Slashdot Mirror
How Many Wireless Technologies Can We Handle?
Golygydd Max writes "The space for high-speed wireless networking is getting mighty crowded. Techworld reports that a new company, Sibeam, has entered the fray, hinting at a 60GHz technology to compete with the likes of Wimax, UWB and the others. Does the world really need another player when the future is still so unclear?"
I for one welcome our new wireless overlords.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
We need a robust future expandable standard. My school has changed wireless technologies campus-wide 3 times in 3 years!
Just how does one compete with an open standard? Or am I missing something?
More
Darwinian selection will enventually work its magic through the different standards. P.S Don't answer me betamax, betamax didn't survive because the tape length wasn't suited for pr0n, so it's natural VHS took over.
\u262D = \u5350
Narrow the beam more and more, up the frequency more and more, and eventually you get a laser modem :-)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
42.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
How the fuck do you think the future becomes clear? Let the competing standards thrash it out and the result will lead us towards are wireless future. The early adopters take the risk that the choices they make may be incorrect, but thats how we get to where we want to be.
With enough signals bouncing around we won't have to buy microwaves anymore.
I have my money on WiMAX. because thats a damn cool name.
To a nail, every person with a hammer looks like a problem.
What's the harm in competition here? The wireless spectrum is finite; it's in our interest to kick around technologies until we can agree on one that's the cleanest, most efficient use of the space available.
A good first step would be to shut off analog TV and radio. That bandwidth is too valuable for us to just sit on.
domain combinatorics
How about security first? Now even aliens can hack the pentagon. ;-p
when it becomes the past.
We create it in the present.
KFG
Isn't the whole point of releasing it now that it CAN compete with other standards and maybe if its better enough (or more popular enough) it can still win?
I beleive if they waited for the future to be clearer there could already BE a new standard and they would have lost.
We can handle only twelve wireless technologies.
Well they have $15 million in funding to go out and do the R&D work on Gigabit rate wireless. The worst thing that can happen is that they fail miserably, but I'm all for them spending some money on developing a new product.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
in this case anyway. The telecommunications world is quickly converging on all-IP based networks and services. Switched circuit and non-IP services will become irrelevant shortly. Legislation and taxation will see to this.
Without more spectrum and technology for ubiquitous IP networks, we will be stuck with whatever gets thrown out to the consumer and at whatever cost the big names can squeeze from our wallets.
More is better. More dual and tri-band devices, Wireless VoIP, streaming audio and video, until we have communicator badges and tri-corders everywhere.
MORE IS BETTER!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I welcome anyone who take the risk to sell a product with great new technology.
The other are fighting to be the "standard" but where are the products??
I kid you not, I cant turn on my notebook without it auto connecting to the law firm upstairs that seems to have a wide open coast to coast WAN. I can see networks in just about every major US city. Whats more it looks to me like this is just an access point some yahoo hooked up so he wouldn't need to plug in his notebook every day. Could be that their IT peopele dont even know about it.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Pour your $ into wifi and internet telephony while you can. Own your overlords before its too late!
The golden rule: THe higher your radio frequency, the harder it is to pass through solid objects.
If you thought 2.4Ghz was a bitch through layers of sheetrock, just imagine 60Ghz. Hell, you might as well be using infrared to transmit as it's basically a line-of-sight transmission anyways. Unless of course, you boost the gain. But damn, the radiation levels would be pretty damn high.
Life is not for the lazy.
Many movies that take place in the future seem to still use hard lines. The matrix is a prime example. My question is why didnt they just use wireless (WiMAX or the like)? It would hurt less and they could jack in from up to 30 miles away! Granted using current wifi, agent smith could easily hack the poor encryption. But from what I hear WiMAX has good potential.
whoever is low price, stable, fast, and works with multiple vendors will win. Now with that said, I am betting on wired to stay the winner due to POE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Does the world really need another player when the future is still so unclear?
Isn't that exactly when you need as many different minds working on a problem? The future will clarify itself.
What an idiotic statement (and it is a statement, disguised as question). The future is determined by the choices we make today. More choices allows us to pick the best of those available, thus resulting in the "best future".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
How many boring Slashdot posts can we handle in a world already overloaded with pointless Slashdot blog posts?
The item reads like a late night informercial. I don't know about you, but I bought 3 bottles.
m =5791782530
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite
What the hell? 802.16 and 802.20 are the way forward. Get with the program.
Serious question:
How is POP3 better than IMAP?
"Does the world really need another player when the future is still so unclear?"
Of course we do! Did we only need one car manufacturer when the automobile was introduced? Or maybe we should have just stuck with one operating system (hmmm...Microsoft perhaps) with no competition. I mean, c'mon...the future of computing was pretty unclear. Did we need new storage devices for computers (Bernouli drives, Syquest, Zip, Jazz, CDs, tape, DVD...) The future seems pretty unclear there too.
The point is, to sit there and NOT innovate is just plain dumb. If there are already players in the market, that means there is obviously a need. Let's find the best way to fill that need. Eventually the strong will survive and we'll have the best (in theory at least).
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Grandma Simpson & Lisa are singing "How many roads must a man walk down?" together.
Homer overhears and says, "Eight!".
Lisa: "That was a rhetorical question!"
Homer: "Oh. Then, Seven!"
Lisa: "Do you even know what 'rhetorical' means?"
Homer: "Do I know what 'rhetorical' means?"
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
When companies can't even make cards for 802.11 that support open kernels [bsd, linux] because "it's too hard" or whatever, ..., what hope have we for new standards?
I mean as it stands most retail wi-fi cards don't work in linux [except for prism54 intersil style which are hit and miss].
The problem isn't the underlying standard [though I'd say it's overtly complicated for such a simple idea] it's the idiots running the decisions.
I mean if a handful of ***amateur radio*** folk can make a 56K link work OVER KILOMETERS of space... why can't "the best and brightest" make a 11Mbps network work in a 100ft area with OSes that are well available and documented?
And it isn't even that you have to write drivers. Make a good card and open the interface up and people will write the drivers FOR YOU.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"How the fuck do you think the future becomes clear?"
And just how many "CD/DVD+-/R/W/got colors?" standards are there?
My book with this info is at home, but IIRC, 60 GHz is one of the trouble spots for RF transmission because of absorption by atmospheric oxygen. This phenomena is exploited for some secure radios.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Look atcell phone modulation "standards".
Because the US didn't mandate use of the emerging digital global standard (GSM) the rest of the world used, consumers had to suffer (and manufacturers had to tool for) six different, incompatible standards.
Now GSM (via Cingular) is emerging as the leader 15 years late to the party -- the other carriers are now minority players stuck with technology virtually no one else uses. Imagine the BILLIONS in R&D and consumer waste which could have been avoided.
The wireless standards should shoot it out in front of IEEE and then the US should adopt their recommendation -- a recommendation from engineers, not the ignorant public.
We don't alllow the public to determine instrument flight arrival procedures, why whould we allow them to determine the best scalable technology as they don't have a real good track record.
There has to be a huge market for something you could put in a location that would effectively nix any rogue WAPs that people installed, either through RF interference (FCC nono?) or by simply drowning the WAPs bandwidth by auto-attaching and spamming the AP to render it non-functional.
They can all exist, except for one, 802.11 needs to be fucking shot.
Insecure, unscalable, and the newest access points are flooding the 2.4 ghz by using all 11 channels as opposed to behaving and using one.
802.11 has ruined the 2.4 ghz spectrum, I ever start my own wireless ISP, I won't even try to use 2.4 ghz radios.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
"If you thought 2.4Ghz was a bitch through layers of sheetrock, just imagine 60Ghz."
A lot of wireless phones (not cellphones) work at that frequency just fine.
"Hell, you might as well be using infrared to transmit as it's basically a line-of-sight transmission anyways."
A plus if you don't want your secrets leaking out. A minus if your a wardriver.
"Unless of course, you boost the gain. But damn, the radiation levels would be pretty damn high."
Sterilize all those geeks who aren't getting any sex anyway.
And in answer to the other poster. That's within the limits of the material(s) the signal is passing through.
In this world of unmolested monopolies, cartels, and rampant corporate mergers, have we so lost sight of the benefits of competition that we *complain* when we see it? Are we really that brainwashed?
And just how many "CD/DVD+-/R/W/got colors?" standards are there?
Zero.
Lots of formats. No standards.
In my view, wireless still sucks. It's still slow and unreliable when compared against a $2 cat 5 cable. I tried several times (802.11B, 802.11G, bluetooth, infrared), but I've been disappointed every time. I just got finished wiring my house with Cat 5, and my business is all wired with Cat 5. I'll let you uber-geeks with extra money fight it out. I'm waiting for a few more years for all of the kinks to get worked out, for real de facto standards to be established, and for prices to drop. For now, I'm very happily wired.
