Slashdot Log In
Sprint's Xohm WiMax Network Debuts In Baltimore, Works Well
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:42 PM
from the will-it-reach-the-double-t-diner? dept.
from the will-it-reach-the-double-t-diner? dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
WiMax Is Finally Coming — Here's How It Performs 112 comments
GMGruman writes "Carriers have promised WiMax networks for years. But will they deliver the goods, or be slow like many early 3G networks or patchy in coverage like the metro Wi-Fi attempts in most cities? This hands-on review looks at a nearly-WiMax deployment (technically, OFDM) in Reno, testing its speeds and reach, as a measure of what Sprint and Clearwire will deliver in their joint WiMax rollouts starting next month. The good news is that this time, the carrier promises look to be delivered on."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Woo hoo! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Do you have a reputable source to back that up? There are many reputable sources that completely contradict your statement, so I'm understandably curious about your sources.
Still not worth it (Score:5, Funny)
It'd take quite a bit more bandwidth to get me to visit Baltimore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd rather pull my car over to the nearest 7-11, and use a pay phone to connect to the Internet through a 300 baud acoustic modem than get 3mbps through a Sprint product.
I made the HUGE mistake of switching to Sprint 18 months ago. I've regretted it ever since. Their customer service is 100% atrocious. Their policies are horrible (and deemed illegal in California*).
Sending photos to another cell phone is ridiculous (via e-mail?!?! WTF? Tons of phones are capable of receiving SMS with media, but not near
Re:Still not worth it (Score:4, Funny)
Most Sprint customers don't know the half of how hypocritical and money-driven Sprint really is as a whole.
I strongly disagree with this statement. We know.
Parent
Re:Still not worth it (Score:4, Interesting)
are other U.S. carriers any better?
i'm sick of U.S. ISPs & telecoms' charge more for less business model which is getting the U.S. left in the dust by Europe and Asia. enough is enough. personally, i'd rather see most of the UHF spectrum appropriate for WiMax use being reserved for the deployment of open public wireless networks. there are so many potential applications for ubiquitous public wi-fi once the infrastructure is in place.
the first thing to go will be the cellular networks. with all of the telecoms except for T-mobile, Verizon, and Qwest cooperating with NSA spying, i'd much rather make calls over an encrypted VoIP connection. heck, with open wi-fi access handset makers would finally be free to implement more advanced mobile features like video calls using VVoIP. and with municipal wi-fi, the public would actually have a say in how the network is run. instead of overselling and then throttling user connections and using packet shaping to manipulate usage, the infrastructure would just be upgraded to meet demand.
right now we have an opportunity to break free from the monopolies held by the telecoms and ISPs. if we don't seize this opportunity and simply let the UHF spectrum be bought up by the telecoms & ISPs, then we'll just be stuck in the same situation all over again. communication networks are a natural monopoly; that cannot be changed. but that doesn't mean that consumers have to keep getting shafted by the telecom & ISP companies. we purport to be members of a democratic society, so its our democratic prerogative to make sure the government serves public interest. in this case it means collectively taking control of a limited public resource like the UHF spectrum rather than let it fall into the hands of selfish commercial interests who would exploit it for profit without consideration for public good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DSL and Cable work by providing a continuing stream of packets. Cell phone networks can't offer that though so there is times where they may delay delivery for 200MS or so while tower is busy doing something else before delivering all your data to you in on massive chunk. Mbit/s isn't only measure of network connection.
Flawless with one user? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I hope it scales.
With my AT&T card though, I got much lower speeds when I was moving than when I stayed in one place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They do, however, have a 6mb pipe to your house.
With wireless, everyone's sharing the same "last mile." A LOT of everyone. Not like with cable where it's just everyone on your block.
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh, more Slashdot commentary in the post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The folks who paid billions for the 700MHz C-block (Verizon) are required to do something "open" with it, and soon.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to "openly" lobby, sue, and whatever other legal wrangling they can pull to get out of any conditions of sale they don't care to implement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The likely competition comes, not from some other WiMax buildout; but from other cellular data services. Most are inferior to Sprint's offering in terms of price, longterm contracts, and in many cases speed; but computers and phones with the necessary hardware built in are pretty common, and you can get at least dialup speeds virtually everywhere(yes, I know, there are e
We'll see ... (Score:2)
Clearwire: am I missing something? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clearwire: am I missing something? (Score:4, Informative)
Clearwire deployed a proprietary broadband wireless access network based on Nextnet's technology [cnn.com]. Nextnet was later bought by Motorola, who is a major infrastructure vendor for WiMAX, and Clearwire, as part of their merger with Sprint Xohm, will be switching to WiMAX.
WiMAX has two major variants: those based on the IEEE 802.16-2004 standard (called 16d or fixed WiMAX) and those based on the newer IEEE 802.16e-2005 (called 16e or mobile WiMAX) standard. There have been some small, limited build-outs of 16d, but 16e is destined to be much bigger, and that's why this is a big deal.
Sprint has been the primary backer of 16e because they acquired a lot of 2.5 GHz unpaired spectrum from their Nextel acquisition. With the launch of Sprint's Baltimore network, they've proven that a large, citywide network can deliver on the promises of WiMAX. This is a huge step forward for mobile broadband wireless access.
Parent
It's not loaded yet (Score:2)
Wireless networks with all the infrastructure running and no users have really great bandwidth. What's it going to be like under load?
Horrible, horrible technology (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
first in... America? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 proble
Re: (Score:2)
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.