Slashdot Mirror


Sprint Rolls out WiMAX Access

Tokin84 writes "Today, Sprint announced that it would pour over $4.5Bn into a 2.5Ghz WiMAX system to be rolled out across the country. From the article: 'Sprint Nextel, the nation's largest holder of radio spectrum in the precious 2.5 GHz band, has reportedly chosen to deploy Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX) as the foundation of its technology platform for the carrier's mobile broadband Next-Generation Network (NGN) build-out.'"

156 comments

  1. Here's an idea... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:Here's an idea... by Synic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you could use wireless reliably on a desktop machine over a equivalent or higher speed than your current wired connection, why would you say no to it?

    2. Re:Here's an idea... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

      You obviously don't get out much.

      I predict the logical successor to the 4x4 SUV will be a vehicle with a desk in place of the dashboard, because I swear more business is being done on the road than in boardrooms.

      excuse me officer, do you have an appointment?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Here's an idea... by Nos. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because its very expensive to do that. WiMax promises higher bandwidth and reliability without the costly infrastructure required for FTTH.

    4. Re:Here's an idea... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Some of us are just paranoid.

    5. Re:Here's an idea... by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead.

      I already have it. 15 megabit/sec down, 2 megabit/sec up. Finally, I have true high-definition TV and static-free phones, as well.

      Of course, it depends on where you live. I was fortunate to be in one of the early deployment areas. However, the speed of the service depends on the competition. Where I live, 15/2 is the highest speed for a reasonable price. Elsewhere, people are getting 20/5 (or even higher) for a similar price.

      Once it's installed and configured correctly, it has been reliable. But, there have been administrative problems every step along the way.

    6. Re:Here's an idea... by filmotheklown · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cheaper to cover an area with radio signal than to trench cable any day of the week.

      --
      Filmo The Klown
    7. Re:Here's an idea... by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      Some of us are just paranoid.
      So what? It's harder to sniff than cable, ethernet, or dsl.

      And besides, most wireless point-multipoint systems do encrypt all traffic or sell the option.

      For instance:
      http://motorola.canopywireless.com/solutions/isp/
      http://www.alvarion.com/bwawimaxnewbreezenetb100/

    8. Re:Here's an idea... by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      he see's no need. i have been praying for this for years. once again my god (not yours) is proven to be listening ;)

      what took them so long? if they'd started this (nextel or whoever) a few years ago the costs would have been much less (energy/inflation) and they'd be dominating the market... now maybe i'll consider sprint.

    9. Re:Here's an idea... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because that would mean that there is something wrong with the wire and it needs fixing.

      --
      Evil people are out to get you.
    10. Re:Here's an idea... by gb506 · · Score: 1

      I won't have an opportunity to say no. There isn't even cellular phone service in my town, so I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for Sprint WiMAX!

    11. Re:Here's an idea... by oldave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sprint/Nextel isn't an ILEC (mostly, and not at all if the spinoff of the local phone business is complete - I didn't check), nor even a CLEC.

      In other words, Sprint doesn't have cable facilities already in place passing by subdivisions with thousands of potential subscribers. Verizon, AT&T and (for this week) Bellsouth do. Those are the guys you should be asking for fiber.

      I expect wireless connectivity to take off in a big way over the next 2 or 3 years, and Sprint's taking this step to try to be at the forefront. Remember, business users were the reason they wanted Nextel.

    12. Re:Here's an idea... by andrewman327 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Fiber to the home may sound like a wonderful thing, and I must confess that I used to think that way. I had that sentiment until I practically found myself in a Douglas Adam's book arguing with Verizon contractors who were intent on trenching my property for fiber optic lines. They were offering this wonderful new service to our neighborhood. I actually sat in front of my house to make sure that they did not dig up any more than the 10 feet from the street that they are allowed by city code. They then offered me a pittence of a discount to adopt the new technology without even bothering to patch the holes in my lawn. After writing a (mostly friendly) letter to corporate HQ, Verizon finally seeded part of the damaged area. Never will I use the their FTTH Internet connection. Don't so sure that Fiber is the solution.


      If Sprint WiMax can save another city the troubles that faced my city, I am in favor of it. I would also like to have full coverage no matter where I go within my area.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    13. Re:Here's an idea... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    14. Re:Here's an idea... by THESuperShawn · · Score: 4, Funny

      So YOU are the guy I almost sideswiped while typing on my Blackberry and talking on my Treo while doing 90 mph down 77 the other day. Sorry about that, the user was pissing me off....

      --
      Repant. Thy end is sheer.
    15. Re:Here's an idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

      1) Demarc. As in demarcation.

      2) It costs a fuck of a lot more to maintain a bunch of fiber than it does to maintain an antenna.

      Wires are the Old Way(tm). The future is a huge sloppy mesh-networked topology that will allow the network to extend itself to anyplace there's sufficient numbers of people. Actually, if you got really froggy, you could use some highly accurate clocks (like those in GPSes) to synchronize data transmission, and you could actually turn a group of transmitters into a phased array... And the range would increase with the number of transmitters, too. This probably requires a lot more processing power than we have available in mobile devices at the moment, but it's coming.

      Get over this fascination with wires. Whether you're wired or no, you're no more secure than your encryption.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Here's an idea... by mattkime · · Score: 4, Funny

      You value your lawn more than fibre to you home? ....who told you about this website?

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    17. Re:Here's an idea... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I have Sprint(Nextel) Wireless and I can't get a reliable Cell signal - 0 bars in a densely populated section of town as if right now.
      And the best DSL I can get is 512Mb down. (Sprint Business)

      This is Vegas for Chrissakes. Not BFE Idaho!

      Sprint can take a flying @&*#.

      Fix the services you have NOW. don't add more.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    18. Re:Here's an idea... by parlyboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely. To put some real numbers to on this, according to Sprint, the total capital expenditure for WiMax infrastructure is about 10 percent the cost of a comparable fiber or cable build-out.

    19. Re:Here's an idea... by BigCheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They spun off the local phone stuff as Embarq http://embarq.com/.

      Here in Overland Park you can't work in IT without having a few ex Sprint people around as well as coworkers with spouses who work there. We hear a lot of stuff.

      Word is that Nextel people are taking over Sprint management from the inside. They may be able to pull this WiMax thing off if they can get the internal politics and bureaucracy under control.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    20. Re:Here's an idea... by ajs · · Score: 1

      That depends is Sprint going to control the network? If so, they I will pass up a wireless network at 200Gb/s with dancing girls and a trip into space. I've been burned by Sprint in professional and personal networking over and over again. This time never again means never again.

    21. Re:Here's an idea... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      That's very weird considering my Sprint phone worked all over Vegas just last weekend. Also the cellular modems work great with much faster connectivity than all the other providers seem to be offering. I'd be curious about the quality and/or condition of your phone as that plays a very large role. My Samsung A900 for instance get's far better reception than my old phone. Of course that phone was 4 years old so I guess it served its purpose. It was an LG phone which I've so far been horribly unimpressed with in regards to reception.

