Slashdot Mirror
Sprint's Xohm WiMax Network Debuts In Baltimore, Works Well
bsk_cw writes "Sprint's newly launched Xohm service is now offering America's first WiMax network. Computerworld's Brian Nadel went to Baltimore to try it out, and he reports that Xohm delivered data smoothly to a car moving at highway speeds, played YouTube videos flawlessly, and on average, pushed through more than 3Mbit/sec., compared with 1.3 Mbit/sec. for the AT&T network Brian used as a comparison. But right now, coverage is only planned in a few US cities; if Sprint isn't able to ramp up its coverage quickly, it may lose its advantage."
Xohm delivered data smoothly to a car moving at highway speeds, played YouTube videos flawlessly
Awesome!
Talking on a cell while driving is illegal, so I may as well watch YouTube!
Trolling is a art,
It'd take quite a bit more bandwidth to get me to visit Baltimore.
We were looking at this the other day. It all sounds good, and the price is right. The few people I've heard of using it say it's decent.
What happens when the network loads up with users though? Would the system choke?
A coworker plans to get this, I plan to try out his usb doodad to see if it'll work from my house.
Sure, you can deliver 3Mb/sec wirelessly. But can you deliver 30,000Mb/sec?
See, the problem is that what I (and a good portion of the tech-using community) would like is to be able to access this bandwidth on demand, anywhere. Do you believe there would be 10,000 users in a wingle WiMax coverage area? If so, they are going to need 30,000Mb/sec to keep everyone working at this speed.
Microcells work for cell phones, but the rules are different.
So why will Sprint "lose its advantage" if it doesn't ramp up quickly? Seriously, is ATT or Comcast on the verge of offering some great new service that's going to make WiMax obsolete? Is there some competitor to Sprint that is going to build out first? I would love it if either of those possibilities were true, but the truth is that these companies are exceedingly conservative and slow to upgrade. Sprint could take the next decade doing a nationwide roll-out and probably not lose too much market share.
That's DOUBLE what I get on my "AT&T U-verse" plan. They, along with Comcast, have a duopoly on my area. And there's no way in hell I'm signing up with Comcast. I'd switch to this WiMax any day.
My impression is that there are 11 channels in WiMax-spectrum, each with 100Mbps half-duplex total throughput. So, the total bandwidth out of a tower is 1.1Gbps shared by everyone using that tower. The article says the user was able to get 3Mbps on the average.. So, there could be approximately 350 users simultaneously off of one tower. While this may be great for TV/audio broadcast, it is unlikely if it will replace landlines for data at home or at work.
but if Sprint handles this the way they handle their cell phone business, they'll "monetize" it into near-uselessness.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Clearwire is WiMax, right? How is it not America's first WiMax network? I'm so confused...
So i guess this means i get to listen to shoutcast radio stations in the car now without interruption. woot!
Wireless networks with all the infrastructure running and no users have really great bandwidth. What's it going to be like under load?
I've browsed through the WiMax standards, and they almost make ATM look elegant. A connection-base technology with no less than three incompatible encapsulations. Disconnected operation is simulated by establishing connections to a back-end server and running bridging software there.
I'm looking forward to the day when multiple implementations of WiMax are available and the interoperability issues start showing up...
I use this service and it has been available for over a year here.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i6a9eafrWOYJ:www.rexburg.org/Government/mayor/pdf/Press%2520Release_DBC.pdf+digital+bridge+communications&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
in Mexico City we have had Wimax since 2002, with a smallish ISP now called E-go. I used it in 2003-2004 at work, and this year it was my main access for several months. Quite comparable to broadband, if you are in well covered areas.
While wireless broadband is cool, I'm not convinced yet... With wireless everyone in connected to the same base station shares the available spectrum and bandwith. There's no way around that, ever.
I like 3G (live in Helsinki). I can open up Google Maps or check when the next bus leaves on my mobile. But for anything more serious I prefer a short range wireless tech (WiFi) or good old RJ45.
So will these technologies work well with hundreds of simultaneous users? Personally I still think there's a long way to go for radio tech to completely replace wires on the last mile.
.: Max Romantschuk
To me, the critical difference between Sprint/Clearwire's WiMax and competing cellular data is that they don't care about VOIP. It's A-OK. How long until Verizon allows VOIP (or unlimited voice time) on their plans? Plus, latency is reasonable in WiMax so VOIP will actually work. This hasn't been mentioned much -- in TFA, it's covered towards the end.
This is not the first WiMAX network in America. There are a number of Wisps who have WiMAX equipment in the air and have had for months. Head over to www.wispa.org, www.part-15.org, www.part-90.org for more information about wisp's and what they have been up to.
...I'm going to wait for a flat-rate option for data that isn't meant for carriers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The Baltimore homicide map: http://essentials.baltimoresun.com/micro_sun/homicides/
3Mbit/sec would have been pretty good compared to the networks of five years ago, but I thought this was meant to be a competitor to LTE. At those speeds, on what is presumably an almost completely empty network, they're only reaching the sorts of speeds you can already get on the first gen HSDPA networks.
When commercial LTE networks start getting rolled out they're talking about getting speeds of about 100Mbit/sec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution, they were even getting speeds of about 170 Mbit/s in some trails not too long ago http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSLI66110920080918.
A lot of posts here are listing why Xohm is good/bad compared to other cell networks but that's not even half of it. Xohm is also trying to enter the home user market, and I think they're going to do well.
I've used Xohm (briefly, at a demo last weekend) and will likely switch to them because although their service is slower than cable (the only option for us Baltimore residents is Comcast), it still plays Youtube videos faster than they play, which is pretty much all I ask for. The best thing about Xohm is it's $25/mo. to start, and then $35/mo. after six months. If you want home + roaming usage it's $55/month. Compare to Comcast's $60 for just home usage (obviously no roaming options available) and you see why I think they'll do well.
There are technical fallbacks to cell networks, but Xohm's coverage is *excellent*, the service is cheap, and although it has yet to be seen, I'll be dollars to doughnuts that Xohm's customer service is better than Comcast. And with Hulu and Netflix, losing TV won't kill me (I should read more anyway...)
One thing I've wondered about the idea of wireless internet access for the masses is, what happens when you have 2000+ people in a single city block (think of places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc) trying to use a wireless Internet service? Does the system get completely bogged down with lag?