I don't respond to AC's.
60 gigahertz? Looks like the next generation of pringles canners will have to switch to Sterno.
I love early adopters, the more the better. Drives the price down for the rest of us willing to wait six months.
when the future is still so unclear?
since when has the future been clear?
"BetaMax died because of its short tape lengths."
And just how long does a tape have to be to record "Oh! Oh! Oh!...I'm cumming! I'm cumming! Ugh! Ugh! Ahhhh!"?
The analog dials go up into the 60s, but you're lucky if you can pick up more than five or six stations most places, and most people have cable or satellite anyway. Most of it's going to waste. Open the bandwidth to the public and let TV networks set up video on demand instead. I mean look at this thing: it's unspeakably crowded. Public channels are tiny slivers, yet they're the hottest use of spectrum around. Surely this could be simplified and opened dramatically.
Of course, when the government can just sell public spectrum at a tidy profit for its own needs, what do you expect.
Radio is pretty crowded though, I wouldn't mess with it. Really though, if there were advertising-supported free digital/satellite radio we wouldn't need that either! But of course, AM/FM radios are tiny, simple, cheap things these days, and there are a ton of them. Until digital receivers are more common in cars it's foolish to think of replacing them.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"Also it is still used by film majors for its higher quality."
First, this is a good article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax
But to your point:
No, it isn't. You're thinking about the pro version of Beta known as Betacam, which I believe uses similar tapes, but a different technology. A description can be found here:
http://betacam.palsite.com/format.html
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
a b c d .. z
at least for 802.11 that is.
now, as to whether or not it makes sense - well, probably not, but that never stopped anyone.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You mean beta couldn't fit 2.5 minutes worth of pr0n??
I get headaches, a feeling of being in slow motion, dry eyes, and fogbrain whenever I'm around them. Ugh.
notice the spanish testimonial translates to:
Usually five or six sprays is all it takes. As your computer sends data, each bit also carries hundreds of invisible WiFi Speed Spray(TM) "scrubbing" molecules. It works at the speed of light. and even penetrates lead walls (not even Superman can do that!). Within .0025 seconds, the entire path between you and the receiver is cleaned, scrubbed, polished, and sanitized.
.. did we really need Linux? You be the judge.
Start using the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, humans and many animals will be confused by the light show, but at least we have some more bandwidth in the sky that way.
betamax didn't survive because the tape length wasn't suited for pr0n,
Ironically enough, the ONLY betamax videos I ever saw when I was younger were owned by my friends father, who only had pr0n. For a few years, I thought betamax's were just used for pr0n.
-Valiss
Not only is it not in use yet, thus uncrowded, but we'll all have the extra benefit of Hulk-like strength.
The debate over standards is a result of an over reliance on hardware. If software radio http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/ became an option the standards could be updated without altering hardware. Even better, a standard could be created for a standardised standards channel. When a deviced searched for other devices it would do so on a broadcast channel. The standard could then be downloaded over the standardised standards channel to set the device up to operate with the desired standard.
Darwinian selection will not always provide the "best" solution. It also does not really apply to things like WiFi standards.
In natural selection the only thing that really matters is if you reproduce. With technology it is what sells. The sad thing is what sells is often far from the best. If what was best always won the Amiga, ST, and Mac would have driven a stake in the heart of MS-DOS. OS/2 would have killed Windows 3.1. And slashdot would be using CSS.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How many can we handle? Do we really NEED another player? How fucking retarded of a question is that? The more, the merrier! Every new idea in the marketplace helps move technology and society along in its evolution. OF COURSE THE FUTURE IS "STILL SO UNCLEAR" -- the future is ALWAYS unclear, airhead. That's because it hasn't happened yet!
Competition in the wireless sector is fine as it spurs innovation and leads to creative hacks such as the cantenna (and not to mention, endless fun for /.'ers war drivin' their city looking for unsecured AP's.) But in the end, it's about boosting profitability! This is because this latest offering, for better or worse, will eventually make its way to your local retailer as the "must have" product in wireless computing. The ensuing hype will be directly targeted at the average computer using public who marvels at the latest buzz words, and because of heavy marketing, somehow feel the need to upgrade their "out-dated" equipment.
