Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Unveils Amazing New Wireless Plans
StDave writes "Yesterday Cisco announced a very cool technology. It is a 44Mb wireless technology that doesn't require line of sight and has a range of 30 miles. Take your ADSL line on the road with you. " Wow - they've found a way to use the "ghosting" caused by obstructions to tv and cell signals. Base units will cost around 150,000$ and the transceivers will be under 500$, with start of marketing sometime around June.
This kind of system gives a small to medium size isp a chance to break the monopoly on broadband (DSL/Cable) Internet connections. In my area (SE RI/MA), (Cox) cable internet is unavailable, MediaOne RoadRunner is nonexistant, DSL is a year off, T1 is overpriced and ISDN is crappy. If an existing dialup isp implimented this technology, it would be a great way to move into the high bandwidth market. Someone doing this could force broadband companies to compete, which is good.
What about security though? I assume they'll have link level encryption.
If shared, then over a radios of 30 miles it's not necessarily a whole lot -- especially in the city.
If per station... err... Please mommy?
-- Slashdot sucks.
While not terribly difficult in theory, that it works over such distances is an impressive feat of engineering. However, I would like to see how it works in the real world. If it compensates for interference by lots of resending, dropping bandwidth, that's fine, but if it cuts out, that's a problem.
While I don't doubt the article, I want to see it in production before I praise them too much.
One thing that I've always wondered, why do we see so few high bandwidth wireless technology. I mean, one should be able to just use more frequencies. I guess that there is a real shortage of available frequencies. I wonder how much of that is technical hurdles and how much is beaurocratic messes between the DOD, FCC, etc., fighting over it.
Well, as IP carries more and more information, I wonder if we'll be able to reclaim all the bandwidth from audio/video broadcasts as the world moves digital. HDTV promises more (over the airwaves) channels because the signal is smaller... that seems a little silly. People that want more channels currently have Cable and DSS options, and Telephone will do so too. I think that society has more uses for the airwaves than broadcasting more garbage. As long as people get reasonable channels for their kids, news, and evening entertainment, I think that society would be better served by allowing new technologies to claim the bandwidth... but that's just me.
On the other hand, more radio stations with lower barriers to entry (licenses trump the real expenses) so that there are real alternative stations instead of the same drivel on all of them.
Alex
Technical specs at http://www.cisco.com/w arp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/servprod/wt2700/
Coincidence?
Maybe so, but even if it is, you've now got virtually all the ingredients needed for "car traffic control" systems. All you'd need, to finish it off, would be some decent sensors on the cars, to detect what objects are near, and some means for a central computer to determine optimal paths.
The latter part is almost done, with existing car navigation systems, but this would need to be a bit more refined.
I see a lot of potential for this device, far beyond mere wireless web surfing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
-------------------------------------------------- - --
On another note, if I could get 44Mbs over 30 miles, would I get 4.4Mbs over 300 miles? I realise that is an oversimplification,
but 4Mbs+ over 100s of miles would be a godsend to countries with poor infrastructure (e.g. Africa, Russia)
-----------------------------------------------
no, probably not, i'm afraid. the article didn't say anything about what kind of frequencies were involved, but if they are using vhf/uhf/microwave/etc., which they almost assuredly are, then line of sight is about the limit (i'm only talking about the distance the radio waves will travel, not how the technology will compensate for buildings and such.)
really, it would depend upon how high up they got the antenna. if you had a mountain nearby, it could conceivably cover much, much more than 30 miles...doubtful this would be the common situation, i'm afraid.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
Sure, usually when "real" leading-edge (or bleeding edge) technology gets to common people like us, it has been "there" for long years. (Though, in the software world the timescale is many months rather than many years). It always takes somebody to take the step to implement something based on that technology so that it is accessible to the public.
Just like most new OS technology/concepts usually goes around only in academic circles for a while, before somebody in the industry decides to actually use it to produce "real" OS's for people to use. (Eg. witness how many years behind Windows is in terms of OS design? Even Linux is still based on macrokernel design, and very few people even know about Hurd which is based on microkernels -- arguably the "front-line" of OS research. But by now, there's probably already something newer.).
It's always easy to criticize in retrospect (yeah Cisco didn't do anything like, new, this MMDS stuff's been around for 20 years, yeah but nobody except researchers could use it until now.) Just like Columbus said that he can stand an egg upright. When greeted by disbelief, he proceed to simply crack the bottom of the egg slightly on the table so that it would not roll over. The people then criticized, "That's cheesy, I knew how to do that all along!" It takes a pioneer to take what looks like an "obvious step" in retrospect.
Back to my point: I think it's a good thing Cisco took this step to make this technology available to people. I wouldn't be so quick to point out, like the people who criticized Columbus, "but hey, this technology's been around for so long!" Having said that, let me just add the standard disclaimer: I do not intend this as flamebait, nor am I trying to criticize Chris or anybody else. Just pointing out something... (you never know how people can misread you on Slashdot, better disclaim everything!) :-) And of course, if this technology is going to be available any time soon, I want to try it!!
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Also, European mobile phones generally use the 900mhz band. All US cell phone providers I am aware of use 1900mhz, so unless you have a dual-band phone using that wavelength, you're SOL (many European dual-band phones use 900/1800.) In any case, most dual-band European phones I've tried in the US have poor range compared to local PCS phones.
What I really want to see is the toys Qualcomm was talking about a while back. That'd really make wireless data traffic fun. And if this Cisco bit can do even local roaming, like ricochet, you're still doing very well.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage