Slashdot Mirror


Australia to Become WiMax Testbed

shrewd writes "AU News site Whirlpool has news on a huge AUD $37 million investment by Intel in a WiMax project. From the article: 'Australia will become the world's testbed for WiMAX - Intel's wireless broadband technology - with the announcement that the chip giant will invest AUD $37million in the expansion of the Unwired network in Australia ... Unwired CEO David Spence said the investment will make WiMAX an absolutely mainstream technology. 'Unwired will be in the unique position of having access to the majority of the WiMAX-designated 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands in Australia's major metropolitan areas,' Spence said.'"

70 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Crikey! by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see live video streams of the Crocodile Hunter in our future.

    "She's a beautiful critter! Look at the power of her jaws as she's chomping on my laptop!"

  2. WIMAX by CSHARP123 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unwired's service will be available to 66% of the population

    Until somebody comes onboard and provides the same kind of service, talk about monopoly.

    1. Re:WIMAX by takeya · · Score: 1

      It didnt exist in any capacity before, and they don't have to use the service. So no.

      There's probably only 1 satellite provider in your area. Without them, there would be zero. You can still get DSL.

    2. Re:WIMAX by cerelib · · Score: 1

      How can it be a monopoly if they are pioneering the technology? It seems to me that they are offering a new possible better alternative to the current services and therefore entering the market as a competitor.

    3. Re:WIMAX by Dan+Farina · · Score: 1

      Seriously; You can't be blamed for being a monopoly when you are a barely emergent and first supplier to a given market...at least, not reasonably so, methinks.

    4. Re:WIMAX by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The first provider is always a "monopoly" be definition. Whether you call them a monopoly or not depends on your attitude towards the company.

      Take Standard Oil, for example. Before Rockefeller, no one used petroleum. He got his monopoly because he invented a new industry from scratch. I'm not excusing his later collusion with the government to prevent competition, but he started out as just an ordinary businessman with an idea.

      Monopolies are generally limited to new industries. AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, etc. There are exceptions, however, but for the most part when you see a monopoly you see a company that helped start the industry. AT&T was started by the inventor of the telephone. IBM was one of mainframe's pioneers. Microsoft first marketed software as a product to the home user. Think of Alcoa. Who ever used aluminum before them?

      The big question is whether you want to condem a company for being first, or condem a company for sticking around.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:WIMAX by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft first marketed software as a product to the home user.

      No, that's historical revisionism. There were dozens if not hundreds of companies selling similar products at the same time to home and business users. The Apple II, Commodore Pet, S100 computers and the software that ran on them come to mind. They all had wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc. M$ just rode on IBM's coat tails initially.

      With the necessity of interroperability leading to an unstable, winner-take-all market; the legitimacy provided by the association with IBM; and software that was as good as, though not better than, the competition; M$ got lucky.

      ---

      Are you a marketing sock puppet?

  3. Huge? by rlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    37 million AUD ($27 million US) would be a huge investment if it came out of my bank account (which would then be very much overdrawn). Coming from a company the size of Intel, it is NOT a huge investment in a new technology.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Huge? by Nos. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but Intel has made huge investments in WiMax. They've got the first chips undergoing testing for certification right now. They've dedicated a lot of time and man power to it and this is just a continuation of that investment. In fact, depending on how you look at it, this is almost more marketing than anything else.

  4. If it doesn't work well, by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 3, Funny
    then I guess people will get really angry and call it "MadMAX"! - get it Australia...MadMax Movies with Mel Gibson... well...get it?

    Ok, that was lame. I really need to get some lunch!

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    1. Re:If it doesn't work well, by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Funny
      then I guess people will get really angry and call it "MadMAX"! - get it Australia...MadMax Movies with Mel Gibson... well...get it?

      You're supposed to put the follow-up explanation to your joke in an immediate (well, 2 minutes later) post.