    22. Re:Here's an idea... by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      It can be worse then that. When SBC, Everest and Time Warner were trenching here in Overland Park they kept hitting gas and water mains. The city finally had to halt all trenching until a survey of mains was done.

      We also had the problem that there was no coordination in laying the fiber. SBC might dig up a street one week and lay some fiber and then Everest would come in the next month and dig it up again. It made a mess of the streets and traffic. You could hardly go anywhere without it being one lane and then you'd have to drive over those big metal plates all over the place.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    23. Re:Here's an idea... by suggsjc · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I had mod points, you would have got some.

      I'm not going to really get on a bandwagon here, but its that type of thought process that can really hold things (companies, technology, individuals) back. You are too busy spending your time either assesing the short-term "cost" to even realize the future benefits. Granted it a good thing to have people look at the drawbacks/impacts, but you didn't give a single good reason why they shouldn't have run the line...your lawn will grow back.

      Your probably some old codger sitting on your porch yelling at those "kids" to stay away with their new fangled technology. Go back inside before you have a heat stroke, turn on your record player and listen to "real music"

      kids these days...they ain't got no respect.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    24. Re:Here's an idea... by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just the lawn, it was the overall being treated like crap and not being informed ahead of time of the digging. They also damaged the street and did a bad job of fixing it. On the technical side of things, they told me that they did not know if I could run a VOIP connection through their Fiber link and that it was "unsupported" and not recomended.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    25. Re:Here's an idea... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I've got bad news for you - that piece of "your" lawn most likely belongs to you about as much as the center of the road. That's why you should never plant anything you intend to keep in the public right of way. And they're generally not required to patch anything when they're done. That's just the way public utilities work. Would you have been happier if they'd strung that line, along with the phone, cable, and power, 30' overhead down every road in the development?

      They just boosted the value of your property by a couple grand (by making the advanced service available to your home). Go buy a rake and a damned bag of grass seed, ya whiner.

      And, yes, I do have mod points. I decided to give you crap instead of modding you down.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    26. Re:Here's an idea... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      It's a Motorola i860. 3 months old. ditto with my boss's phone - i870 dropped calls all over the place. Drops by Nellis, Drops in Henderson... They've gone to crap since they bought nextel.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    27. Re:Here's an idea... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Wonder if they were having technical difficulties while you were there. Did you experience that at Defcon? I know I didn't. I crossed the country with my Sprint phone and there was exactly 10 minutes on the 2800 mile journey where I did not have signal. Quite ironically it was while I was 10 minutes from home. I have noticed I get a dropped call about once a week lately and that is quite odd. Haven't had a dropped call in 4 years then all of a sudden... Maybe you're right that Spring is going to hell

    28. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!

    29. Re:Here's an idea... by dknj · · Score: 1

      sprint != nextel.

      sprint ~ 1.8ghz
      nextel ~ 800mhz

      sprint > *

  2. Investitudinally speaking... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    "4G" "NGN" "WiMAX" "UMTS-based technology dubbed TD-CDMA" "Flash-OFDM" Nice load of acronyms, that's $4.5Bn invested.

    I for one welcome our new Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX) technology platform foundation mobile broadband Next-Generation Network (NGN) build-out 4G overlords.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Investitudinally speaking... by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      MMDS

      Missed one!

    2. Re:Investitudinally speaking... by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      For those not acronym-challenged (TnAC):

      IFOWON WiMAX TPF mobile broadband NGN build-out 4G overlords.

    3. Re:Investitudinally speaking... by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      For some reason I'm now hungry for alphabet soup.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  3. Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich. by zymano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient.

    A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.

    I BETYA SPRINT WILL MAKE WIMAX REALLY AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE !!!!
    http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&p a=showpage&pid=37
    http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.ht ml
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum

  4. positive space by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    "This is very positive for the space as a whole," said Daniel Meron, analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

    I have never felt more confident after that statement.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  5. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient. A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
    I'm all for the public, free use of the radio spectrum, but what makes you think that the government would do a better job? They're the ones who split up the spectrum in the first place.
    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  6. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.


    You mean you don't see this as a salvo in the public/private WiFi battle?


    "Senator Claghorn here, and I most strenuously, I say strenuosly protest the people's tax dollars bein' spent competing with this fine company. I say we shut down the government funded public service and give the money back to the other porkbarrel projects it was so wrongly taken from. Now excuse me, I have a golf outting this afternoon with some fine corporate gentlemen."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  7. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by theJamAbides · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't want our government owning that stuff.

    --
    James Taylor
    (No, I'm not related. However, I am on the no-fly list)
  8. So many standards by dsmey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great. So now we'll have Sprint/Nextel using WiMax on 2.5ghz, Verizon using CDMA on 850/1900mhz, Cingular using UMTS/HSPDA on 850/1900/2100mhz, and TMobile using GSM 1900mhz. Why can't we be like Europeans and just settle on one wireless technology?

    1. Re:So many standards by MrZaius · · Score: 2, Informative

      WiMAX, even the proposed mobile standard, has nothing to do with cell phones. This is a WISP thing. WiMAX will also be used extensively in Australia and Europe, although more likely over 3.5ghz than 2.5ghz.

    2. Re:So many standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, GSM is the standard that Europe uses for cell phones and they use it on two frequencies, 900 and 1800 mhz. PCS already clogged the 900 mhz frequency, so it wasn't available here to either Cingular or T-Mobile, which use the same technology as Europe, just on different frequency. My 2 year old Motorola MPx220 can talk on all of them.

    3. Re:So many standards by dsmey · · Score: 1

      Um, that is what I was referring to in the first place.

    4. Re:So many standards by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Why can't we be like Europeans and just settle on one wireless technology?

      Have you seen what the europeans are paying for text messages?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:So many standards by muftak · · Score: 1

      won't be long before wimax voip phones will be available...

    6. Re:So many standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Europeans have had two world wars and a little thing called Black Death

    7. Re:So many standards by nexcomlink · · Score: 1

      Because everyone has there choices making just one standard sounds kind of selfish and kind of makes that standard monopolize the market. If you are going to offer something the other guy does, what competition is there?

      You want to also make the car a standard as well where you only drive one car just like everyone else? Or do you want the option to select a different maker, a different model, etc.

      I will like to have choices and have companies fight to make better technologies instead of everyone just depending on one standard.

    8. Re:So many standards by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Oh great- why can't WiMax be on a single frequency?

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    9. Re:So many standards by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I think you're exaggerating (probably unintentionally) the situation in the US and underexaggerating the situation in Europe.

