Almost forgot to point out, that if Earthlink wireless does use 802.11b, it is possible that it will interfere with bluetooth devices, since they both use the same 2.4ghz band. I would be sure to call and find out if you happen to already be using bluetooth stuff.
See:
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0, 41 61,2470132,00.html
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~wireless/papers/bt_80211 in ter.pdf
This looks to me very very much like a setup using 802.11.16 or the like. judging from the upload and download speed. It is easily conceivable that one could set up several transmitters in only a few locations around Atlanta (since 802.11b's optimal range is 16 miles) and cover the whole city.
When the transmitter is less than 20 miles away, matters such as latency aren't so much a problem as things such as air collision.
However I doubt everyone will be able to obtain the download speeds advertised, since any amount of interference, like bad weather or anything else on the 2.4ghz band, will cause the speed to drop in half.
If anyone would like to read up on this you can see the antennas at:
http://www.netnimble.com/antennas.html
And of course the orinco wireless router at:
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC =2 90425
Now, it appears the overall gist of replies to this section are all that "conventional broadband is not profitable." or "telephone monopolies are stagnating broadband growth." Whether this is true or not, (I believe it is in some places, but that is just opinion) I guess we have nothing left but unconventional broadband. Consider the alternatives.
Satellite internet is not dead, its just starting. And no, I'm not talking about direcTV. Its fine for TV, but the latency is too high. I'm talking something like Teledesic. 288 satellites orbiting at less than 1400km. Having a 64mbps download and 2mbps upload from anywhere on the planet. Line latency "as low as 20ms and less than 75ms on all links less than 5000km." The problem? Not available until 2005... Unless too many investors pull out and it dies before its fully realised. With 288 satellites, thats one heck of an initial investment.
Fixed base wireless, like zNet for example, offers 512k wireless for 49.99 now (normally 69.99) 1mbps for 119.99. Oh, and their bandwidth is symmetrical, same for both upload and download. Their service areas are not restricted by surrounding broadband providers, nor are they limited by the quality of existing cable/telephone lines. Proliferation of this form of broadband is more likely to become widespread than teledesic, but I kind of like being able to connect to the internet from anywhere on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost forgot to point out, that if Earthlink wireless does use 802.11b, it is possible that it will interfere with bluetooth devices, since they both use the same 2.4ghz band. I would be sure to call and find out if you happen to already be using bluetooth stuff.
, 41 61,2470132,00.html
1 in ter.pdf
See:
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~wireless/papers/bt_8021
This looks to me very very much like a setup using 802.11.16 or the like. judging from the upload and download speed. It is easily conceivable that one could set up several transmitters in only a few locations around Atlanta (since 802.11b's optimal range is 16 miles) and cover the whole city.
C =2 90425
When the transmitter is less than 20 miles away, matters such as latency aren't so much a problem as things such as air collision.
However I doubt everyone will be able to obtain the download speeds advertised, since any amount of interference, like bad weather or anything else on the 2.4ghz band, will cause the speed to drop in half.
If anyone would like to read up on this you can see the antennas at:
http://www.netnimble.com/antennas.html
And of course the orinco wireless router at:
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?ED
Now, it appears the overall gist of replies to this section are all that "conventional broadband is not profitable." or "telephone monopolies are stagnating broadband growth." Whether this is true or not, (I believe it is in some places, but that is just opinion) I guess we have nothing left but unconventional broadband. Consider the alternatives.
Satellite internet is not dead, its just starting. And no, I'm not talking about direcTV. Its fine for TV, but the latency is too high. I'm talking something like Teledesic. 288 satellites orbiting at less than 1400km. Having a 64mbps download and 2mbps upload from anywhere on the planet. Line latency "as low as 20ms and less than 75ms on all links less than 5000km." The problem? Not available until 2005... Unless too many investors pull out and it dies before its fully realised. With 288 satellites, thats one heck of an initial investment.
Fixed base wireless, like zNet for example, offers 512k wireless for 49.99 now (normally 69.99) 1mbps for 119.99. Oh, and their bandwidth is symmetrical, same for both upload and download. Their service areas are not restricted by surrounding broadband providers, nor are they limited by the quality of existing cable/telephone lines. Proliferation of this form of broadband is more likely to become widespread than teledesic, but I kind of like being able to connect to the internet from anywhere on the planet.