      You're right, you do need lunch.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. AOL and others should take heed by bigwavejas · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Is there any doubt in someones mind that WiFi or WiMax is going to eventually permiate the metropolitan areas of the world and offer free access? Recently San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a plan to provide WiFi for San Francisco.

    Companies like AOL and other dial-up or broadband types should start thinking about alternative methods for bringing in revenue, because their market is quickly diminishing.

    --
    "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    1. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any doubt in someones mind that WiFi or WiMax is going to eventually permiate the metropolitan areas of the world and offer free access?

      Yes, there is doubt. In fact, there is 100% certainty that it will not happen. Because it will not, and can not, be free. Someone has to pay for it. If your vision is correct (however badly described), I'd say that entity would be... people and businesses who pay taxes. Or, it will be indirectly so, by showing up as more arcane usage fees on your cell phone and cable bills. There is no "free" wireless service! It's not sunshine. Companies ("like AOL and other dial-up or broadband types") will be the ones providing this service, or companies like them, either directly, or through contracts with municipal or other governments. You say the market is dimishing, I say it's just re-arranging. But what about the millions that live in rural areas, or those that are out of line-of-site for these city-centered services? Traditional ISPs, in one form or another, will be around for a long, long time. Non-traditional ISPs will become the traditional, but someone still has to pay for the hardware, the people, the systems, the security, etc. Not free! Never will be - any more than tap water is, or electricity.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:AOL and others should take heed by bigwavejas · · Score: 3, Interesting
      /yawn

      I guess Philadelphia intending to offer the following, "Once a citywide wireless network has been deployed, the goal will be to provide some level of free wireless Internet access to everyone living, working or visiting in the city."

      Was just my imagination... or was it? Read Article

      Maybe diminishing wasn't the correct word, perhaps shifting is more appropriate. ... and yes nothing is entirely free, but the old methodology for charging to use wireless internet is definitely changing.

      --
      "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    3. Re:AOL and others should take heed by Twinbee · · Score: 1
      • Because it will not, and can not, be free.
      Because technology is getting better, bandwidth and startup costs will always get cheaper and cheaper, so in the end it may as well be free.

      Think of cost as in 1/n, where n progresses towards infinity :)
      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:AOL and others should take heed by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      Definately- but don't just think laptops/pcs on the web. Think of portable voip instead of cells, broadband radio in the car instead of XM etc etc etc. Wireless broadband is really going to change things- all the sudden we will have even more access to info everywhere....

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    5. Re:AOL and others should take heed by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Whenever you read about free wireless access, think free "basic" wireless access, which is likely to be slower than 1 Mbps. I don't expect people to be giving up their 5 Mbps cable modems any time soon. Low-end ISPs will certainly be impacted, though.

    6. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      and yes nothing is entirely free, but the old methodology for charging to use wireless internet is definitely changing

      Well, let's see. There are only two ways that sitting out in a public space popping onto a wireless 'net connecciont is (or is going to be) "free" to the end users:

      1. Someone provides that access because they want to (like Panera... "please enjoy net access and we hope you buy a sandwich")

      2. Enough voters vote for people with the authority to use tax dollars to prop up that aspect of a business/middle-class-population-hungry municipality... ("please enjoy net access, and we hope that you'll stick around, buy things from the local businesses, and move here, and pay property taxes")

      It doesn't matter if the billing mechanism shifts, or the technology gets cheaper than it currently is. A big pipe to the backbone will always cost money - it takes actual humans to tend to peering relationships, keep generators tested and running in advance of power problems, real with broadband pipes cut by construction equipment, and so on.