In reality, 802.11b serves up more than enough bandwidth for the average "connected" home with a desktop and laptop (or two in some cases.) That's even taking into account protocol overhead. Granted, it shares the 2.4GHz spectrum with cordless phones and microwaves, so it cuts off every now and again. But after all, the main use for such equipment is to enable the sharing of a 'net connection. And even if your connection does get cut off momentarily, many apps have an auto-resume feature, so that point is moot. It's not like it's being used to transfer gigs of data between wirelessly connected systems, which is where the move from 802.11b to 802.11g would make sense. And as long as the equipment is upgradable to support newer security standards (WPA/WPA2) by firmware or driver, there wouldn't be a practical need to purchase new equipment.
Correct me if I am wrong, but 60gHZ wireless will have a significantly different properties from a 2.4gHZ network. 60gHZ will provide LOTS more bandwidth, and a significantly smaller range than a 2.4gHZ network. This is like comaring a yugo to a conveyorbelt... or apples and oranges if you will.
Dear Xizer,
:)
You seem to have a lot of drive and enthusiasm, which is obviously not finding a productive outlet, have you thought about getting some part-time work in IT? Perhaps try doing some volunteer work!
Maybe you've not yet graduated and are going through that 'difficult' stage. Girls don't seem to like you, the sporty kids bully you. We've all been there, it'll pass. The simple fact that is girls mature faster than boys.
In a few years, you'll look back on these days and laugh!
Anyway, take care.
AC.
They lost out to DLink and Buffalo. Look at how WiFi went, like hotcakes, and it still does.
So now, all the vendor communities want to snack on our desire to better farther faster cheaper. Duck.
Do we need these standards? Egads- think of how truly awful that WEP and WPA are. With luck, there'll be better security, too.
Wait-- you say that they haven't thought of that ?*#@)@?????
No, we don't need more. We need to fix what we have first, and strangle the engineers that thought up, with the best intentions that the road to hell are paved with, WEP/WPA security.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Alot like what I have now.
Of course, the same applies to the receiving end, which is a drag. If this is really 60GHz, it will never compete with WiMAX - this will have a range somewhere in between Wifi and Bluetooth with any sensibly-sized amplifier/antenna combo.
If your job and/or lifestyle has you traveling a lot, wireless if very much a good thing.
But for stationary things I'll take a couple wires in exchange for speed and performance. I'll take a wired gigabit network for my desktops over a WLAN we all know only gets maybe 50% of advertised, 54mbits performs at maybe 25 unless you're close enough to the AP to use the 6' cable it came with. I'll take a USB2 mouse and a PS/2 keyboard with a bunch of multi media keys over the waste of batteries bluetooth.
A "wireless" connection is only about 5% wireless. Instead of trying for a 60Ghz 500mbits wireless connection, spend a little money to fix TCP/IP, especially the part that says if there's an error resend at 50% speed. That way an 11mbits may be able to perform at what is now a 50mbits connection.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.
However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?
Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...
I can handle a few more wireless technologies. My right hemisphere has room for a few more brain tumors.
- Danny
Wow. Someone on here who has a genuine need for a tinfoil hat!
Of course business is about making money. Without the profit motive, the computer and telecommunications industries wouldn't exist, and none of us would be involved in this discussion.
Some companies seek to maximize profits by creating their own standards. Others do not. It's a business decision, not a moral one. It's also been going on since the dawning of the Industrial Age, but it is merely more apparent in the Information Age.
Exclusive deals have nothing to do with innovation. They've been around since before there were such things as "standards". Businesses engage in exclusive deals to lock out their competitors. You give me the best pricing if I guarantee that I will only use you as a supplier. If your product starts to suck, I'll terminate the deal and go with another supplier. So even in exclusive arrangements, suppliers face pressure to keep quality high.
The fact that some technically superior standards are defeated by inferior standards (Betamax vs. VHS springs to mind) usually means that the technological superiority of one standard are incapable of overwhelming the other standard's advantages. In the case of Betamax vs. VHS, the licensing costs of Betamax were prohibitive, so companies that adopted VHS could make more money and continue to improve the VHS standard along the way. VHS technology was "good enough" at its inception, and consumers gravitated to it accordingly. Ironically, the more "open" standard won, even though it was less capable technology.
You can't just do what you want in business. You might be able to get away with boxing out competitors and pushing inferior technology on consumers for a while, but once you start doing that, competitors who can build better mousetraps begin to enter your market. Eventually you either adapt and become more capable, or you go the way of the dodo.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
We need more, especially when the future is unclear. Competition promotes ingenuity. With all these companies competing for your attention and more importantly your consumership, technology moves with leaps and bounds.
