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.
For some time now I've been taking part in WIMAX trials here in Hamilton Ontario. This too was trumpeted as a glorious thing that would change the face of our city, bring us into the high tech 21st century etc.
In practice although WIMAX seems to work OK (aside from a real lag much of the time, which may just be bad server configuration by Primus Communications), My sense is that the company isn't really committed to it. I doubt that there will be a serious public roll out.
The idea seems great - a wireless Internet connection that works wherever you are. The reality seems a bit less rosy, and my guess is that a city wide wireless network will need a good level of customer support - not Primus' strong point by a long shot.
Three Squirrels
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.
Maybe because hundreds of millions of people listen to AM radio every day -- and those of us driving 1991 cars can't just switch to digital radio (too expensive). The world doesn't have to conform to your personal priorities.
>Not all WiMAX operators are unhappy.
>
>Internode says an Airspan-supplied network is providing consistent average speeds of 6Mbps at >distances up to 30km, with CEO Simon Hackett describing the platform as "proven."
So where exactly lies the problem? Implementation?
WIMAX isn't going to be the success that it should be because I think it was driven more by marketing than technology.
I'm going to fiddle my fingers until they have a few more disasters till they get it working. In the meantime mesh will definitely deflate the momentum WIMAX needs right now.
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.
Why are you looking into other /.er's cars?
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.
Maybe someone can clear this up- does Clearwire use WiMax or not? Wikipedia didn't make it clear. My experience with them was that they didn't either have the infrastructure or the bandwidth to support their meager customer base. The thing worked just fine during the day when nobody really used it, but during busier hours you had significant lag and flow problems- however, the download rate was still good, but you can't play games with a ping of over a second.
To me, WiMax is the future version of 56k.
NLOS performance depends on a number of things, including how well the underlying technology can handle multipath and otherwise distorted signals. But the main thing is probably frequency; the higher the frequency, the worse the NLOS performance. WiMax is designed to run at many different frequencies, and the article fails to mention which one was in use.
The issues with latency and jitter, though, probably aren't as dependent on frequency.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Because my old tube radios will survive the EMP, I'll still be able to listen to the static.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
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.
ISPs losing interest in citywide wireless coverage.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/23/1213255/
Is patience in order?
In the '90s I could not drive from Oklahoma City to Dallas and keep cellphone service during the entire trip. If I was in an area not serviced by my cellphone provider, I had to "force" roaming by turning my Motorola flipphone off and on, then wait.
AT&T saw no future for data networks and the Internet!r
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
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.
You don't even need that. One diode and some high impedance headphones is all you need. You don't even need any kind of power. There is no amplification, but I dare you to find one other broadcast technology that can draw all the power it needs from the signal its self.
Even if we switch off of AM and FM and such to fancy digital encodings, every radio should have the ability to tune into old-fashioned AM signals built in. It's trivial to add, and functions no matter what if they need to put stations up in an emergency.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
AM radio spans roughly 1 MHz (IE: approx 530KHz to 1.6 MHz.) You CANNOT fit a broadband wireless service into that space ... furthermore, the resonant antenna length for 1/4 wave varies between (approx) 150 metres to 40 metres. Like to see you stick that out of the back of your Laptop.
... okay for Laptop, (easy)
...)
doubtful if you could effectively get one 54mbit channel in that space, plus, because it is NOT line of sight, someone a few miles away WILL interfere with your local transmissions.
Low frequencies (below about 2 MHz) hug the ground, this means AM does not have line of sight issues. Some AM broadcast stations have service areas of hundreds of miles (kilometers) (radius)
FM is 88.. 108 MHz. 1/4 wave here is roughly around 1 metre. Still a thumping huge antenna! These frequencies are considered line of sight, however, there is a small area extending beyond line of sight. Enough bandwidth for a few 54mbit channels.
WiFi is generally at 2.4 GHz. Same band as Microwave ovens use. Has to do with the frequency of maximum absorbance of water. (Thus used in ovens!) 1/w wavelength approx 4 cm
To get sufficient bandwidth, only UHF and up is really useful. But, get too high in the microwave band and the signal wont even get through a thin wall.
So, there are trade offs that genuinely make sense for wireless broadband. (lots more reasons as well
You don't even need a proper diode. Just a rusty razor blade and a safety pin.
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!
I chose as my ISP in Mexico City E-go, co-owned by Alestra, the Mexican AT&T subsidiary. It started offering WiMax connection in 2003 in limited areas of Mexico City (I understand nowadays it covers most of the Central, Western and Southern parts), before even WiMax was standardized. Clients get a NextNet RSU unit, which is basically a network bridge. :) E-go owns 20MHz of spectrum, which allows it to give a theoretical maximum of 70Mbps to a given area. If many too people were to subscribe, each client would have much less effectibe bandwidth alloted.
The latency complaints you state are simply not true - I get consistent ping response times of 100ms in average (with minimum response times of around 50ms) to hosts in Mexico City, 200ms to hosts in the USA. Yes, this is about 80ms higher than wired equivalents - but it's not so much of a killer. What I do get, of course, is way higher packet loss - About 5% when things are optimal, and it sometimes gets up to 50%. But yes, I'm located at a relatively poor reception area, at one of the lower-income (this means, no incentive to place many antennas nearby) neighbourhoods in the South of the city, where the mostly flat valley where most of the city is located begins to become quite hilly. The RSU unit does not provide any means (for the client) for monitoring connection, to help choose the best possible location. It only has five LEDs (and no, they are not blue, just an unfashionable old green. Bummer.) indicating signal strength, and I always get one or two of them. I have seen signal quality significantly better when at a five-leds connection.
Prices and speed are more or less in-par with Mexico's near-monopoly TelMex; I'm paying about US$40 for a nominal 1Mbps/128Kbps connection (512K guaranteed, whatever that means). The upstream data flow _is_ shaped to 128k, but the downstream speed is not - when the network smiles on me, I get up to 2Mbps. It is not common, though.
I understand E-go (back then called I-go, don't ask me why) was praised as the world-first massive WiMax deployment - Even before the standard was finalized. There are several aspects of the installed network that show clearly the gear is pre-standard (i.e. extreme sensibility to position changes - If I move my RSU over two centimeters, it has to resynchronize with the antenna. This process takes around two seconds, so no big deal).
To me, clearly, the reason it hasn't got more popular is because it is owned by a relatively small company, and has not had the muscle to stand in front of Telmex's publicity machine.
Of course, we benefit more than DSL users from having a low client density
That's just a ridiculous weasely exaggeration and misrepresentation to try to prove a point and when you have to do that it generally means that whatever you are trying to say doesn't stand up on it's own.
/. defending child porn or suicide bombers in relation to the constitution; the point I have heard often is that the constitution is being destroyed, people are being manipulated or forced into giving up their rights - rights which are inherent in being human, not GIVEN by a fucking government.
/. adovcating using violence to "silence others opinions."
I have never once heard anyone on
Violence is abhorrent and I have never seriously heard people on
Violence for self-defense is another story....
I think part of the argument is legitimate, in that we're stuck in the unlicensed bands, where there is significant opportunities for interference both within those bands and from licensed bands sitting on the borders at each side.
2.4ghz and 5.6ghz/5.8ghz are good bands for line of sight transmission. Unfortunately, these frequencies are increasingly noisy and all of the fancy algorithms in the world can't help you when some of son-of-bitch with a home-made outfit is spewing out at obscene power levels.
As to non-line-of-sight, well, the higher bands just don't do so well. It's one thing to have a wood-framed house with drywall, which doesn't offer much of an obstacle, but apartment buildings and the like, where there's significant amounts of steel and concrete aren't going to cut it too well, at least without tons of access points all over the place (translation: $$$). The 900mhz band is pretty good at non-line-of-sight, but this section of the spectrum has been utterly poisoned by cordless phones (2.4ghz is getting that bad too).
What WiFi needs is some protected chunks of spectrum at the low, middle and high. Without that, forget about it. Maybe this latest auction will open some stuff up, but I doubt it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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"?:
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:
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 ..."
Medium-Wave broadcasting in the U.S. evolved when the country was still significantly rural.
Distances in the U.S. can defeat the European imagination.
The 50,000 watt "clear channel" station could be heard across several states - and to istances of 1,000 miles under favorable conditions.
AM radio had a distinct local or regional identity which persists to this day.
A viewpoint cannot physically do anything, it is abstract, not concrete, only people can physically act upon the viewpoints. It is these actions then, which if illegal, should be outlawed, not the viewpoints behind the actions. You cannot legally in America forcefully silence a person because you disagree with their views. Lyle Stuart once said,
"No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for innocuous or popular points of view. That's point one. Point two is that the majority-you and I-must always protect the right of a minority-even a minority of one-to express the most outrageous and offensive ideas. Only then is total freedom of expression guaranteed."
What you are suggesting, that is, thoughtcrime, is tantamount to fascism.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
I'll say that Fred has the right to say what he wants to say, just that people also have the right to not to listen to him. I swore an oath not to protect Fred but freedom of speech and our nation in general. I'll admit to having an occasional fantasy involving him and a high powered rifle. Then I think, he's not worth it.
IE if he wants, he can demonstrate on his own property, on public property available for that purpose, etc... If he can afford a radio station, he can spew all he likes. That's what I'll defend. Today you can't say 'I like puppies' without offending somebody. Freedom of speech protects speech that people find embarrassing, offensive, etc...
Doesn't mean that he has the right to disrupt other people's freedom of speech(IE the funeral he's interrupting).
As far as AM radio goes, I understand that there have been a number of liberal attempts to break into that broadcast medium. Most have failed. Besides, all you have to do to get away from, say Rush, is to change the dial or turn the radio off. What are you going to do to get away from Phelps? Leave your son's funeral?
There's being offensive, there's being controversial, then there's being a dick. Phelps is a dick.
I don't read AC A human right
Minor nitpick: 2.4 GHz is not the frequency of maximum aborbance of water. The frequency of the maximum is temperature dependent, and the absorbance peak is very broad. Thus there is no need to use any special frequency. 2.4 GHz is used in microwave ovens due to that it was free to use, being an ISM band, and that the penetration depth is useful for cooking.
There's nothing magical about WiMax. Other frequency ranges, other protocols, that's about it.
The only interesting thing about it is that it's not operated by traditional telcos.
But remember, what traditional telcos sell is not telecom, they're SELLING UBIQUITOUS telecom.
An untraditional telco would have to sell at a nonzero price ubiquitous. If they sell at zero price (or truly flat rate), a smartass will monopolize all access and resell it at real market price (what people are truly willing to pay). If the service is only sporadically available, no one will want to pay for it, or they would be better off setting up a fix line connection at the only place it works. If they comply to the two conditions, they are definitely traditional telcos.
In the long run, WiMax is bad for the consumer. As I explained above, the business model behind WiMax can only be the "traditional telco model". But now we have two technologies with incompatible end user hardware, incompatible operator hardware. Nokia and Alcatel Lucent will sell less copies of their products to operators, thus the price will rise. Nokia and Alcatel Lucent will ask for higher fees from the opco, guess who will pay the bill. Nokia and Motorola will sell less copies of their products to end users, guess who will pay for the relatively higher cost.
Furthermore, with WiMax vs 3G, there are now not one, but two markets for mobile data and voice. Barrier to jump from one to the other market is nonzero for the consumers. Each of the individual markets is also smaller, hence less competitive.
Fuck WiMax
No, because medium wave is just too bulky. You can get small, cheap FM only radios for this reason.
And yeah, I grew up making crystal radios and small powered radios when I was eight or nine. Its hard to buy the nice open tuning gangs now. The old ways are going.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I listen to AM radio all the time (it propagates well, I can listen to stations from all over the nation at night when I listen, and there is a dearth of talk radio on the FM bands and you are limited to close by stations) and most of the shows have phone numbers you can call in and comment. Go right ahead, challenge the views of guests or hosts you don't agree with, with reasons, etc. That is what it is all about. If you feel even stronger about the subject or subjects, get your own show on some radio station or do netcasting. So far, the RIAA hasn't screwed over net "talk" radio, just anything with music.
I know I would have had my own station (low power, all I could afford) long ago if the FCC and the big broadcasters weren't such dicks about it, and that includes those NPR cretins who lobbied hard to restrict any competition. I can see it from the major broadcasters, but that was sure a bummer to find out they were against opening up low power. I don't want to go pirate radio because the HAMS throw hissy fits over it (even if you aren't interfering anyplace and have a clean signal) and nark on people, and netcasting takes a decent broadband connection, which I can't get here. Someday though...although reading that WiMax thread was a bummer, kept hoping that might be the magic to get broadband out into the sticks, and so far, cellphone broadband ain't it either. So...I type on teh internets.
Funny that. In my part of Europe (The Netherlands and now Sweden) AM was, and to a certain level still is alive and kicking. Advantages of AM over FM are the longer range and lower power requirements. Now that I live in Sweden I sometimes listen to Dutch radio. Not on FM of course as that does not reach much further than the horizon. AM all the way... literally, from The Netherlands to Sweden, some 1300 km.
--frank[at]unternet.org
This is WiMax, not Wi-fi. Despite the first two letters, and the fact they're both 802.x standards, these are completely unrelated technologies, which for some reason geeks in particular tend to get overly excited and confused about conflating the features of one with the other. WiMax is generally run on licensed spectrum, and is about as useful as Wi-fi on unlicensed spectrum, if you can even get certified equipment. So far as I'm aware there are no commercial operators trying to run it on unlicensed spectrum: there's no point, Wifi is cheaper and just as effective for non-LoS use.