      At no point will it be "free" as in beer. It might get pushed to the background of your personal accounting system, much the way that, say, city pothole maintenance is, but you're buying, or someone else is, no matter what. In many ways, I think it's a really bad idea to make this very elaborately maintained service "free" to end users. It disconnects them from the reality of what the infrastructure costs. Smarter politicians already know to put up signs on large road construction projects helping people to understand what it costs and who's paying. This shouldn't be any different. Otherwise it just worsens the entitlement culture, and makes rational tax policymaking even harder (since fewer people connect the dots). It's bad enough that people already say, "But I can get a wireless router from eBay for $30! My city should be doing this for free!"... but at least they're only complaining about what they want, and not complaining about hidden taxes on something that's already been built and deemed part of the local sunshine. I think this is mostly an argument for making sure that people understand how many people have to work to make a service like that available... and to make sure that once people start relying on it, it's not just one more thing that they bitch about when it's not perfect (like the pavement on their streets).

      Needless to say, I'm also not terribly fond of having every packet I transceive hopping through a government-run network. This will manifest itself in other ugly ways, too: "you still owe us for that disputed parking ticket - no net access for you!"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:AOL and others should take heed by bdcrazy · · Score: 1

      Will this go like nuclear power was once rumored to be so inexpensive it wouldn't be worth metering? Or will it turn into todays, woefully inadequate electrical distribution network?

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    8. Re:AOL and others should take heed by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2, Informative

      It depends on your definition of free. If one pays $100 on insulating ones house and it save $200 in heating and air conditioning cost than I would say the insulation was more than free as it was a money maker. This will be the case with broadband as it will save more money in other expenses than it will cost.

    9. Re:AOL and others should take heed by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It still won't be free. You might not be getting a monthly bill from a business, but you will be paying for it via your taxes. Last time I mentioned this I got screamed at for being a conservative stooge of Bush. But people still keep missing this basic fact of economics.

      Politicians like Gavin Newsome use the word "free" to fool the gullible. What's sad is that there are so many gullible people. "Free" wifi might not be as expensive as "free" roads or "free" education, but it's still "free" with a monetary price tag attached to it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:AOL and others should take heed by bigwavejas · · Score: 1
      Interesting... My understanding was Dell and other manufacturers were donating computers and other hardware?

      /shrug. Yes, nothing is entirely "Free", yadi yada. BUT heck I'll take a $29.99 break on my monthly internet bill. Maybe I have to pay a penny more on $100 dollars in groceries, but Fuggit.

      Way I see it, its better than snarfing off your neighbors wireless and risking a quick trip to the pokey. yeouch!

      --
      "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    11. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But you know that what we're really talking about here would be (to extend your analogy), "The old paradigm is fading away, and soon the city will come and insulate your house for free."

      Which, even if they did, would not be "free," in the sense that people have to actually show up with materials and do it. And manage those people. And insure them. And pay for the dental insurance. Etc.

      Yes, it's possible for an investment to return more than what it cost (um, otherwise it's a "loss"). But the investment requires, well, an investment. It's not "free" either. Even when more dollars eventually turn around to the investors, they had that captial (or time, or bloood and sweat - whatever was invested) tied up and unavailable to do other things. Still not free.

      This will be the case with broadband as it will save more money in other expenses than it will cost.

      I am curious which costs you think will be saved. Certainly broadband does save people time, and thus increases productivity (if they use it intelligently). But the infrastructure costs are still not negligible, the back end pipes end up having to be even bigger, the security risks are even higher, and the cost of being dependent on it is very real (and thus a risk in and of itself).

      If what you means it that wireless is cheaper than wired (because you con't have to pull copper/glass all over the place), then that's definitely a factor. But I also find wireless to be fragile in its own ways (it's easier for some punk to jam the whole neighborhood's wireless service than it is for him to impact 50 POTS lines or a dozen cable drops).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:AOL and others should take heed by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      My understanding was Dell and other manufacturers were donating computers and other hardware?

      Maybe so. But who is going to maintain all of it? Who is going to be administering the network? It's not going to run itself. And as more and more people get deluded into thinking it's free, the bandwidth requirements go up.

      Or do you really think people will vountarily limit their bandwidth usage for something that's "free"?

      Way I see it, its better than snarfing off your neighbors wireless

      Instead, you'll snarf off of your neighbor's taxes. "It's just one penny per $100 in groceries! They'll never miss it! Make the cable and dsl users pay for my wifi!"