      Cingular runs GSM, with UMTS rolled out in a few areas. It'll be supporting GSM for many years, probably decades to come. Cingular customers roam on T-Mobile's network, and in some places T-Mobile users can roam on Cingular's. It's nice.

      UMTS is essentially the next version of GSM. It's undergone a name change largely because the telcos were running out of bandwidth and wanted to try to persuade governments to release more spectrum. They came up with this concept called "3G", which is like what we have right now, only with Internet and video phones, and promised they'd try to find a more efficient way of using the new spectrum allocated to them.

      GSM was thus modified to support a "WCDMA" air interface (similar to the air interface in IS-95, as used by Sprint and Verizon. Note that's the only similarity. Ethernet has more in common with Token Ring than UMTS does with IS-95) which is considered more efficient with bandwidth than GSM's old air interface system, a few additional higher level protocols were added, and the product rebranded as "UMTS", and "3G". UMTS isn't compatible with phones that only support GSM, but phones that support both technologies can use a network that supports a mixture of both: that is, if you're in the middle of a conversation on a Cingular phone and walk out of range of a UMTS transmitter, and the only strong signals are from a "GSM classic" transmitter, the phone will hop to that tower seamlessly without dropping the call. And vice-versa. Usually. When it works.

      So in that sense, Cingular's running "all recent versions of GSM", while T-Mobile's running "almost all recent versions of GSM". T-Mobile and Cingular both support EDGE, for example, which is yet another air-interface bolted on to GSM.

      Meanwhile in Europe, the situation is the same. Mobile phone companies split into those running GSM, those running UMTS, and those running both. The only major difference is that, for the most part, those only running UMTS are running it on a special frequency. GSM is available on 900 and 1800MHz. UMTS somewhere in the 2GHz range.

      Both Europe and America are preparing for a roll-out of WiMax.

      What's the difference between Europe and America? Both run GSM on two frequencies, and have a mixture of both regular GSM and UMTS available. Both are planning roll-outs of WiMax. Both have a few esoteric standards intended to replace trunked radio (eg. Nextel's iDEN and Europe's TETRA.) In addition to legacy standards (both Europe and America have them), and the failed European initiatives for microcellular networks (CT2, DECT - the latter lives on in non-commercial settings) the only major difference is that some American phone companies use a third standard IS-95 ("CDMA"). That's it. That's the only addition to the alphabet soup.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  9. The Environment by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is very likely going to cause even more problems for the environment. Anyone care to comment on the recent heatwave that has swept the planet within the past month? Record temperatures on every part of the globe. With the worldwide deployment of WiMax, we'll be dumping even more energies into the environment that don't belong there. This isn't just AM or FM radio we're talking here. We're talking microwaves. The VERY SAME energy that's used to cook your food in a microwave oven! All we're doing is turning the planet into one big Amana Radar Range and global temps will skyrocket to new extremes of both hi and lo temps.

    We've already done tremendous and very ironic damage with air conditioning. In our interest of keeping our working and living spaces comfortably climate controlled we forgot one thing: thermal energy is like water. If you take heat from one space and pump it out, it has to go somewhere. We've been using ACs in our houses, our cars, and businesses, and god knows where else to pump the heat out. Well, where does all that heat go? Into the outside air. And what happens when you pump water into the outdoors? You make ponds, lakes and oceans. Same thing with heat, only worse. All that heat is now coming back to get us. But, even more irony... because it's getting hotter out there, we're using our ACs more than ever before and pumping MORE heat out! I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s. We've got a huge problem folks and WiMax is only going to make it worse. Stop them before it's too late.

    Oh... and the internet is a series of tubes.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:The Environment by TimeTrav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s. We've got a huge problem folks and WiMax is only going to make it worse. Stop them before it's too late.

      I rate this troll 9/10. Bravo.

      --
      [sig]you really dont want the answers, trust me[/sig]
    2. Re:The Environment by Twixter · · Score: 1
      Rockin'. I can't wait to cook HotPockets (tm) with my cell phone. Now...where do I get my Philip K. Dick codpiece?

      -Todd

      --

      -Todd

      Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.

    3. Re:The Environment by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

      We're talking microwaves. The VERY SAME energy that's used to cook your food in a microwave oven! All we're doing is turning the planet into one big Amana Radar Range and global temps will skyrocket to new extremes of both hi and lo temps

      Mein Gott... you do realize they've been using Microwaves for years now without fried Bird falling from the sky, right?

      Troll.

    4. Re:The Environment by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not thermal energy displacement per se that's the cause of the problem, it's the CO2 used to create the energy needed to displace that thermal energy. Make one place hotter to make another cooler and you still have the same amount of thermal energy. Mix in the CO2 discharge, and then there's the start of a problem. Add a fresh daily batch of solar heat, have CO2 prevent thermal radiation into space thanks to the green house effect, and you get rising avergage temps. There's also the problem of higher temps creating more H2O vapor which leads to higher temps but, CO2 is a bit more difficult to get rid of than H2O vapor at the temps range we have on this planet.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    5. Re:The Environment by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      But, even more irony... because it's getting hotter out there, we're using our ACs more than ever before and pumping MORE heat out! I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s.
      On the plus side, it will be a relatively cool and dry 8 degrees Kelvin inside my house.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:The Environment by Cocoronixx · · Score: 0

      Absolutely correct. HEY! Theres one flying over your head right now actually. What a coincidence!

      --
      "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
    7. Re:The Environment by Zippy_wonderslug · · Score: 1

      MMM..fresh roast sparrow and pigeon platter. Where do I sign up? Oh wait, we can't, but I seriously love listening to these claims made by the environazis. There are massive amounts of radiation from every imaginable chunk of the spectrum falling on our planet everyday. Granted the atmosphere soaks up a lot of it, but we still get hit all the time.

      Someone needs to teach these people how a microwave really works http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave1.htm

      Hey after reading that article, maybe we can all just tweak our home wireless setups a little bit and do the cooking from the access point.

    8. Re:The Environment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Make one place hotter to make another cooler and you still have the same amount of thermal energy.

      The distribution of temperature is also highly important. If you disagree, I suggest you spend your next summer vacation in an active volcano.

      think about this little item: the "conveyor" (global current) is powered by ice. When the heat moves toward the poles the ice melts. When the ice melts, the conveyor stops.

      Won't that be exciting? So much for anything like stability of weather.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:The Environment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Mein Gott... you do realize they've been using Microwaves for years now without fried Bird falling from the sky, right?

      you do realize that birds are somewhat frequently cooked by military radar - sometimes on purpose - and thus you are completely wrong, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:The Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard communism is causing global warming and saving the whales has led to hunger in Africa.

    11. Re:The Environment by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      Since the total industrial heat output is probably negligible in relation to the size of the earth, you're probably right. However it takes a lot of energy to cool something and heating something is . This added energy ends up as heat and thus causes the average temperature of the system to rise.