Eventually companies will go bottom up because they can't compete and there will be a group of delcared winners. The future is defined by what companies can deliver the technology to survive among the sea of companies.
The more standards we have, the more competition there will be from providers of the services, and then the prices will be lower, better for everyone.
...."Nano". Latest investor buzz word. Doesn't matter what the product is, use X and nano..leverage your way to eXtreme profit!
He seems to be saying that "We shouldn't try to figure shit out until we've got shit all figured out." Is he missing a cerebral hemisphere?
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wi reless/cb21ag/acau01/auappb.htm
We have 11 channels in the US, there are 14 in Japan and 13 in the EU.
And what company wants to make 3 chips when they can make one? If you make 3 chips, then you have a stocking problem. what happens when you have 1,000,000 EU chips on hand and someone wants to buy 1,000,000 JPN chips? If they're all the same, you don't have a problem. But if they're different.
And then the company that makes the product with the chips has to make 3 different versions and has their own stocking problem.
Finally, due to how frequencies are generated, it is difficult in hardware to truly keep people from generating improper frequencies. Remember how much work Intel and AMD do to limit overclocking (and how unsuccessful they are in the end).
Finally, in 802.11, it is the device that creates the network that picks the frequency. So your laptop can easily be universal, accepting and responding on any frequency that is legal anywhere in the world, assuming that the base stations in an area will only be on legal frequencies. But base stations aren't as universal.
All in all this really sounds like a "problem you don't understand".
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I'm guessing you are busy and didn't have time to digest what I said. Nowhere was it said that "having different standards is innovating". What was said was that companies try to find better ways to do things. Maybe they don't conform to the current standards. According to your logic, we should have stuck with the first internal combustion engine ever developed. What is this "fuel injector" thing? I can't stick that on my small block 350. Where will I put the carburator? Or perhaps we never should have developed the jet engine. That CERTAINLY didn't fit the current set of standards used in flying. AM radio rocks. Who needs FM? Wait...why deliver cable TV to send television signals if you can just get them through an antenna? My point being, innovations are good. They may shake up the industry and force people to think of new ways to do things. Just because "it's been done like this for the past 50 years" doesn't mean it's always the best way.
I agree with you that business is about making money. Innovation can lead to that goal even faster. The whole mess of business ethics, monopolistic practices, deals, etc is topic for another time.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Seriously.
It strikes me as far more likely that there are other forces at work out there determining how our technological reality gets shaped. --And that the almighty demi-god of 'competition' is primarily an irrelevant game played out at the lowest level of the field, where managers and owners and investors stress themselves silly over battles in a war where the outcome was long ago determined in somebody else's board room.
The Medium is the Message! --The Medium is what defines the shape and behavior of our society. And the shape and behavior of our society are hotly contested flags on the battle ground.
Why WiFi?
-FL
I'm glad someone else out there sees the immense benefits software defined radio provides. i don't understand why all these companies are still wasting their time with hardware based solutions
I do. The computational requirements of digital radios greatly exceed the capabilities of practical embeddable processors. You need dedicated hardware or at least a special purpose processor with an exotic architecture to keep up.
Reconfigurable logic systems (fast, but the development model is nearly intractable), augmented vector processors, VLIW. They were all tried in the late 1990's early 2000's. All those projects and companies are dead because they could not deliver enough computational power with a low enough power requirement, and a practical development model. There are number companies trying again today. The technology has improved some but the modulations are now much more computationally demanding.
We all like to make everything soft. But, to make this happen, computational demands must stabilize so that processor technology can catch up. Wireless communication technology shows no sign of slowing its apetite for more MIPS.
The linked article is not perfect, however. VHS is not yet obsolete. More reliable and cheaper DVD stand-alone console burners will make VHS obsolete soon, but they are "not there" yet.
I had V2000 instead of both Betamax and VHS, you insensitive clod!
For those of you that don't know, V2000 was a competing standard to both VHS and Betamax, launched by Phillips.
Harald
60GHz has been out for a long time. It is strictly for very short distances and line of sight only. Although the data througput is VERY high it really isn't an end user technology.
The world market should have as much competetion as possible from a consumers stand point of view because the prices drop faster new lines/products are brought to market faster etc etc just look at xbox 360 coming out. The real question I have is will a new guy/softwaremaker ever make it in a windows/linux only market? A birth of another Bill Gates is that possible?