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    13. Re:AOL and others should take heed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's possible for an investment to return more than what it cost (um, otherwise it's a "loss"). But the investment requires, well, an investment. It's not "free" either. Even when more dollars eventually turn around to the investors, they had that captial (or time, or bloood and sweat - whatever was invested) tied up and unavailable to do other things. Still not free.

      You've lost me. Are you talking "free" to the city? To the consumers? To the companies that are installing it?

      Sure, there is an opportunity cost on everything. Sneezing isn't free in your definition, since that takes away time you could have been doing something else. Will it be provided without cost to the consumer (either through direct fees or redirected taxes)? If so, then it is free. If the city trades roof rights in exchange for the network being installed and run by someone else, then there was no money required to pay for it. That makes it "free." I can think of many ways in which it would be possible (even if not likely) that the service could be provided for free as in beer.

    14. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      At no point will it be "free" as in beer.

      Perhaps not in the US, but over here in Western Australia, we've been building a free-as-in-beer network since the early days of wireless networking. http://www.e3.com.au/

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    15. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not in the US, but over here in Western Australia, we've been building a free-as-in-beer network since the early days of wireless networking.

      But... it's not free! Who writes the checks for the people that operate the network (or, in the absence of paid techs, who provides their own technical time)? Who buys (or otherwise provides) the hardware? Who pays for the grid power, the backup generators, and the pipes to the internet? I'm going to guess it's donors, sponsors, or taxpayers... probably even some that will never use the network. But, the point is that it's not free. It's a displaced expense, and it will help everyone who does pay for it, donate time/equipment to it, etc., for the end users to know that they're benefitting from other people's expenses and work. That's not "free," that's a gift (if everyone who ultimately pays any part of the expense does so voluntarily), or it's, essentially, network access socialism. But even free beer isn't free - the person who wants you to like them, and who therefore has provided the beer, is picking up the tab - as an investment in your future good will.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      But... it's not free!

      It is free. I can connect to freenet with an AP and that AP becomes a shared node on the network. The cost to me is the AP I'd need to connect to any network. This is one of the times when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    17. Re:AOL and others should take heed by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So... this network is self-contained? Doesn't actually connecto to the larger internet (meaning, you're not using it right now)? If it IS connected to the net, who provides the bandwidth? At some point, those packets have to be handled by carriers that aren't doing it as a charity, right?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Been expecting this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is kind of old news, Unwired have talked about this for a while. I'm an Unwired user in Sydney and I get awesome results, i've been able to use it across the span of 30km's.

    I heard about this a while ago I can't recite the source, but when I spoke to the Unwired consultants they said they were looking into this for sometime next year.

    The only benefit this will provide me as an existing customer of Unwired is hopefully better pricing, coverage in trouble spots and I would be able to use the service while roaming as opposed to having to log in everytime I change to a different suburb.

    That said we also have http://www.iburst.com.au/ (iburst) who provide true roaming, but their plans are ridiculously expensive.

    What's more interesting news for me is the announcement Unwired recently made of a partnership with an Australian company called Engin http://www.engin.com.au/ who are an awesome VoIP provider (I also use).

    That does remind me, the only place I had trouble with reception using Unwired was in an apartment block 30+ floors up.

    -Sj53

    1. Re:Been expecting this by adman_crash · · Score: 1

      The problem is 30K's dosn't go very far at all in country Australia, normall its 100k's between town's ( 1 fuel station + 1 pub = town) even further as you move west. So whats the use in testing it in major metropolitan areas were people already have DSL access. Most people in the bush are lucky to get 33.3K Dail-up on a good day, worse when it is raining :( Shouldn't they test it in the bush.....o thats right they wouldn't make as much money do that will they.

  7. Do Pass Go and Collect $$$ by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Unwired CEO David Spence said the investment will make WiMAX an absolutely mainstream technology. 'Unwired will be in the unique position of having access to the majority of the WiMAX-designated 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands in Australia's major metropolitan areas,' Spence said.'"