  10. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    Yes, plus it would make it easier for the government to filter content and eavesdrop on its citizens. Sounds wonderful.

    State-sponsored monopolies have been used successfully in the past. I would prefer my communications not to be owned by the government.

  11. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by zymano · · Score: 1

    Riiiiight. The phone companies are our good buddies. They are so consumer friendly and would never lie & cheat us.

  12. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other ideological considerations aside, replacing a corporate monopoly with a government monopoly does not efficiency create. Government failures can easily be far worse than market failures.

  13. Re:This comment is currently under construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sprint should focus on better customer support (what they have now is piss poor) and better phones. I am stuck in a 2 year contract with a 3.5 year old phone. If I choose to upgrade the phone for a $50-$75 credit, I get reamed with another 2 year contract. In a few months when the contract is up, Sprint gets flushed, will they give a rats ass, not likely. Just another number they can bash...

  14. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by zymano · · Score: 1, Troll

    Would there have been an internet without gov help ?

    Do you believe the phone companies loved cannibalizing their own product ?

    I love getting nickel and dimed by the jackal phone co's for web access.

  15. WiMAX Pirate Stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, the spectrum is licensed, but is that really going to prevent people from hacking devices to use the spectrum in ways not sanctioned by Nextel? Besides, the range of WiMAX is such that one will be able to wardrive without leaving home (in some areas). And once the price of WiMAX modems comes down, thanks to Nextel/Clearwire/etc., who will still want to use WiFi? All that unlicensed WiFi spectrum will become WiMAX spectrum--and will be used a whole lot more efficiently.

    1. Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations by MrZaius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Four things:
      One: WiMAX is an open protocol that'll work over a variety of spectra. It's possible to do it over unlisenced bands, UHF (700mhz), MMDS (2.5ghz), and just about anything else you can't shake a stick at. (I assume you can't, anyway. Can diviners locate radio towers?) But one way or another, it's already on the market, and it already works its way around a WiFi wap well enough.
      Two: WiFi (54 meg per sec with 802.11g, considerably more with 802.11n) will continue to be faster, easier/cheaper to implement, and far more common for small networks. That and they've got momentum behind 'em. Dig the lifespan of the ethernet port and the amount of money already spent by every coffee shop, hotel, and law firm in the country on WAPs.
      Three: There very likely won't be any hacking necessary to change a modem that they sell you to use unlicensed spectrum. Assuming it's possible at all. They'll do it one of two ways: A - They'll put the modem inside the house, run RF cable up to an antenna that down converts the 2.5ghz signal into something used by conventional cable systems and use a regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodem. B - They'll embed everything in the antenna and you'll be screwed/unable to change the broadcast frequency. My money's on B.
      Four: The WiMAX modems may become considerably cheaper, but that doesn't matter much. No harder to lock a rogue connection to a WISP's network than it is to knock 'em off a cable providers.

    2. Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      They'll do it one of two ways: A - They'll put the modem inside the house, run RF cable up to an antenna that down converts the 2.5ghz signal into something used by conventional cable systems and use a regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodem. B - They'll embed everything in the antenna and you'll be screwed/unable to change the broadcast frequency. My money's on B.

      They'll do both. They'll go with (A) if you're far enough out from their nearest tower and they think your signal will be weak. They'll go with (B) first if they think they can.

      No harder to lock a rogue connection to a WISP's network than it is to knock 'em off a cable providers.

      It's called "volume control", and, yes, they can do it. They change your SLA on the fly, thus telling your modem to slow down. If your modem fails to respond to the SLA change, they bring out the banhammer, and good luck getting their DHCP system to give you a new IP. And just for the record, those "static IPs" that you buy... they're just reserved DHCP-ed addresses and aren't really static at all.

    3. Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      They'll do it one of two ways: A - They'll put the modem inside the house, run RF cable up to an antenna that down converts the 2.5ghz signal into something used by conventional cable systems and use a regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodem. B - They'll embed everything in the antenna and you'll be screwed/unable to change the broadcast frequency. My money's on B.

      ::They'll do both. They'll go with (A) if you're far enough out from their nearest tower and they think your signal will be weak. They'll go with (B) first if they think they can.


      Actually, it depends a great deal more on the whims of the manufacturer and the expense of building and maintaining antennas that are seperate from the modems. We have systems that 900mhz and 2.5ghz systems that use both designs. The range of the equipment isn't determined by whether you package the modem into the antenna so much as it is the broadcast frequency and strength. Using 2.5ghz, we currently cover some 30 miles on the MMDS channel we use for our downstream, regardless of the equipment we use to receive it.

      Case in point, Alvarion, another major WiMAX equipment provider (albeit one that I don't have any hands-on experience with - their prices are way out of whack) is building all of their equipment into indoor and outdoor antennas that are self-contained (although the outdoor units require a power-over-ethernet inserter). Motorolla does the same with their Canopy systems, although I suppose it's possible they won't with their WiMAX systems. However, I believe they'll stick with the same model. It means one less item to build and it locks the customer in to a greater degree to bundle the antenna and modem. Even from the customer perspective, the only really negative thing about it is that CAT5 is more of a pain to deal with than RF (can't/shouldn't splice it, hard to adequately ground it, not all that dependable for outdoor mounts, etc.)

      And just for the record, those "static IPs" that you buy... they're just reserved DHCP-ed addresses and aren't really static at all.
      They are where I work ;) Surely Sprint's IP assignment system will be a more than a little bit honerous, compared. Say goodbye to the neighborly small WISP.

    4. Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few things:

      1. WiMAX doesn't work on "anything you can't shake a stick at". There are profiles within the forum which dictate frequencies and channel bandwidth.

      2. There is no 'down converting' of 2.5Ghz to 2.4Ghz. WiMAX and WiFi are -completely- different PHY and MAC.

    5. Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      There is no 'down converting' of 2.5Ghz to 2.4Ghz.

      That's not what I meant. I currently operate a 2.5ghz system that converts all signals into the 30-900mhz ranges before it's processed. Don't know whether there's room for such devices in the WiMAX spec, but they are available.

      It's handy for several reasons. One, it makes it possible to use standard cable-industry test equipment, to rebroadcast TV over the MMDS, and to use regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodems, albeit with rather unusual modulation.

  16. No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by InfinityWpi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing has been 'rolled out' yet! It's been announced that they've decided to roll it out in the future. But is it not currently rolled out, nor is it in the process of rolling out. This is like going back in time a year and saying Vista has been rolled out...

    1. Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      i think you mean "This is like going forward in time a year and saying Vista has been rolled out..."

    2. Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by Zildy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who said headlines had to be truthful? Besides, I can't count the number of times /. headlines made it sound like something has already been done when the summary admits it's "being developed", "in the planning phase", "talked about".

      They do it for the clicks, man.

