Slashdot Mirror


Australian WiMax Pioneer Calls It a Disaster

Anonymous Coward writes "Garth Freeman, CEO of Australia's first WiMax operator, sat down at the recent International WiMax Conference in Bangkok and unleashed a tirade about the failings of the technology, leaving an otherwise pro-WiMax audience stunned. His company, Buzz Broadband, had deployed a WiMax network over a year ago, and Freeman left no doubt about what conclusions he had drawn. He claimed that 'its non-line of sight performance was "non-existent" beyond just 2 kilometres from the base station, indoor performance decayed at just 400m and that latency rates reached as high as 1000 milliseconds. Poor latency and jitter made it unacceptable for many Internet applications and specifically VoIP, which Buzz has employed as the main selling point to induce people to shed their use of incumbent services.' We've previously discussed the beginnings of WiMax as well as recent plans for a massive network in India.

12 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. All of AM? by iknownuttin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Do you mean all radio on the AM band including aircraft and CB or just the AM spectrum that is used by broadcast radio?

    I can just hear it now: RUSH: "It's a Liberal conspiracy to get rid of us who tell the TRUTH!"

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  2. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why is it that we still have broadcast TV and AM radio?

    Stations of relatively modest power can provide services to distances of about 100 miles.

    Receivers are cheap, portable and ubiquitous.

    The AM radio is as accessible and familiar to the four year old as it is to the centenarian.

  3. Re:Real life experience with WIMAX by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They should be making deals with current access points for better coverage. Thats how a real wifi network will work. 1000s of access points.

    and the cost of building and maintaining 10,000 access points will be what. exactly?

  4. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope someone mods you funny instead of informative, but it's really hilarious when Slashdotters scream about the Constitution when child porn vendors or suicide bombers get caught online, but when it comes to silencing people who have a different political viewpoint than you do then any means including violence is perfectly OK.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  5. Re:complaining about it for years by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with a mesh network is that you have a serious chicken-and-egg problem. It's not going to do work well (or at all) until you get enough of your population using it, and you can't get enough of them to use it until it works well. Mesh networking will probably be piggybacked on the deployment some other wireless technology, and will be used to supplement it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  6. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by gambolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In event of natural disaster, I'd rather have an AM radio than VoIP.

    AM radio is a really durable technology. You can listen to solar powered broadcasts on crank powered radios.

  7. Re:Real life experience with WIMAX by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the cost of building and maintaining 10,000 access points will be what. exactly?

    Less than the cost of laying fiber to millions of homes.

  8. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Add to that the fact that AM radio is robust, understood and ubiquitous technology. The shit could it the fan tomorrow. Major economic collapse, dying infrastructure or whatever. AM radio would still be around and working. There is something to be said for a civilization having enough depth and legacy in its technology that there become no single point of failure.

  9. Re:Real life experience with WIMAX by Shaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Myopic thinking. The value and the income from those access points will be a fraction of what can be carried over fibre. Namely voice, data, video, emergency services, business services like remote backup, et al.

    But forget that, it's the least of your worries. Your real problem will be to make the access points and subscribers not all hear each other in the limited frequency available, drowning each other out, causing network brownouts (or blackouts), hurting efficiency, causing lag and re-registrations, etc. Go downtown Toronto and you'll see what I mean. It just doesn't work the way people want it to.

    --
    ...Steve
  10. Re:complaining about it for years by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really. Small meshes are easier to get working than large ones, so the first step in deployment is to dangle meshes off the ends of existing infrastructure. You'll find a static access point in, for example, a coffee shop, and then use a small mesh to extend the range out into the street by relaying via devices in there. Once enough people are carrying mesh-capable devices, you'll be able to extend the range all the way to (for example) the access point in the library. At the point, any computer in the mesh can have some of its traffic routed via either connection. Once enough meshes are deployed and overlapping then the existing static links are just for bulk traffic or fallback use. The problem is that the complexity of mesh routing does not scale well. If you've solved the routing problem, you can deploy easily. Until then, meshes are limited to small-scale use.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are these the same Slashdotters?

    I find it annoying when people try to point out the hypocrisy of "Slashdotters" without citing individual people who are hypocritical that way. We are individuals, and despite the apparent groupthink, we can actually disagree. I don't agree with you that all Slashdotters are the same, and I don't agree with GP that fundie talk shows should actually be censored. Oh, and I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.

    But nuance (sanity?) like that is completely lost when you lump us all in a group like that. Good job.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  12. Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.

    I used to buy into that as well, but its wrong. Should people be given carte blanche to lie, just because it's about their favourite superstitious belief?

    People in the past have said (and continue to say) stupid things - would you really "defend to my death their right to say it"?:

    1. The jews deserved the holocaust
    2. A well-hung nigger is the one hanging from the nearest tree
    3. AIDS is god's punishment for gay people

    How about people like Fred Phelps? He said that 9/11 was god punishing America. Ditto with the people killed in the Missouri bridge collapse. Or his tactics at military funerals, which deliberately go way beyond any limits of decency.

    Lets look again at what you wrote:

    I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.

    If you're willing to throw your life away to defend Fred Phelp's "right to be an asshole", you value yourself less than any two-bit hooker or crackhead. People with principles will use their judgement rather than blindly follow their "freedom of speech" dogma to self-defeating extremes. Principles come with responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is to make sure that liars don't stand unchallenged. The fundies are liars. So are the scientologists, etc. Heck, look at the crazies going on about holy jihad over "images of Mohammad." How would they know those are really "images of Mohammed" if they're forbidden to have images of Mohammad? Goofballs, just like any other religion. Dawkins is right. Such stupidity only continues to exist because we don't challenge it, using rationalization such as "I may ot agree, but I'll defend to the death ..."