The US May Finally See Widespread 'Super Wi-Fi' Deployment (siliconvalley.com) 76
The end of the FCC's spectrum auction last week "should give a clear indication of how much space will be available in each TV market for Super Wi-Fi," according to the Bay Area Newsgroup. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
[T]he technology has promised speedy internet for rural citizens and to help urban dwellers get connected in buildings and rooms that are now twilight zones for Wi-Fi signals... And because the spectrum is regulated and largely reserved for television signals, Super Wi-Fi transmissions don't have to contend with interference from random devices like microwaves or cordless phones, as do signals in other wireless bands. Super Wi-Fi signals generally won't be as fast as regular Wi-Fi signals, but for many customers, they'll be faster and provide better service than what they'd get otherwise...
It's widely expected that there will be plenty of room for Super Wi-Fi in rural areas where there are few television signals, which is why companies like Cal.net and Q-Wireless have pressed forward with the technology even before the auction closes. The big question is whether regulators will preserve sufficient space for Super Wi-Fi in areas like New York and Los Angeles where there are lots of broadcast stations and in cities like Detroit and San Diego that have to share the airwaves with cities from other countries. If there's not enough space in those areas, Super Wi-Fi, in this country at least, will likely be relegated to rural areas.
It's widely expected that there will be plenty of room for Super Wi-Fi in rural areas where there are few television signals, which is why companies like Cal.net and Q-Wireless have pressed forward with the technology even before the auction closes. The big question is whether regulators will preserve sufficient space for Super Wi-Fi in areas like New York and Los Angeles where there are lots of broadcast stations and in cities like Detroit and San Diego that have to share the airwaves with cities from other countries. If there's not enough space in those areas, Super Wi-Fi, in this country at least, will likely be relegated to rural areas.
Rural only? That's fine. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Living in the ass-end of nowhere is a choice. No one made you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly boy, you're thinking downloading, not uploading. Under the new fuck you privacy laws to which you are entitled exactly none. You can fit that spectrum into smart TVs with cameras and microphones, so they can more effectively 'anal eyes' your habits to target you, well, for what ever reasons they want to target you, whether you are anti-corporatist scum or a competitor or just an insider trading target ;).
Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem... (Score:2)
See subject.
Re:Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem...
So, Mr. Snarky City Guy, you really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? The problem isn't WiFi congestion in rural areas, it's the lack of any affordable infrastructure able to get broadband out to those areas in the first place. Having your WiFi busy on your property when your neighbor's WiFi is a quarter mile away is NOT a problem. But if neither of you can actually get those routers to connect to the internet because there's no there there, what's the point? There are millions of people who live where poor DSL, at best, is the broadband they can get - no matter what they're willing to pay. That, or laggy, expensive, very much capped satellite service with dial-up upload speeds. No cable, no fiber, no T-1 to your business ... just dial-up, and perhaps some 3G mobile coverage if you're lucky.
This broadband desert starts happening just a few miles outside of most towns. You know, where the people who grow your food live.
Re: Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem. (Score:2)
Re: Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem. (Score:4, Informative)
An approach that would meet the needs of far more people would be addressing poor inner city areas
That's a different problem that requires a different solution.
Re: Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had wifi when I was on dialup you insensitive clod!
Most cell companies are nearing the end of their LTE roll outs so if you can get a cell signal out in the sticks it's normally pretty quick anymore.
Re:Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So a wide-spread WiFi is the opposite of everything WiFi was initially designed to do. So to keep the same name will only confuse people.
Re:Because rural WiFi crowding is such a problem.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rural WiFi is not the same thing your home WiFi, although it does use the same frequencies and technologies.
Rural WiFi is used by wireless ISPs (that is, the rural equivalent to your urban cable modem or DSL connection). This is accomplished with directional antennas that concentrate the signal so that it can span five to 10 miles. They do this because it is prohibitively expensive to string fiber (or copper) when there are only a few customers per mile. Because the signal is so weak by the time it gets all the way to the receiver, interference anywhere along the "line of sight" path is more difficult to filter out.
An urban dweller needs maybe a 500-foot circle of no interference. The rural need is a non-interference rectangle 500 feet wide by maybe 10 miles long, stretching from his roof-mount antenna all the way to the ISP antenna which likely is mounted on a grain elevator in a nearby town.
The switch to digital should help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wimax? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sprint bought it and shut it down.
When you hear people talking about clearwire that's what they are talking about.
The laptop i'm typing this on actually has a wimax card built in but there has never been a wimax AP anywhere near here so I doubt i'll ever be able to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Through who? iirc all the other WiMAX carriers were smaller clearwire was the big one and afaik there aren't any others still operating.
Re: (Score:3)
Through who? iirc all the other WiMAX carriers were smaller clearwire was the big one and afaik there aren't any others still operating.
My carrier is Rise Broadband, which used to operate under various names, including JAB Wireless, Digis, and others. They operate in 16 states.
I thought Clearwire was 4G, not WiMax (IEEE 802.16).
Hmm. Looking at some Wikipedia articles, it appears that there are two different standards, WiMax (802.16, which later gained the name "Fixed WiMax", when the mobile standard was created) and Mobile WiMax (802.16m). It seems you were talking about the latter, while I was talking about the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Darn too bad they never thought of anything that worked on a different frequency than microwaves...Oh wait they did it was called 802.11a and no one used it.
Re: Interference from random devices (Score:1)
Except for everyone using 802.11ac
Re: (Score:2)
802.11a is 5 GHz. Microwave. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard microwave ovens operate in the 2.4GHz frequency tho (roughly about wifi channel 9) 5GHz is far enough away that it shouldn't receive any significant interference.
Of course if the microwave has decent shielding it won't bother a 2.4GHz network either.
Promises (Score:1)
It's always 2 years off. Fusion is always 20 years off.
Can we focus on LTE 5 which is actually being deployed in all hardware as we speak?
Well?
Re: (Score:2)
Super wifi doesn't sound like a very technical term.
TFA doesn't mention any speeds.
The two companies listed don't seem to be very well priced for what you get.
I mean I could get 50/5Mbps unlimited wireless here for $100/mo if I didn't live next to a hill and that's just with the current gen ubnt wireless equipment.
I think LTE will outrun this tech at it's current pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Super wifi doesn't sound like a very technical term.
True. But I like the way that rolls out. [youtube.com]
Thanks a Lot Canada! (Score:1)
Television Band Whitespace (Score:2)
Yeah, that's going to work out well. It is going to use a white space database to select 'unused' spectrum (i.e. TV channels) and enable Super WiFi equipment to operate there. But here's the thing: I have a decent rooftop antenna and I can pick up ATSC signals from as far away as 60 miles. Now someone nearby plugs in their Super WiFi access point and the database says, "Go ahead and use this channel. Nobody could possibly receive TV with a pair or rabbit ears." And my TV reception goes into the crapper. So
More towers (Score:2)
How many users can share that tower if they expect 24/7 service with internet like data caps?
Reserve a bit spectrum and some bandwidth per user per tower 24/7?
How many rural users per tower so each user gets real their own real internet experience? How many towers per rural area?
Badly named (Score:2)