    Most monopolies do make whatever they touch a mainstream technology. Looks like competition will be scarce here however.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Do Pass Go and Collect $$$ by demachina · · Score: 1

      WiMAX is such cool technology but that is exactly the problem. If the license falls in to the hands of greedy assholes who charge you through the nose to access it ... like ... oh ... I don't know .... American cell phone companies ... its going to end up sucking. At that point the only thing in its favor is the infrastructure costs are fairly low which means either prices might be a bit lower or the greedy asshole's profit margins will be higher.

      WiMax is screaming out for cities to license it for their areas and provide wireless Internet access as a no charge, or low charge, public service.

      Unless that happens, which is very unlikely in any country were for profit corporations dominate over government, I predict 802.11 will have a long and flourishing life simply because of the freedom it offers. You just wish it more range and more available frequencies.

      --
      @de_machina
  8. Intel gobbles again..., by ViaNRG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does it frighten anyone else to know that Intel may be publicizing themselves as the brainchild of WiMAX?

    --
    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Heinlein
  9. In Australia or... by wetdirtmud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When the roll-out is complete, Unwired's service will be available to 66% of the population, Wallace said.

    I like how easily accessible Internet is becoming. I still know people that either can not afford it, or have it so slow that they don't use it.

    WiMax is a nice idea, but hopefully it won't be replaced or hacked right away. What about p2p over these networks? Will the speeds be evenly distributed between clients? You know people are going to try and leech/abuse their privalege

  10. Are you new here? by 0110011001110101 · · Score: 1
    This is why god made tinfoil.

    Just slap on a tinfoil hat, make some new window shutters, and go back to your tofu on a stick...

    --
    Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
  11. open access? by this1kid · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. This sounds ideal for pen testing the laptop security of 66% of the AU population.

  12. Clearwire by Anonymous+Cowabunga · · Score: 2, Informative

    A nationwide wimax effort by Craig McCaw, and is being beta tested across the US at the moment. Starts at $30 a month, and completely portable (bring the modem with you). http://www.clearwire.com/

  13. Re:is this healthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We are studying it. Why do you think they're doing it in Australia and not some where important? ;)

  14. Truly Machiavelian by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny
    Austrailia is where most of the smart Hong Kong money went when the British gave it up. Intel is essentially buying the top tier of the Asian market for chump change.

    Centrinos for everyone!!!

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Truly Machiavelian by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      Austrailia is where most of the smart Hong Kong money went[...]

      Really? Exactly where over here did all of this money allegedly end up?

    2. Re:Truly Machiavelian by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      Nah the smart ones stayed behind and bought up all the cheap real estate when the foolish ones jumped ship. HK is still as properous as ever today.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  15. safer this way by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 4, Funny
    Australia will become the world's testbed for WiMAX

    This is good news. If WiMAX turns people into zombies, the problem will be confined to Australia.

    1. Re:safer this way by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      8 out of 10 Great White Pointers agree, Zombies taste better with braiiiiiiins...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    2. Re:safer this way by wiresquire · · Score: 1
      This is good news. If WiMAX turns people into zombies, the problem will be confined to Australia.

      How will anyone be able to tell if it has an effect?

      Disclaimer: I am an Aussie, and I still want to know the answer

      --

      So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    3. Re:safer this way by Kadmos · · Score: 1

      This is good news. If WiMAX turns people into zombies, the problem will be confined to Australia.

      The only problem would be trying to distinguish one form the other :-)

  16. Australia gets screwed right now by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 4, Funny
    Despite the fact I'm still stuck on dialup at home (in the US, just outside of Lansing, MI); Australia has been getting screwed for a long time. They have some of the most outragous connection fees and draconian limits on use. Good for them.

    Oh yeah, and here's the obligatory bash quote for the local phone monopoly:

    <FreeFrag> The most secure computer in the world is one not connected to the internet.
    <FreeFrag> Thats why I recommend Telstra ADSL.
    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    1. Re:Australia gets screwed right now by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      this tech will make precisely zit difference for everything except connection fees, rates will be relatively the same as Intel will have to pay the same rates as everyone else for the use of the highly limited amount of bandwidth that links us overseas.

    2. Re:Australia gets screwed right now by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Optus are #2, that's why they try harder - I suppose that explains the 4 hours outage we had the other night mid WoW instance run.. *sigh*

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    3. Re:Australia gets screwed right now by FrenZon · · Score: 2, Informative
      Australia has been getting screwed for a long time. They have some of the most outragous connection fees and draconian limits on use. Good for them.

      In many areas, it's not been so bad since ISPs took things into their own hands and started installing their own DSL equipment at the exchanges - I'm sitting here in South Melbourne on ADSL2 (only 12mbs at the moment), paying about US$70 per month for 80GB downloads, unlimited 1mbs upload - more than I generally need.

      The thing is, i'm moving to San Francisco in about a month, and I'm yet to find any plans over there that match this (I could be wrong - I haven't spent THAT much time looking).

  17. Why Australia? by nizo · · Score: 1

    Aside from giving a bunch of lucky Australians access (and who knows how man 'roos :-) ) Why did Intel pick Australia? Was it something to do with the 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands being availble there now and not in the US, or something else entirely?

    1. Re:Why Australia? by ksheff · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the flatest continent, so there shouldn't be a lot of line of sight issues and the remote cattle stations certainly would be users that would benefit from long distance wireless internet.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:Why Australia? by imroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      We're a big continent with relatively few people (just passed 20 million recently). So most wired technologies aren't economically feasable outside of the metropolitan centres. The only reason that the bush has any telephone service at all is because Telstra started as a government-owned company (Telecom Australia). Almost half of it has already been sold off (so it's still government controlled) and now it looks certain that the rest will be sold as well. There's been all sorts of promises about maintaining services to the bush, but it's already bad enough and I can only see it getting worse. Deployment of WiMax (or something like it) might be the future of communications in regional areas. Expect to see WiMax/VOIP mobile phones soon. I reckon that's where it's headed - a unified IP network for voice and data.

    3. Re:Why Australia? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the flatest continent
      Except for the Great Dividing Range along the eastern coast, which is where about 3/4 of Australia's population lives. There's plenty of hills big enough to block line of sight anywhere in Australia - and the places where there isn't any hills, well, line of sight isn't far enough to get to the next outpost.

      the remote cattle stations certainly would be users that would benefit from long distance wireless internet.

      Except that this is *still* not long-distance enough. 100km is the distance to an average cattle station's back gate - and at the other side of that? Another cattle station. You might as well put a microwave link in, or go satellite, or rip out every single bit of copper wire left in rural australia and go with fiber (rumoured to cost upwards of AUD30 billion).

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:Why Australia? by talis9 · · Score: 1

      A minor point, but Telstra started out life as a part of a government department (the department of the Post Master General). It was then split off in to it's own entity (Telecom Australia) which was renamed (Telstra), then partly sold off. I remember the old manhole covers with PMG on them.

  18. Re:Truly American by fabs64 · · Score: 1

    Well I can say one thing, your view is "Truly American" or at least the worlds steretypical view of one. Intel is, wait for it, a multi-national you moron.

  19. Re:the future is open (and wireless) by bjtuna · · Score: 2, Informative

    You, like many other people on this board, appear to NOT know what WiMax is. WiMax is not the "cell phone" version of WiFi, it's a last-mile solution for fixed locations. It's basically a wireless version of DSL and cable modems.

  20. Why? by Paides · · Score: 1

    They could have invested their money into wisconsin, which would be a much wiser investment, as wisconsin residents have almost no options for broadband, except for SBC... which doesnt even reach most people, and our stupid cable company (where I live), comcast, has been promising broadband for over 3 years now, with an actual deployment nowhere in sight, and will cost upwards of $55/month... yay.

