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.
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.
Disclaimer: this is from the point of view of a traditional voice/data network, I don't know some specifics of WiMax..
There should have been simulations run before the network went live. The loads created by the simulations are a prerequisite for the network going into service.
The big test is the day the network actually goes live. Most if not all problems occur on the first day, or at least within the first 36-48 hours. If it's still up now, you don't have much to worry about; to cause a significant problem the client base must increase at a great rate in all areas covered by the network.
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...
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...
It's not quite so bad as all that. With directional antennas, you can increase the number of users almost arbitrarily, depending mostly on how close you expect them to be and how fast you expect them to move.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
"Almost arbitrarily" is not my experience with wireless data, you hit a limit based on number of available frequencies (how many independent/non-interfering channels there are) and how close you can place sectors that use the same frequency band.
For mobile wireless, there is also the issue of seamless handoff between sectors/stations.
WiMAX is a lot better than old 802.11 (the .11 MAC layer was really only designed to handle home wireless networks), but I'd need some hard numbers if you want to convince me that 802.16 can scale "almost arbitrarily".
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
...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/
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?