      Review the Temporal Guide to Slashdot Headline Reading:

      1. Present tense means wait a few years.
      2. Future tense means it'll never happen.
      3. Past tense means SlashBack.

      --
      Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
    3. Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Yep... you missed last week when it was announced that Japan was "building a base on the moon"(actually, the Japanese government was merely stating that a base on the moon was feasible before 2020 or so). Countless Slashdotters were screaming about how behind the US was from Japan (I guess our government hadn't gotten around to announcing that it would be feasible to build a base on the moon before 2020, making our government inferior).

    4. Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like going a year in the future and saying Vista hs been rolled out...

    5. Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Japan has built the ladder to moon! Japan claims moon as Japanese territory!

  17. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by $1uck · · Score: 1

    I agree completely. I also think things like cable/power lines/water pipes/roadways, basically any network system that requires use of eminent domain should belong to the people (ie the government).
    The end points and suppliers should all be non-government (with the possible exception of water as thats is a natural resource). To bad there isn't a common-sense party that is largely libertarian but uses common sense and acknowledges where the government is useful (or should be useful).

  18. hmm global warming? by fury88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't like the mere SOUND of Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX). Maybe THIS is what's causing global warming. Better keep those microwave meals in the freezer!

    1. Re:hmm global warming? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      don't like the mere SOUND of Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX). Maybe THIS is what's causing global warming. Better keep those microwave meals in the freezer!
      Screw that, what about all the people on pacemakers? They are all going to have simultaneous heart attacks when the network goes live!
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  19. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    "Riiiiight. The phone companies are our good buddies. They are so consumer friendly and would never lie & cheat us."

    Riiiight. Government entities are our good buddies. They are so citizen friendly and would never lie & cheat us.

    Companies are nothing but a group of people (yes, real human beings like me and maybe you) that are all working towards comon goals that will hopefully produce a profit. These humans include stock holders, board members, directors/managers, and employees/volunteers. There is nothing *evil* about a company, so don't try and personify it.... this also goes for gov't entities. I've worked for numerous organizations in both the private (F500s to mom & pops) and public (local, state & fed) sectors and it is my strong opinion that there are many-MANY more bad practices/deals/etc in public sector organizations than private ones.

    Now, do I agree with Sprint owning this spectrum? No... but I wouldn't agree to a gov't entity owning it either. Do you want your provider to have the efficiency of the USPO? I sure the hell don't.

  20. Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORKING by mbourgon · · Score: 0

    Gee, how nice that they're going to offer WiMax. Meanwhile, my window-facing cube in an office building downtown gets 1 bar, if I'm lucky. Sprint's ability to manage the calls it already has is horrific - how does this help? New frequency, same crappy coverage?

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  21. Wireless revolution by ctime · · Score: 0

    Great, now I'll be able to check myspace from anywhere at blazing fast 4G speeds!

    On a more serious note, a unified Wimax and the ubiquitous and mobile high speed data it will provide will revolutionize society as we know it. I'm just sayin is all..

  22. Stupid headline by devjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sprint didn't "roll out" anything. They announced their intent to spend money to do so.

  23. and the monopoly continues... by radarsat1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Huh.. reading this made me realize that wireless isn't going to change anything..

    One of the major complaints about the telecom industry is how it is controlled by a natural monopoly -- that is, there are only so many physical fibers that can be distributed around the country. It means you can't have competition: A competing telecom company can't just tear up the streets and install their own lines to compete with big business.

    So we've always been told that wireless will change all that.. as soon as WiMAX is available, suddenly we won't be restricted to physical lines! We'll be able to run community networks and municipal public internet access.

    But then.. this article reminds me that of course the people who will be installing all the wireless access points are going to be the big telecom companies. They'll still be the ones charging for access. And there is only so much bandwidth to go around... much less, in fact, than what is available on the wires. So as long as companies like Sprint jump in and take it first, no one will be able to compete.

    Sad to see that wireless won't be "the answer" to cheap and available telecom.

    1. Re:and the monopoly continues... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There is a point to that, but not as restricting of a problem as you might think.

      WiMax is intended to be offered in given spectrum allocations, but the standard. Let's say WiMax can get 20Mbps per TV channel's worth of bandwidth, but I'm just using the ATSC standard, WiMax might allow for more. With the common 50:1 oversell rate for typical broadband service, that provides 1000 households with 1Mbps per TV channel space. Take a tower with six 60 degree sector antennas, and that one channel, for one tower, can serve 6000 households. We shouldn't assume that this will completely replace DSL or cable, if it's competitive, let's say it takes a third of the broadband market, an area with 18,000 households can be served with just one TV channel's worth of spectrum.

      These are all assumptions but I think this has a chance to put some pressure on the broadband market, especially for mobile computer users, home users can't just take their notebooks anywhere, but a WiMax notebook user should be able to connect just about anywhere.

    2. Re:and the monopoly continues... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      One thing I forgot to mention is the footprint. I was assuming that one tower can serve a five mile radius, granted, that's about 75 square miles but I think this service might be viable if it is sold as home broadband.

    3. Re:and the monopoly continues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User-based wimax mesh may be the answer to monopolies like that.

    4. Re:and the monopoly continues... by wheatking · · Score: 1

      there is a bunch of startups (ok, very moneyed startups like Clearwire, M2Z) aiming to battle the traditional telcos in the WiMax arena, hoping that not having to dig up streets and relying on existing fiber backbone bandwidth (available rather cheap vs. a few years ago) will do the trick. The dollars are on their side, not sure if their math is right though...

  24. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    The answer is "who knows" but government help isn't the same as government ownership.

    I think government involvement is essential to the buildout of infrastructure. Otherwise a large portion of the population won't be served. I don't believe government ownership of the infrastructure is in our best interests, and that's something that's consistently believed in the US but not always in other countries. The US accomplished these things through granted monopolies, regulation, subsidies and mandates.

  25. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

    "Would there have been an internet without gov help ?"
    I would bet that an infinite number of universities with an infinite number of researchers doing an infinite number of networking experiments (with an infinite number of generous alumni) could create something similar to the modern Internet.

  26. Re:Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this goes hand-in-hand with "HOW ABOUT YOU INSTALL IT IN MY AREA" -- as it is, i'm lucky to have two cell carriers to choose from, neither one of which offers any high-speed data option. (the fact that existing offerings are overpriced is, as they say, an entirely separate problem.)

  27. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
    ROFL.
  28. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand your concerns, but sorry, I don't see "the public" investing a $4.5B network and have a shot at making it effective, not in the US. Maybe the Fed or many of the states might spend $45B combined and still make it a worthless piece of trash. At least with WiMax, there can be competitors using other spectrum.

    WiFi is not good for connectivity, it is way too short-range, especially if one county needs 60,000 radios (like in the county Ann Arbor, MI is in) to make such a sufficient mesh to cover all the land area. That doesn't make for a good nationwide network, especially if you multiply that by 3,141 counties.