    --
    -P8R
    1. Re:Why? by Sottilde · · Score: 1

      You live in Manitowoc, no? I admit the broadband situation could be better around here. But comcast is offering fast 3mbs service now, and sbc is getting really cheap. On top of that, mercury.net's wireless service reaches most of the city, with 1.5 mbs for around $30...

      But yeah, LSOL sucks.

  21. Re:the future is open (and wireless) by Khaotix · · Score: 1

    that's not entirely true. future stages of WiMax plan to allow mobile access.

  22. Nice Sig by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Heinlein

    Nice Sig... reminds me of the quote:

    "Necessity is the mother of all invention. Laziness is the father."

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  23. Condemn the methods used for sticking around by tepples · · Score: 1

    The big question is whether you want to condem a company for being first, or condem a company for sticking around.

    The latter. But specifically, I condemn a company for raising barriers to entry by using "collusion with the government to prevent competition," as you put it in the case of Standard Oil, as a means to stick around. AT&T owned what was by far the largest telephone network, and it chilled innovation in phone hardware and services by requiring that only its own phones be connected to the Bell System, using state governments (private property law) and local governments (public utility franchises) to further its market power. Microsoft uses copyright law along with contract law (specifically anti-reverse-engineering clauses in non-negotiable EULAs) to prevent anybody else from making a working reimplementation of the Win32 API and has begun to use patents against competing free software projects. Here, the collusion is with the judicial system (state and federal courts that interpret copyright, patent, and contract laws) and with trial lawyers (which Microsoft can afford but competitors cannot).

  24. Why MAX? by jackvalko · · Score: 1

    My experience with WiMAX is it doesn't work if you don't have LOS or NLOS. Our office is in the heart of a major city on the west coast where a popular DSL-provider is headquartered. Our WiMAX service had to be cancelled because of dropped frames at our location due to the "canyon effect" created by a street full of tall office towers. Apparently, that robs their other WiMAX customers of available bandwidth as their access point attempts to retransmit.

    If this is true I can't see WiMAX hitting critical mass in metro areas without signifcant buildout by the WISP. Rural areas on flat terrain would probably be okay as long as customers don't bump/move/taunt their antennas.

  25. Oz is the easy option by stimpleton · · Score: 1

    The tech could be delicate in a rugged geographic environment, otherwise they would have used the Worlds test-bed: New Zealand.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  26. Canberra by Diablo1399 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does Canberra count as a major metropolitan area? Oh please please please please please. . .

  27. Intel using Oz trial to break CSIRO WiFi patent? by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

    I would wonder why Intel are using Oz as a test. It wouldn't be in any way connected with their attempts to break Australia's CSIRO patents on WiFi technology would it? Why test it in the US when they can muscle right in at the source of their legal case.

  28. Re:the future is open (and wireless) by bjtuna · · Score: 1

    Yes but WiMax is ready and the mobile extensions are not, so it's likely that they will be marketed as different products for quite some time.

  29. Got to love marketing. by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Down here in New Zealand i have been running on a generally available WiMax system for about 2 months now, and it have been available well before that.
    Guess I must have dreamed that.
    Nice strong 1Mbit/512Kbit (down/up) link at around 4Km from the transmitter on 3.5GHz.
    Only about 30% more expensive than wired ADSL broadband, which is not available here as we have fibre bearers out here in the country (go figure, Telecom wont install local DSLAMS).

    There are tons of these system rolled out over here, have been for quite some time.

    1. Re:Got to love marketing. by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      Where in NZ do you live? Who is the provider?
      I'd love to get some fast access here in West Melton, 20km west of Christchurch.

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
  30. "in Australia's major metropolitan areas" by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Yet another service for places that already have multiple (or even one) affordable connectivity options. I wish they'd work on extending the range of DSL instead so that the rest of us aren't stuck with expensive ISDN.