?

Yes, it was well within normal wi-fi range.

...would the transmission still have been possable with the wavelength you used?

Most likely, yes. I'm not sure as to the specifics, myself.

What was transmitted and what was it's mode? I mean, was it what would regularly be done on a WiFi net with a WiFi mode? Or did you use something like psk31?

They used SSH to pass simple pre-determined challenge-responses across the network after being associated as normal.
Re:WiFi Record by klept · 2005-08-01 17:13 · Score: 1

Thank you for your courtesy. I am impressed. Man this is what amatuer radio licencees should be doing. Was not enthused with WiFi because of it's sensitive wave band and ease of hacking. Now I am going to look into it further. The SSH program/protocal might provide the necessary security from penetrators, as I am sure you already know. Good Luck on 300 miles :P

Re:300 Miles? Not gonna happen? Yes it can! by johnthorensen · 2005-08-01 05:26 · Score: 1

You're forgetting "tropospheric ducting", which can be caused by some weather phenomena. This propagation method allows VHF signals to travel much farther than normal.

Ditto for "Sporadic E", which allows some lower-frequency VHF to travel due to high levels of localized ionization caused by meteors passing through the atmoshphere.

Of course, the problem is that they don't work for microwave frequencies and aren't around all the time :) But they do work for "Multi megawatt FM stations"...

-JT

Enjoying it a little too much... by Phredd · 2005-08-01 05:57 · Score: 1

Looks like the old man is enjoying Astrid a little TOO much...as seen here:

http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/umbpara.jpg

--
Phredd - "I have found people tend to take you far less seriously once you start waving your genitals at them..."

Actually, No by Master+of+Transhuman · 2005-08-01 09:15 · Score: 1

"During this time 11,000 successful pings were made."

They were unwittingly actually connected to the McDonald's access point next door.

Now they have to do it all over again.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Wi-fi through trees by iantri · 2005-08-01 10:06 · Score: 1

Since it's reasonably on-topic, this seems like a decent place to ask Slashdot as a whole for some advice/wisdom:

I'm in the unfortunate position of being 3 houses away from where the cable line stops (relatively rural area), and it is the only affordable means of high-speed internet access where I am.

I'm looking at making a deal with a neighbour 150-300m up the street to split the cost of cable internet access, and then use bog-standard 802.11b access points and cantennas to beam it down to where I am.

Problem is, there are some rather tall trees in between me and my neighbours. I can probably attach an antenna to my television aerial, which will clear some of the trees, but not all of them -- additionally I may not be able to find a cooperative neighbour with an aerial up the street, since that area has long been served with cable.

Is it feasable to get a single 150-300m in a straight line through some trees, when using cantennas?

47 GHz, 290 kM by leighklotz · 2005-08-01 10:23 · Score: 1

There's plenty of folks having fun with 2.4Ghz, 10GHz, and even 47 Ghz point-to-point links, legally. For example, see 50 MHz and Up:

Frank and Gary completed a 47 GHz contact over a 290 km distance to set a new world record. ... Read an entertaining account of Frank's (W6QI) adventure in the Sierras.

Re:"The best part: by yasgo · 2005-08-01 11:00 · Score: 1

>>> ...yesterday afternoon they said that they expect this rig would work at distances of over 300 miles." NASA's shuttles orbit at an altitude between 200K-250K miles... >> So Team iFibre Redwire only has another 199,700 - 247,000 miles to smash before we are all spammed from space. Wrong. It is only 200 miles. You can already find plenty of Ham people that communicated from Earth to Shuttle, ISS (and Mir in the past) using 1 Watt of VHF or UHF FM voice communications and simple antenna. So 0.3 Watts and a biggger aerial is still easy for line of sight - diificult part for communicating with space is moving the aerial to follow the orbiting object (the closer it is the faster it moves).

NOT at boingboing.net by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 16:11 · Score: 1

The cards had both been nerfed down to approximately 30mw on each end.

Unfortunately, the bluetooth link was not able to be done. They tried, but some of the hardware was not able to work with the antennas.

Both sides were on mountains. Base station on Mount Potosi at about 6225ft above sea level. Mobile unit at 4850ft above sea level near Beaver Dam.

Actually, not so much.. by SMS_Design · 2005-08-01 16:25 · Score: 1

The cards were bitbashed and nerfed to approx 30-40mw.

Bright light city ... not an issue by Jivecat · 2005-08-02 01:43 · Score: 1

I'm impressed that they appear to have done this shot directly across Las Vegas. Surely the air/light/MW pollution must have been detrimental?

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."--Feynman

165 of 222 comments (clear)