    Maybe WiMax won't really work, but I don't think WiFi is effective either. With WiMax, they can use a good amount of power, combine it with a bunch of sector antennas to divide the user base (like standard cell towers) so fewer towers can handle the same or more users.

    Personally, I'm skeptical of the "Open Spectrum" ideology. Maybe if they demonstrate or diagram the physics in actual implementation detail without handwaving arguments, I can consider it.

  29. FTTH is Unnecessary by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fibre to the home is cool, but totally unneeded for 99% of people. Chances are you already had a coax line into yoru house. Do you have any idea the theoretical bandwidth you can shove down a coax cable? It's in the Gbps. There are already existing ISPs that sell 30Mbps over coax.

    The problem is all the spectrum is being hogged up with the analog cable channels. The cable companies are itching to get rid of these - once the price point is low enough on set top boxes so they can give them for free to anyone who needs them, you're going to see available bandwidth over coax explode.

    The coax pipe is very thick. It is not as thick as a fibre pipe, but it is more than enough to be able to drive all the HD streams and internet porn you could ever want.

    1. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by smclean · · Score: 1

      Well, coax cable may be capable of carrying large amounts of data, but the signal on the line isn't just yours, it's your entire area's signal. You might be sharing that signal with tens of thousands of other households. Even if fiber is normally arranged in the same way (is it?), the throughput potential is still so much greater... But yeah, they should nuke those damn analog channels and give me some real bandwidth :)

      --

      "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

    2. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by Amouth · · Score: 1

      where i live you have a switching node that sends a powered cable out to a box. then max 4 houses plug into this..

      the switching node is fiber so.. no you don't share it with thousands of other households.. mabey a few but not many

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by maxume · · Score: 1

      Of course, Verizon could give a shit about the coax running into most homes, they don't own it. For them, the point of FTTH is having a big fat pipe to sell.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, fiber is also shared with a bunch of households. Here are some things you probably didn't know about both fiber and coax; first, the fact that fiber is a loop, and well-shared. Second, that the cable network starts out as either fiber or HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) and only becomes coax on its way to your door. you do not have an unbroken line of coax leading to the cable co unless you're next door, and even that is doubtful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The problem is all the spectrum is being hogged up with the analog cable channels. The cable companies are itching to get rid of these - once the price point is low enough on set top boxes so they can give them for free to anyone who needs them, you're going to see available bandwidth over coax explode.

      Adelphia already got rid of them. They programed the boxes over thier wires. So far, my internet connection has yet to see a speed boost, and the box now frequently 'drops' frames and sound. Its very frustrating to watch TV to have the picture freeze, start again (after missing a few seconds) and then have the sound out of sync. These problems started when they went all digital.

      No thanks, I'll take the FTTH from the city, when it comes in a few months.

    6. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTTP, as deployed by Verizon and others, is not a loop. It is a passively split point to multi-point architecture. The fiber leaves the OLT device in the office and is split into up to 32 terminations. The downstream bandwidth (622 Mb/s for BPON, 2.5 Gb/s for GPON) is broadcast and the upstream bandwidth (155 Mb/s for BPON, 1.2 Gb/s GPON) is allocated to each user. This is all per the G.983/4 (B/GPON) spec.

    7. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by Doug+Dante · · Score: 1
      DSL is 100% point-to-point and can run 29+ Mbps. Products based on Broadcom chips already do this, and they can do a lot better depending on the distance and wire quality. With each successive chip generation, the distances are increasing, and some are now close to 1 mile (5,000 feet, or about 1.6km). (No, I don't work for them).

      --
      The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
    8. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by edb · · Score: 1

      Man, I'd be pleased with Fiber To The Town.

      Out here in the boonies, TPC says we won't have DSL or even ISDN in our lifetimes. Cable modem? Needs a cable. Satellite? There's a mountain in the way of line-of-sight (not to mention the latency issues).

      We have a Telco Remote Interface in town, basically a remote central office for the phone company. It concentrates calls, and even handles local in-town calls without bothering the outside world. But its own pipe back to the mother ship is not much more than a single DSL.

      So when d'ya think we might expect WiMax?

      The bummer about technologies that require population density to be cost-effective is that they, well, require population density.

      It really wasn't all that long ago (pre so-called "Rural Electrification") that it was common for there to be no electricity in a given home or even a business.

      Guess I'll have to be content with burning fossil fuel to get down the hill to $day_job, rather than telecommuting, for the foreseeable future.

      --
      In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
    9. Re:FTTH is Unnecessary by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      DSL is 100% point-to-point and can run 29+ Mbps. Products based on Broadcom chips already do this, and they can do a lot better depending on the distance and wire quality. With each successive chip generation, the distances are increasing, and some are now close to 1 mile (5,000 feet, or about 1.6km). (No, I don't work for them).

      5,000 feet is jack diddly shit. Most subscribers live over 10,000 feet. In most of the places where people currently have trouble getting broadband, which is to say more rural locations, most people live over 15,000 feet. Including me. Wake me up when they have about 50,000 feet. Cable can run amazing distances, DSL can not. DOCSIS cable will do 45Mbps downstream and 11Mbps shared upstream, but the downstream is not shared - each modem has its own piece of the frequency range. And, mind you, that's the kind of DOCSIS CM currently in use. Of course, in the real world, it's more like 20Mbps, which frankly is enough for damn near anything the home user wants to do today. The upstream is more worrying, since it's shared. Then again, ADSL is also asymmetrical; I dunno about the new kind but the older ones are also asynchronous - if you have 384kbps up/1.5Mbps down ADSL, if you are sending 256kbps, you can only receive 512kbps. DOCSIS cable has the same problem, but since it tends to be capped far lower than its peak throughput, you'll never notice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. Re:Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORK by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 0

    isn't that the point in having a different frequency? different ranges, penetration, etc...

    --
    for a minute there, i lost myself...
  31. Excellent, any word on when... by Jtheletter · · Score: 0, Troll

    the fiber infrastructure buildout that was paid for with 200 Billion-with-a-B taxpayer dollars will be ready? What's that you say, not ready yet and you need more money? Gee, where could you find some? I have no idea... ooh look shiny new wimax towers!

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  32. 30 Mbps? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    There are already existing ISPs that sell 30Mbps over coax.

    Where, what's rent like, and do I have to learn a new language or wear funny hats?
    Oh, and can you acutally USE it for more than a couple of days without going over your limit for the month?

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  33. Qualcomm? by braindead_in · · Score: 1

    There goes Flash OFDM. Will it ever see the light of day? Dont think so.

    Qualcomm definately missed a trick regarding the standards. The times had changed.