Again, you're assuming WiMax is generally run on unlicensed frequencies. But your point is worth addressing because the bands WiMax is generally licensed in to tend to be greater than 2GHz, though it is being considered by a number of operators for use on the 700MHz spectrum recently auctioned.
Anyway: 2-3GHz has roughly the same characteristics as PCS, the 1900MHz spectrum used by Sprint PCS and T-Mobile USA, and it's in this area that WiMax is usually offered - though I have heard of it being deployed in the 3.5GHz range. It's generally pretty strong outside, while indoor coverage generally deteriorates relatively quickly, though not to the point of unusability.
WiMax is an interesting technology but it suffers from being "first" and from being designed by the computer industry with almost no input from the telecoms industry. The latter may be a bunch of Luddites but they do put a premium on reliability, something our industry is absolutely abysmal at. Which is partially why I'm betting on LTE being the path forward to universal internet connectivity.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If it's not the broad spectrum de-regulators, it will the digital spectrum land grab speculators. I was talking to a friend who is a broadcast TV engineer and some European countries have switched analogue TV off entirely. Some number of people with 1991 TV sets just couldn't switch to digital or if they could afford it, couldn't grok the new user interface. A significant percentage of elderly folk just said "fsck it" and gave up on TV entirely.
Over here in Australia, our FM band is being switched off to make space for digital allocations. The "big picture" will be far more important than individual circumstance. Presumably sets will drop in price as the user base grows.
The open spectrum people are the least of your problems, the digital spectrum people have a lot more cash and backing to take over your AM spectrum.
Too true. But maybe not in the way you expect...
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
He claimed ... 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
Sounds like they didn't configure it right, on one or both of two issues.
First: WiMAX has a frame rate that is an exact multiple of the 8000 frames/second rate of the telephone networks' digital carriers (and A/D converters). While this was obviously intended to allow it to carry telephone TDM signals and their associated timing (which normally isn't an issue for IP transport), WiMAX has its own, unrelated, timing issues that mandate the base stations be synchronized - to each other and preferably to a telephony network clock or a GPS-derived clock.
The base stations assign timeslots to each remote. They measure the propagation characteristics and (depending on the sort of base station) may adjust signal strengths, modulation rates, and/or antenna aim for the associated timeslot to obtain good communication, and may pick a timeslot that is currently "quiet" on the antenna / antenna-aim appropriate for the remote in question.
The problem is that multiple subscriber stations between two base stations (perhaps not adjacent ones) that are reusing a channel may both be "audible" to both base stations - perhaps due to using non-directinal antennas, perhaps due to reflections. If the base stations assign overlapping timeslots to their peered subscriber stations they will interfere. So the base stations try to assign their subscriber stations "quiet" slots - i.e. slots that don't already have interference from another nearby base station's remotes.
Now that's just fine if the base stations' clocks are synchronized. The timeslots hold a constant relationship to each other and a quiet slot stays quiet. But if the base stations are not synchronized their relative framing drifts. So one base station's subscriber's slot may drift into that of another base station's subscriber, resulting in a drop of the link quality. Then the base stations readjust the configuration - perhaps moving the subscriber stations to new slots. But these do the same thing. Over and over. Result: Links keep flaking out and control traffic is massive.
With the base stations synchronized and the subscriber stations carrying VoIP or other fixed-rate stream traffic, the stations will tend to hold on to quiet slots that march along with the stratum-III timing regularity of telephone carriers.
The second Quality of Service issue is packet priority. The routers at both the subscriber and base stations should be identifying the VoIP (or other fixed-bandwidth streaming) flow and giving its packets priority over other traffic on the link. That way the (limited and constant bandwidth) voice packets can take the preallocated slots every time while any additional variable traffic waits for the necessary additional slot allocation. If this is not done, other traffic (such as file transfers and web browsing) will keep "stealing" the time slots out from under the time-critical VoIP / streaming packets, resulting in long and variable latencies - horrendous jitter. If it IS done (and the link is stable due to the base-station timing synchronization), the VoIP flows will have jitter characteristics virtually identical to those of telephony TDM networks.
(This, by the way, is why "network neutrality" can't be reduced to "treat all packets the same" if you want to share the same IP network between streaming services such as video and VoIP and best-effort services such as file transfers and browsing.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A few klicks to the west?
Boston to SF is 4,344 km.
St Petersburg to Vladivostok is 9,288 km by rail. Eight time zones.
But how many middle or western Europeans are accustomed to thinking of distances on either scale?