Australian WiMax Pioneer Calls It a Disaster 202
Anonymous Coward writes "Garth Freeman, CEO of Australia's first WiMax operator, sat down at the recent International WiMax Conference in Bangkok and unleashed a tirade about the failings of the technology, leaving an otherwise pro-WiMax audience stunned. His company, Buzz Broadband, had deployed a WiMax network over a year ago, and Freeman left no doubt about what conclusions he had drawn. He claimed that 'its non-line of sight performance was "non-existent" beyond just 2 kilometres from the base station, indoor performance decayed at just 400m and that latency rates reached as high as 1000 milliseconds. Poor latency and jitter made it unacceptable for many Internet applications and specifically VoIP, which Buzz has employed as the main selling point to induce people to shed their use of incumbent services.' We've previously discussed the beginnings of WiMax as well as recent plans for a massive network in India.
Real life experience with WIMAX (Score:4, Informative)
In practice although WIMAX seems to work OK (aside from a real lag much of the time, which may just be bad server configuration by Primus Communications), My sense is that the company isn't really committed to it. I doubt that there will be a serious public roll out.
The idea seems great - a wireless Internet connection that works wherever you are. The reality seems a bit less rosy, and my guess is that a city wide wireless network will need a good level of customer support - not Primus' strong point by a long shot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The 10 gb a month bandwidth limits are horrible though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
700Mhz spectrum should be interesting. It has monstrous value and application - however the performance will be an issu
Re: (Score:2)
However, now that the FCC auction is over, you can forget about anything good coming of it in most areas. Verizon bought the biggest share of licenses, ATT the second-largest share; between them, they have pretty much every major license in the top markets. Their main interest seems to be keeping away competitors: A newcomer might challenge them on both price and service. So paying $15M between
Re:Real life experience with WIMAX (Score:4, Funny)
If you use a Honda to haul gravel you too will be disappointed in the performance... perspective is everything and a damned good car analogy will explain anything
Re:Real life experience with WIMAX (Score:4, Insightful)
and the cost of building and maintaining 10,000 access points will be what. exactly?
Re:Real life experience with WIMAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Less than the cost of laying fiber to millions of homes.
Re:Real life experience with WIMAX (Score:5, Insightful)
But forget that, it's the least of your worries. Your real problem will be to make the access points and subscribers not all hear each other in the limited frequency available, drowning each other out, causing network brownouts (or blackouts), hurting efficiency, causing lag and re-registrations, etc. Go downtown Toronto and you'll see what I mean. It just doesn't work the way people want it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
once you have dug the trench and laid the fiber, how much does it cost to maintain it?
compared to maintaining 10,000 wireless APs continually exposed to the weather, small animals, vandals, etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
>
>Internode says an Airspan-supplied network is providing consistent average speeds of 6Mbps at >distances up to 30km, with CEO Simon Hackett describing the platform as "proven."
So where exactly lies the problem? Implementation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.oneringnetworks.co [oneringnetworks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
internodes wireless offerings are not as wonderful as he is painting them.
Re: (Score:2)
They're using 2.3GHz, 2.5GHz and 3.5GHz for the WiMax bands. Of course they're going to start having trouble with building penetration at that high a frequency. Trying to use modems with their own antennas is just stupid and is bound to be an epic fail for long distance last mile.
complaining about it for years (Score:4, Interesting)
WIMAX isn't going to be the success that it should be because I think it was driven more by marketing than technology.
I'm going to fiddle my fingers until they have a few more disasters till they get it working. In the meantime mesh will definitely deflate the momentum WIMAX needs right now.
Maybe we should call it MicroWiMax? (Score:2)
Re:complaining about it for years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:complaining about it for years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearwire (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, WiMax is the future version of 56k.
Re:Clearwire (Score:4, Informative)
My Clearwire device has an FCC ID of PHX-RSU2510F. The FCC docs say that it operates on 2.496-2.690Ghz. The chipset leads me to believe that it is an implementation of the Motorola Expedience [nextnetwireless.com] Wireless Broadband CPE.
The Motorola RDM specs say that the device can operate in Expedience (up to 2W) or WiMax (up to 0.5W) modes. They also say that in Expedience mode it is a layer 2 smart bridge, while in WiMax mode it is a router with NAT, DHCP and firewall functions.
Since my device acts like a layer 2 bridge, I conclude that it is in Expedience mode. Having just checked the Wikipedia article, I see that the first paragraph agrees:
"Clearwire currently uses Expedience wireless technology, dubbed Pre-WiMax, transmitted from cell sites over licensed spectrum of 2.5-2.6 GHz in the U.S. and 3.5 GHz in Europe."
So no, they use the WiMax frequency range, but they can transmit a stronger signal. That seems to be the main difference between the technologies.
This Motorola promotional video [motorola.com] talks about some of the infrastructure and business justifications for using their Expedience gear:
Re: (Score:2)
"Clearwire currently uses Expedience wireless technology, dubbed Pre-WiMax, transmitted from cell sites over licensed spectrum of 2.5-2.6 GHz in the U.S. and 3.5 GHz in Europe."
And Clearwire's site says that they are using OFDM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OFDM [wikipedia.org] )
Motorola's Expedience overview is here:
http://www.nextnetwireless.com/overview.asp [nextnetwireless.com]
So it looks like it's something like WiMAX because it's using the same type of signal multiplexing method. As Wikipedia
Frequency, not just technology (Score:4, Informative)
The issues with latency and jitter, though, probably aren't as dependent on frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I am no RF expert, it seems to me radio will never have significant latency or jitter, and the latency and jitter are just artifacts caused by the L2 protocol trying to compensate for poor radio performance (retransmissions at L2, bah). So if the RF worked well (indeed at lower frequencies for non-LOS) you wouldn't see these either, I think.
Re:Frequency, not just technology (Score:5, Informative)
This was kit designed to work for up to 10 km (6 miles) and I had line-of-sight to the base station, which was about 150m (500 ft) away.
Sky.. sky.. SkySomething. SkyPilot? Some kind of wierd meshy-network, I was also connected to the "master" tower, not a leaf.
The problem, as it was explained to me, was that it has a collision/backoff algorithm not unlike that of 10-base-2 ethernet ("thin net"). So, the 50 (or so) neighbours I had, plus the leaf towers (2 of them, I think) were causing me to not get "slots" with the master on a timely basis. Hence, introducing jitter.
So, your L2 protocol hypothesis is reasonable from my perspective, although we can eliminate poor radio performance as a direct cause. Changing the radio from broadcast to something like time or code division multiplexing would be a good solution for reducing jitter, but probably causes other problems (like decreased burst bandwidth and range).
My solution? "*sigh* - cancel the wireless link and order me a up a T1"
Wireless is nice because it's easy. But it sure ain't there yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And any system that uses a "contention" based method to determine who can transmit, will be prone to jitter, due to the randomness of when a device wants to transmit. This includes 802.11, which uses CSMA/CA (collision advoidance, not collision detect like ethernet).
Most wireless technology that has to guarantee specific latency to multiple clients uses some sort of static T [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch (USA) (Score:2, Insightful)
ISPs losing interest in citywide wireless coverage.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/23/1213255/ [slashdot.org]
Is patience in order?
In the '90s I could not drive from Oklahoma City to Dallas and keep cellphone service during the entire trip. If I was in an area not serviced by my cellphone provider, I had to "force" roaming by turning my Motorola flipphone off and on, then wait.
AT&T saw no future for data networks and the Internet!r
Re: (Score:2)
ISP's have a lot of experience with wired networking, but I just don't see them having the experience or the impetus to compete with companies whose
Re: (Score:2)
My real-life experience with WiMax (Mexico City) (Score:5, Informative)
The latency complaints you state are simply not true - I get consistent ping response times of 100ms in average (with minimum response times of around 50ms) to hosts in Mexico City, 200ms to hosts in the USA. Yes, this is about 80ms higher than wired equivalents - but it's not so much of a killer. What I do get, of course, is way higher packet loss - About 5% when things are optimal, and it sometimes gets up to 50%. But yes, I'm located at a relatively poor reception area, at one of the lower-income (this means, no incentive to place many antennas nearby) neighbourhoods in the South of the city, where the mostly flat valley where most of the city is located begins to become quite hilly. The RSU unit does not provide any means (for the client) for monitoring connection, to help choose the best possible location. It only has five LEDs (and no, they are not blue, just an unfashionable old green. Bummer.) indicating signal strength, and I always get one or two of them. I have seen signal quality significantly better when at a five-leds connection.