    1. Re:Qualcomm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Qualcomm definately missed a trick regarding the standards. The times had changed.
      But you missed the proper spelling for definitely.
  34. $4.5Bn ??? by neonprimetime · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why in the summary is there a Bn after the dollar amount? Wouldn't $4.5B be sufficient? Is there another abbreviation for a large number that starts with a B and doesn't end in an n?

    1. Re:$4.5Bn ??? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      So it wouldn't be confused with "bazillion"?

    2. Re:$4.5Bn ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That would be "Bz". :-)

    3. Re:$4.5Bn ??? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Because it looks a little nicer, and just 'B' is too vague for the vapid mouthbreathers in the mainstream media.

      Besides, 'BN' is already taken.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:$4.5Bn ??? by crondeemon · · Score: 1

      billiard.

              ( 1 billiard = 1 quadrillion )

    5. Re:$4.5Bn ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this news is on the topic of "communications",

      B = Bytes
      b = bits

      Ok?

  35. I will believe it and trust it when.. by Zippy_wonderslug · · Score: 0

    Sprint can come up with a network that functions like it is supposed to. Where I live, Sprint was the local phone company (until the merger with Nextel). They also built a new cell tower that I should have been getting full signal strength from, except they forgot to activate it. When they were finished with the tower, they basically didn't connect it to the rest of the network. Their diagnostics showed that it was functioning so they didn't believe me when I called them that my cell didn't work. They had to send out a technician to "flip the switch". I don't see a new network being any different/better.

  36. Multiple Choice by DancesWithDupes · · Score: 1

    Is this artcle:

    a) News For Nerds
    b) Stuff That Matters
    c) an infomercial
    d) all of the above

    1. Re:Multiple Choice by DancesWithDupes · · Score: 1

      > Is this artcle:

      > a) News For Nerds
      > b) Stuff That Matters
      > c) an infomercial
      > d) all of the above

      Yes, I'm new here.

  37. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh uspo is the worst example in this situation, due to history etc. In the corporate case all people are working toward a common goal, making more money, as much money as possible for the owner(s) i.e dodge v ford. Now in a gov the goal is to serve the people. Granted if the people dont keep the govt in check it goes to a chaotic system, which is usually much worse than a corporation.

  38. The govt will certainly do a better job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm all for the public, free use of the radio spectrum, but what makes you think that the government would do a better job?
     
    ...of conducting massive surveillance, logging and recording everything that passes thru a wireless network infrastructure if they build and run all the towers and backhauls.

  39. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by timeOday · · Score: 1
    I understand your concerns, but sorry, I don't see "the public" investing a $4.5B network and have a shot at making it effective, not in the US.
    The Interstate Freeway system is effective. In fact I'm pretty darn grateful for it, and glad that it's not privately owned. And I have my choice among thousands of private companies to carry me or my stuff down the road.
  40. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by theJamAbides · · Score: 0

    I'm just saying that I would trust private enterprise over any government. And that goes for whomever is in office at the time. Smaller gov't is better gov't in my opinion.

    --
    James Taylor
    (No, I'm not related. However, I am on the no-fly list)
  41. Intel may be the saving grace on this one... by Mutiny32 · · Score: 1

    For those of you who say that a glabal standard isn't possible because Sprint controls the spectrum, think again. Like someone else said, the technology can run on a multitude of different frequencies. "So what? Sprint will lock you into using their service by making you use their hardware that runs on theirs ond only their network," you may say. "Nothing will change from how it is today." Well, if you didn't know, Intel will be integrating WiMAX into Centrino. Now it is highly doubtful Intel would be so foolish as to lock themselves into a single market that isn't accessible in all areas. This means that WiMAX will be "unlockable" kind of like how GSM phones are today. Which is also why GSM is the global standard. And WiMAX is already being deployed in many countries around the world, not just the US.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see WiMAX/CDMA/GSM triband phones/cards popping up in the not so distant future.

  42. Here's a reason by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Informative

    The current wireless providers cancel accounts when people actually use them; the boards are littered with EVDO users complaining that, for example, Verizon axed them when their throughput hit 10 gigs a month. Heck, even Consumer Affairs got shafted.

    Will there be similar limitations on WiMax? Without a reasonable TOS, I'd turn it down.

  43. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the spectrum isn't a like a truck that can drive down the freeway, it's really more like a buch of tubes....

  44. cell phone radar? by Riverman2 · · Score: 1

    I've got the razr + bluetooth headset, all this thing needs is a little phased array radar and it's a tricorder. That would be so cool!

  45. a few weeks using Canopy now by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We got wireless wimax a la motorola canopy service and it's quite good-as long as it isn't heavy storming out, then it drops to dismal, so I have kept my landline and dialup connection as a backup. But seeing as how it has taken me since the mid 90s to now to get ANY broadband, I love it! It's a cinch that in areas not currently served by conventional broadband,(roughly still half or more the geographical area of the US) you are going to be waiting between a LONG time until never to have any of the big companies run you good copper or coax or fiber, so, wireless broadband is where it's at. So maybe sometime soon we'll have even more competition and prices will drop and speeds go up! I think a good rule of thumb is look to where satellite Tv is common-those are the areas probably not served by any broadband yet. It's a huge potential market out there, and wireless appears to be the only cost effective market solution. Satellite internet for the extreme boonies, small scale boonies wimax, every place else ya'all already got some choices most likely with wires or fiber or shortrange 802.11 stuff.

  46. BFE Idaho? by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    When did they move BFE to the States? Or has Idaho moved to the Middle East?

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:BFE Idaho? by Synic · · Score: 1

      When did Africa become the Middle East? Seriously, look at a map, folks. Egypt is in AFRICA.

  47. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by suggsjc · · Score: 1

    I've got my money on an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of staples "easy" buttons creating an infinite number of nobel peace prizes that are each an infinite times better than the ones we've currently got...all the while creating an internet better than what we got today.

    In fact, I'll give you infinite to one odds.

    --
    When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  48. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    This is the telecom industry you're talking about. It's like a school for inefficiency and bureaucracy.

    If the choices are government or a telco we're already screwed.

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  49. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by l1_wulf · · Score: 1

    Without RF being split and regulated, we would be at the mercy of "the kid next door" broadcasting his own video blog on whatever frequency he chooses, including, yes, your local TV stations. Technically, he doesn't even have to broadcast over the TV frequencies in use. If the frequency is close enough and he puts out enough power, ingress will occur and you still won't be able to watch your TV. Hell, enough power and he could turn your cable line into an antenna and then you'd really be crying.

    I haven't seen this recently, but I remember hearing CB over regular FM radio channels while taking long road trips with the family. It wasn't until much later that I learned that these guys were using huge linear amps to boost their signals quite a few magnitudes beyond the regulated wattage. In addition to seeing these "mega" CB radios, I've watched someone running a rogue ham station do stupid things with his setup. Needless to say, less than a year later he was caught and fined heavily. I lost contact with him after that...

    Oh, as for belonging to the public. Get a ham license and play all that you want. There is quite a bit that can be done, including data networking over ham.

  50. Re:Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORK by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    If it makes you feel any better the Sprint employees couldn't get Sprint signal on the campus for years. I think they built a tower in the middle of the campus to fix that.

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  51. Re:Why would we want this? by bn-7bc · · Score: 0

    I know it's simple to do that, but is i legal? Brobably not, it will be tha same as you using youre nabors cordles phone base to du youre calling. IIRC it is eliegal tu utelise someones resources withot ther prior concent.

  52. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Katan · · Score: 1

    So how many billion do you think the US. Treasury netted from selling this spectrum to the highest bidder? If the government were to make Wimax public, it would lost all of this revenue, plus having the expense of building the network themselves.

    Face it, these things cost _money_. If you had the money, you could do it yourself. It just happens that big telecom is the only private entity with the money/wherewithall to do it. Otherwise, get ready for the good ol' taxpayer to foot 3x the bill for a supposedly "free" network. And then what do we have, another fiscal boat anchor on the federal government for the next 20 years.

    --
    K
  53. Where's the downside? by Envy+Life · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that Wimax does not require a cell tower every mile, and is not subject to the constant local environmental asessments of having cell towers everywhere. A single tower can broadcast as far as 30 miles in all directions. In most remote areas of the globe they are finding it much cheaper to deploy Wimax than to fork over the exorbitant costs of laying cable. As long as the microwaves don't fry everyone, we may eventually find it so much cheaper to use Wimax that internet service will become so low cost that everyone will have it...everywhere. No more people digging up our lawns to lay cable and cutting your sewer lines. No more destruction of endangered owl habitats for a new cell tower, and no more need for deploying WiFi in your house, which could very well be pumping more radiation to yourself and your neighbors than Wimax will be doing. Best of all, no more paying for WiFi service at Starbucks when you are already paying for it at home!!

  54. The FCC said no! by bobs666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The FCC said no!

    All you got was a near useless low power set.

    In 1984 Apple Computer petitioned the FCC for what is alot like WiMAX,
    A 10k to 15k network adaptor.
    But AT&T and others sweet talked the FCC out of the deal.
    Since this would by pass the local telco monopoly.
    So now you are going to pay for your access to
    the airwaves, its a lot like paying for your freedom of speech.

    Sounds like its time to start dumping Tea in the harbor boys.

  55. Sick of Qualcomm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wireless phone industry is under the thumb of Qualcomm's monopolistic patents hold over the technology they depend on.

    The wireless phone industry is also staring down the barrel of a possible future WiMax revolution completely obsoleting all the existing GSM and CDMA networks when WiMax VoIP handsets becoming the norm, and a billion tiny VoIP provider companies will be trying to make the cellphone giants irrelevant in a new world if widespread deployment of ubiquitous WiMAX public Internet comes to fruition. Mark my words, the giants will resolve at any costs to try to prevent that from happening.

    Who knows what exactly will transpire in the coming wireless future...

  56. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Dwindlehop · · Score: 1

    Correct. The sensible approach would be to limit signal strength by statute in much the same way that building height is regulated, for example. Then let the market figure out how to best use the spectrum available.

    --
    Jonathan Pearce jonathan@pearce.name
    3EAAFB2A http://www.jonathan.pearce.name/
  57. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    "This is the telecom industry you're talking about. It's like a school for inefficiency and bureaucracy. It's like a school for inefficiency and bureaucracy."

    OK I agree, but ask yourself why the telecom industry is full of inefficiency and bureaucracy. It's the same reason that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are full of inefficiency and bureaucracy here in the US. IMHO it is due to government/political involvement and the lack of consumer/voter action. We can't blame a "company" for problems... it's just a "company" filled with mostly descent people like OSTG ;).

    I believe that we need an outside (maybe international) non-profit and non-industry based organization to take care of rf regulation. The fees for licensing would go to developing new technology and supporting the new org instead of pouring back into the government FCC bureaucracy.

  58. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by zymano · · Score: 1

    Like Enron, Worldcom and Microsoft.

    Cell phone companies are crooks.

  59. Simple. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Because fiber will always be potentially faster.
    Wireless is great for mobile applications, limited user base, and for broadcast style systems.
    It is ideal for one transmitter and many receivers. WiMAX will be great for mobile and remote users. Even good for point to point links. I would rather have fiber in my home and office :)

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  60. wimax by ralph1 · · Score: 0

    I have sprint pluged a usb cable into my new pad synchronized with laptop load driver install sprint dialer place pda in wireless modem mode fire cox.

  61. Oh, Cablevision. Forget that! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Cablevision is infamous for their bandwidth capping. If you saturate your upsteam connection for a few hours or sometimes even a few minutes, you can get slapped with bandwidth restrictions.

    I get webpages fast enough. All I care about is server and P2P capabilities. I'm better off with cheap DSL since I'm actually allowed to use it.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  62. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell did this get modded +4 Insightful? To me, it reads as the logical equivalent of "I'm all for the public, free use of the radio spectrum, but what makes you think that the government would do a better job? This apple is tasty."

    Seriously, the second sentence in the parent is a total non-sequitur.

  63. It's not WiMAX but WiBro by photon87 · · Score: 1

    Note that the primary supplier is Samsung telecommunication USA (a US subsidy of Samsung electronics). What Samsung will supply is not WiMax but its home-grown WiBro. The news that Samsung cut a deal with Sprint-Nextel for WiBro made a headline in Korean newspapers today.

  64. Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    "Now in a gov the goal is to serve the people."

    Sigh, maybe in a perfect world, but that has not been the goal for ANY government organization I've worked for in the past 20 years. The last people gov't employees worry about serving are actual citizens and gov't managers seem to only worry about spending their budget (waste anywhere they can hide it) so that they don't lose any money in next year's budget. I'll take an organization that is profit driven over waste driven any day.

  65. Re:Oh, Cablevision. Forget that! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    So don't saturate it then. Cap at your router to only allow say, 20 Mbps. Then you don't saturate your connection and they won't bother you. This is what I do (with smaller numbers) after getting harassed by the local ISP.

    Locally capped 20Mbps is much better than uncapped 6Mbps.

  66. Gob'Mint vs libertarian-socialism by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

    This is probably not what you meant, since it is more of a government controlled monopoly, but things might get interesting in Portland with wifi.

    For years a group of private citizens have been setting up free wifi all over the city. This is what I like to think of as a good example of anarchy in action, or libertarian-socialism.

    Problem is, now the city has given a contract to a company to provide free wifi all over the city.

    Well, in and ove itself that isn't a problem, but some have speculated that this commercial "free" wifi might overpower and drown out the independent free wifi net.

    WiFi's Cloudy Future: Could the City's Plans Kill Free Wireless?

    --
    I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
    If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
    Courage.