Prices and speed are more or less in-par with Mexico's near-monopoly TelMex; I'm paying about US$40 for a nominal 1Mbps/128Kbps connection (512K guaranteed, whatever that means). The upstream data flow _is_ shaped to 128k, but the downstream speed is not - when the network smiles on me, I get up to 2Mbps. It is not common, though.
I understand E-go (back then called I-go, don't ask me why) was praised as the world-first massive WiMax deployment - Even before the standard was finalized. There are several aspects of the installed network that show clearly the gear is pre-standard (i.e. extreme sensibility to position changes - If I move my RSU over two centimeters, it has to resynchronize with the antenna. This process takes around two seconds, so no big deal).
To me, clearly, the reason it hasn't got more popular is because it is owned by a relatively small company, and has not had the muscle to stand in front of Telmex's publicity machine.
Of course, we benefit more than DSL users from having a low client density
All wireless internet in Australia is a disaster (Score:2)
I recently had a vacation in eastern Australia. Sydney and the surrounding suburbs, Cairns, Port Douglas.
Like Canada, there are wireless connections everywhere, most of them locked properly by their owners.
But, here in Vancouver, you never have to hunt for too long to find an open connection you can check your email with. I found that in the above locations finding any
Re: (Score:2)
Its like talking a pig into voluntarily dying to become Bacon.
Not even parliment could talk or order Telstra into doing anything the people wanted.
Telstra is a scum bag. Period.
They make COmcast plus Verizon look like saints.
They even had a funny nickname: Telescum.
Re: (Score:2)
we import our assholes now days...
Nothing just magical about WiMax (Score:5, Interesting)
The only interesting thing about it is that it's not operated by traditional telcos.
But remember, what traditional telcos sell is not telecom, they're SELLING UBIQUITOUS telecom.
An untraditional telco would have to sell at a nonzero price ubiquitous. If they sell at zero price (or truly flat rate), a smartass will monopolize all access and resell it at real market price (what people are truly willing to pay). If the service is only sporadically available, no one will want to pay for it, or they would be better off setting up a fix line connection at the only place it works. If they comply to the two conditions, they are definitely traditional telcos.
In the long run, WiMax is bad for the consumer. As I explained above, the business model behind WiMax can only be the "traditional telco model". But now we have two technologies with incompatible end user hardware, incompatible operator hardware. Nokia and Alcatel Lucent will sell less copies of their products to operators, thus the price will rise. Nokia and Alcatel Lucent will ask for higher fees from the opco, guess who will pay the bill. Nokia and Motorola will sell less copies of their products to end users, guess who will pay for the relatively higher cost.
Furthermore, with WiMax vs 3G, there are now not one, but two markets for mobile data and voice. Barrier to jump from one to the other market is nonzero for the consumers. Each of the individual markets is also smaller, hence less competitive.
Fuck WiMax
Typical Slashdot (Score:2)
The entire first page is taken up by a flame war over free speech because the "first poster" made a comment about spectrum regulation (which might or might not have been relevant to the article as well.)
I suggest Slashdot pare its readers back to those who can establish some connection with technology, rather than just Microsoft shills and Republicans.
This might also ease the "my network was Slashdotted" problem.
Sounds like they didn't configure correctly. (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like they didn't configure it right, on one or both of two issues.
First: WiMAX has a frame rate that is an exact multiple of the 8000 frames/second rate of the telephone networks' digital carriers (and A/D converters). While this was obviously intended to allow it to carry telephone TDM signals and their associated timing (which normally isn't an issue for IP transport), WiMAX has its own, unrelated, timing issues that mandate the base stations be synchronized - to each other and preferably to a telephony network clock or a GPS-derived clock.
The base stations assign timeslots to each remote. They measure the propagation characteristics and (depending on the sort of base station) may adjust signal strengths, modulation rates, and/or antenna aim for the associated timeslot to obtain good communication, and may pick a timeslot that is currently "quiet" on the antenna / antenna-aim appropriate for the remote in question.
The problem is that multiple subscriber stations between two base stations (perhaps not adjacent ones) that are reusing a channel may both be "audible" to both base stations - perhaps due to using non-directinal antennas, perhaps due to reflections. If the base stations assign overlapping timeslots to their peered subscriber stations they will interfere. So the base stations try to assign their subscriber stations "quiet" slots - i.e. slots that don't already have interference from another nearby base station's remotes.
Now that's just fine if the base stations' clocks are synchronized. The timeslots hold a constant relationship to each other and a quiet slot stays quiet. But if the base stations are not synchronized their relative framing drifts. So one base station's subscriber's slot may drift into that of another base station's subscriber, resulting in a drop of the link quality. Then the base stations readjust the configuration - perhaps moving the subscriber stations to new slots. But these do the same thing. Over and over. Result: Links keep flaking out and control traffic is massive.
With the base stations synchronized and the subscriber stations carrying VoIP or other fixed-rate stream traffic, the stations will tend to hold on to quiet slots that march along with the stratum-III timing regularity of telephone carriers.
The second Quality of Service issue is packet priority. The routers at both the subscriber and base stations should be identifying the VoIP (or other fixed-bandwidth streaming) flow and giving its packets priority over other traffic on the link. That way the (limited and constant bandwidth) voice packets can take the preallocated slots every time while any additional variable traffic waits for the necessary additional slot allocation. If this is not done, other traffic (such as file transfers and web browsing) will keep "stealing" the time slots out from under the time-critical VoIP / streaming packets, resulting in long and variable latencies - horrendous jitter. If it IS done (and the link is stable due to the base-station timing synchronization), the VoIP flows will have jitter characteristics virtually identical to those of telephony TDM networks.
(This, by the way, is why "network neutrality" can't be reduced to "treat all packets the same" if you want to share the same IP network between streaming services such as video and VoIP and best-effort services such as file transfers and browsing.)
Security (Score:2)
All of AM? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can just hear it now: RUSH: "It's a Liberal conspiracy to get rid of us who tell the TRUTH!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps more to the point, an AM radio costs essentially nothing. You can make a crystal set out of scrounged parts.
Moving over to digital radio requires that everyone buys a more expensive and higher-power-consuming device, which in some circumstances is less useful. Digital equipment, to a first approximation, either works perfectly or not at all. Analog equipment can be stretched beyond its limits further under demanding circumstances, such as a civil emergency scenario (e.g. fire, flood) where degrad
Someone WILL steal your spectrum (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's not the broad spectrum de-regulators, it will the digital spectrum land grab speculators. I was talking to a friend who is a broadcast TV engineer and some European countries have switched analogue TV off entirely. Some number of people with 1991 TV sets just couldn't switch to digital or if they could afford it, couldn't grok the new user interface. A significant percentage of elderly folk just said "fsck it" and gave up on TV entirely.
Over here in Australia, our FM band is being switched off to make space for digital allocations. The "big picture" will be far more important than individual circumstance. Presumably sets will drop in price as the user base grows.
The open spectrum people are the least of your problems, the digital spectrum people have a lot more cash and backing to take over your AM spectrum.
Too true. But maybe not in the way you expect...
Xix.
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think it's good that they speak freely on AM radio. That way, I can know who I want to stay FAR away from. I can easily see how hearing some of that gave King the ideas for Children of the Corn.
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it annoying when people try to point out the hypocrisy of "Slashdotters" without citing individual people who are hypocritical that way. We are individuals, and despite the apparent groupthink, we can actually disagree. I don't agree with you that all Slashdotters are the same, and I don't agree with GP that fundie talk shows should actually be censored. Oh, and I don't agree with pretty much anything fundie talk shows have to say, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
But nuance (sanity?) like that is completely lost when you lump us all in a group like that. Good job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to buy into that as well, but its wrong. Should people be given carte blanche to lie, just because it's about their favourite superstitious belief?
People in the past have said (and continue to say) stupid things - would you really "defend to my death their right to say it"?:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lying is speech, and so it is covered under free speech. Now if you want to get into the issues of slander or defamation, we already have laws against that. If talk radio slanders somebody, then they would be sued, so the fact that they aren't being sued is proof that they aren't slandering anybody.
If you want to talk about lies, then you can simply set up your own radio station and refute the lies, and hope that nobody wants to silence you jus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IE if he wants, he can demonstrate on his own property, on public property available for that purpose, etc... If he can afford a radio station, he can spew all he likes. That's what I
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, what jury of your peers would convict? You could always plead "temporary sanity" (no, that's not a typo :-)
People like Phelps game the system for their own personal agrand
Re: (Score:2)
None of the 3 examples cited would require a fight to the death to defend. People often make the mistake of using examples that noone is going to fight to the death over.
There are plenty of better examples like oh I don't know how about "Islam is a stupid, childish religion and Mohammed probably had sex with pigs and his mother was a dog." for example?
If there were ever going to be
Well, challenge it then (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't laugh - a couple of us looked into setting up a relatively low-powered AM station (10,000 watts) 5 years ago. Fat chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I have already pointed out, the US was not founded on the concept of "absolute rights", but on opposition to absolute rights - in this case, the "absolute rights" of the English monarchy vs. the "no taxatio without representation" crowd.
This myth that the US has ever been about "absolute rights" is not only a lie (as per the above example), but it leads down a path of rigid dogma that ends up espousing foolishness - like the idea that all speech is equally worth protecting, or that "all men are created
Re: (Score:2)
Fred phelps doesn't believe that 9/11 is a reaction to US foreign policy. He believes it is god's judgment on the US for tolerating gays and lesbians, tight jeans, porn, divorce, and all those other "non-christian" values.
My question to him would be: "Since your god's judgment isn't on the non-christian / post-christian nations, maybe god likes their religion more?"
the guy is just one more pulpitt profiteer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never once heard anyone on
Re: (Score:2)
...but when it comes to silencing people who have a different political viewpoint than you do then any means including violence is perfectly OK.
You thought someone advocating nuking AM radio stations from orbit, using sharks with lasers on their heads was SERIOUS? Really? You thought he was actually ADVOCATING such action?
Or, did you just want to say something political yet nebulous about the "Slashdot" population as if it were a single, sentient being that disagrees with you?
Please clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stations of relatively modest power can provide services to distances of about 100 miles.
Receivers are cheap, portable and ubiquitous.
The AM radio is as accessible and familiar to the four year old as it is to the centenarian.
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Informative)
Medium-Wave broadcasting in the U.S. evolved when the country was still significantly rural.
Distances in the U.S. can defeat the European imagination.
The 50,000 watt "clear channel" station could be heard across several states - and to istances of 1,000 miles under favorable conditions.
AM radio had a distinct local or regional identity which persists to this day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few klicks to the west?
Boston to SF is 4,344 km.
St Petersburg to Vladivostok is 9,288 km by rail. Eight time zones.
But how many middle or western Europeans are accustomed to thinking of distances on either scale?
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
AM radio is a really durable technology. You can listen to solar powered broadcasts on crank powered radios.
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't even need that. One diode and some high impedance headphones is all you need. You don't even need any kind of power. There is no amplification, but I dare you to find one other broadcast technology that can draw all the power it needs from the signal its self.
Even if we switch off of AM and FM and such to fancy digital encodings, every radio should have the ability to tune into old-fashioned AM signals built in. It's trivial to add, and functions no matter what if they need to put stations up in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the message "I hate you," as transmitted via a 50-megawatt laser blast to the head?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
RFID. Ok, maybe not quite a broadcast technology, but you were kind of asking for it :P
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that in the worst case, a purely electromechanical transmitter can manage AM radio. For that matter, even a loose lightbulb in a lamp can send morse code to a nearby AM radio. All of that is why those frequencies got used in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, because medium wave is just too bulky. You can get small, cheap FM only radios for this reason.
And yeah, I grew up making crystal radios and small powered radios when I was eight or nine. Its hard to buy the nice open tuning gangs now. The old ways are going.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could listen to crank/solar-powered broadcasts on a radio with no external power source at all [wikipedia.org] except the radio waves it receives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll take about twenty years for mortality to render this incorrect. AM radio is like horses and buggies in 1920. And, with the amount of money at stake for media and telecommunications companies, there is no way commercial media outlets will ever present this issue in a compelling way to American voters without carefully framing it to push the agenda of their controlling companies. I don't think *
Re: (Score:2)
You'll just have to wait your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff they've been using "forever" is just another product made possible by a policy decision made a long time ago. They created their world, and now they want to stop us from doing the same thing. If they object on practical grounds, moral grounds, aesthetic grounds, economic grounds, etc. then that's fine -- they're just taking part like everyone should, and they have the right to do so until they die. If they obj
Re: (Score:2)
The AM radio spectrum is useless for WiMax anyway. 530-1600KHz (the entire AM radio band) will support only 500Kbps (0.5 Mbps) under ideal conditions (which never happens).
There REALLY should be more unlicensed spectrum up in the GHz range as opposed to the tiny sliver (3 whole non-interfering channels for all 802.11b/g traffic + microwave ovens, baby monitors and cordless phones) the FCC grudgingly grants but the A.M. band isn't it and isn't anywhere near as large as it seems.
The Television spectrum i
Re:AM Radio = Range (Score:5, Informative)
doubtful if you could effectively get one 54mbit channel in that space, plus, because it is NOT line of sight, someone a few miles away WILL interfere with your local transmissions.
Low frequencies (below about 2 MHz) hug the ground, this means AM does not have line of sight issues. Some AM broadcast stations have service areas of hundreds of miles (kilometers) (radius)
FM is 88.. 108 MHz. 1/4 wave here is roughly around 1 metre. Still a thumping huge antenna! These frequencies are considered line of sight, however, there is a small area extending beyond line of sight. Enough bandwidth for a few 54mbit channels.
WiFi is generally at 2.4 GHz. Same band as Microwave ovens use. Has to do with the frequency of maximum absorbance of water. (Thus used in ovens!) 1/w wavelength approx 4 cm
To get sufficient bandwidth, only UHF and up is really useful. But, get too high in the microwave band and the signal wont even get through a thin wall.
So, there are trade offs that genuinely make sense for wireless broadband. (lots more reasons as well
Re:AM Radio = Range (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
AM radio spans roughly 1 MHz (IE: approx 530KHz to 1.6 MHz.) You CANNOT fit a broadband wireless service into that space
Actually, the amount of bandwidth available in a block of frequencies isn't limited to
[highest frequency] - [lowest frequency]
It's limited to the total sum of every frequency within that block, taking into account of how much of a distance you have to put between each frequency before you start getting interference. So, more like
[bandwidth of 530KHz] + [bandwidth of 531KHz] + [bandwidth of 532KHz] + ... + [bandwidth of 1600KHz]
assuming you only had to separate each frequency by 1KHz. I think the actual theoretical maximum bandwidth in any frequency is half the Hz, but I don't remember very well.
Re:The real dissaster is spectrum regulation. (Score:5, Interesting)
2.4ghz and 5.6ghz/5.8ghz are good bands for line of sight transmission. Unfortunately, these frequencies are increasingly noisy and all of the fancy algorithms in the world can't help you when some of son-of-bitch with a home-made outfit is spewing out at obscene power levels.
As to non-line-of-sight, well, the higher bands just don't do so well. It's one thing to have a wood-framed house with drywall, which doesn't offer much of an obstacle, but apartment buildings and the like, where there's significant amounts of steel and concrete aren't going to cut it too well, at least without tons of access points all over the place (translation: $$$). The 900mhz band is pretty good at non-line-of-sight, but this section of the spectrum has been utterly poisoned by cordless phones (2.4ghz is getting that bad too).
What WiFi needs is some protected chunks of spectrum at the low, middle and high. Without that, forget about it. Maybe this latest auction will open some stuff up, but I doubt it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this [netxtechnology.com]? What does a business that specializes in "tuning your computer" have to do with WiMax?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong - read what the GP poster typed - "Netx", not "next".
Here, I'll make it easy for you [slashdot.org] ...
Re: (Score:2)