Unimonomous writes "CoolTechZone.com analyzes the future of wireless connectivity with WiMax standard. "WiMax is an upgrade from Wi-Fi and offers brilliant advantages over its predecessor. The obvious one being extended range (up to 15 miles), which means that establishing a few towers would pretty much make the entire city connected. Now this probably won't matter to those of us with 24/7 connectivity, but people living in rural and undeveloped areas would surely benefit from it." Update looks like the site buckled. Sorry.Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='wireless';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; The Future of Wireless Connectivity Log in/Create an Account | Top | 114 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 114 comments 0: 110 comments 1: 87 comments 2: 56 comments 3: 27 comments 4: 10 comments 5: 6 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. SQL Error on cooltechzone.com (Score:4, Informative) by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Thursday October 20, @01:29PM (#13837484) Looks like CoolTechZone is down...second story today that the referenced article was unavailable...Anyway, just so we have something to talk about...here's some info on WiMAX: The Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] WiMAX Forum [wimaxforum.org] Wi-Fi Planet [wi-fiplanet.com] [ Reply to This Re:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com (Score:5, Informative) by MikeURL (890801) on Thursday October 20, @01:35PM (#13837525) (Last Journal: Tuesday August 09, @12:32AM) Much as I like to complain about the juvenile obsession with the /. effect I went ahead and installed the greasemonkey script and it works well. You might want to look into it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by TripMaster Monkey (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @01:39PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by Winterblink (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:13PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by TripMaster Monkey (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:20PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by Winterblink (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:21PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by dsginter (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:56PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by tha_mink (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:32PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by timster (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:04PMCoral Cache by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:12PMRe:Coral Cache by TripMaster Monkey (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by `Sean (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:15PMHum. by Auraiken (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:21PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by Now.Imperfect (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @03:33PMRe:SQL Error on cooltechzone.com by aconkling (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:00PM Wireless (Score:5, Interesting) by certel (849946) on Thursday October 20, @01:30PM (#13837487) (http://www.paymentech.com/) Wireless connectivity will open a lot of windows for future products. As mentioned in as EBay article regarding voice calls being free in the future, things like wireless networks will definitely make that a reality. [ Reply to ThisRe:Wireless by Jennasaurus (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:50PMRe:Wireless by certel (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:00PMRe:Wireless by Jennasaurus (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:04PMRe:Wireless by certel (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:13PMRe:Wireless by madman101 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:14PMRe:Wireless by Jennasaurus (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @07:50PMRe:Wireless by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:10PMNo change, really. by hanshotfirst (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @04:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Article Text (in case of /.) (Score:5, Funny) by Mr. Sketch (111112) <(mister.sketch) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday October 20, @01:30PM (#13837488) mossession::store failedDB function failed with error number 1062Duplicate entry '1-' for key 2 SQL=INSERT INTO mos_session ( `session_id`,`time`,`guest` ) VALUES ( '99c38d82aea6757aa4798255c8c4f8d6','1129829336','1 ' ) [ Reply to ThisRe:Article Text (in case of /.) by HunterZ (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @01:36PMRe:Article Text (in case of /.) by Mr. Sketch (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:43PMCoolTech == HotTech by Bimo_Dude (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:38PMRe:Article Text (in case of /.) by Starji (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:50PMRe:Article Text (in case of /.) by parc (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.I SOLVED THE MYSTERY! by Spy der Mann (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:50PM The Only Downside (Score:3, Insightful) by geomon (78680) on Thursday October 20, @01:30PM (#13837492) (http://www.cato.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 17, @02:12AM) Is if my current ISP makes purchase a new antenna/modem. I shelled out $400 for the one I'm currently using so the thought of having a new equipment bill doesn't excite me much.That said, it would be nice if I can get higher bandwidth for the same price. When they did an equipment upgrade at their network tower, I received twice the bandwidth for the same price (still a bit pricey at $65/month). [ Reply to ThisRe:The Only Downside by cloudmaster (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:27PMRe:The Only Downside by crabpeople (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:32PMRe:The Only Downside by Tumbleweed (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @03:26PM Line of sight still, though.. (Score:4, Interesting) by xtal (49134) on Thursday October 20, @01:32PM (#13837508) (http://www.nyx.net/~smanley) The added range will help, but there's lots of antennas out there that will give you good reliability over long distances.The bigger problem is line of sight distances. I've done some testing with this and have the advantage of living on top of a very big hill, within view of DSL - about 5km over a lake. We've gotten connections with very crude antennas already using GPS to line things up reasonably well.The big limitation has always been line of sight, and WiMax does nothing to change this - and might hurt, if it fragments 802.11b. Wimax (802.16?) is not compatible with .11, and I'm not sure it will succeed. [ Reply to ThisRe:Line of sight still, though.. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:43PMRe:Line of sight still, though.. by NatasRevol (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:13PM Did you read the wikipedia entry? (Score:4, Informative) by xtal (49134) on Thursday October 20, @02:21PM (#13837947) (http://www.nyx.net/~smanley) It should be noted that these claims, especially that such distances can be achieved without line of sight, represent, at best, a theoretical maximum under ideal circumstancesLine of sight is ALWAYS going to be required in that frequency spectrum, unless you are very close or at very high power levels. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Line of sight still, though.. by Kymermosst (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @05:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Line of sight still, though.. by timeOday (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:33PMRe:Line of sight still, though.. by ShawnDoc (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Two words by aztektum (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Just while we're on the subject of Wi-fi (Score:5, Informative) by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Thursday October 20, @01:32PM (#13837509) (Last Journal: Wednesday January 19, @09:35PM) The BBC is running an article [bbc.co.uk] about the ongoing debate about municipal wi-fi in the US. "Recent figures suggest that since 2000, the US has dropped from third to 16th among nations worldwide in terms of per capita broadband access.Bob Hale, owner of American Onion, shows how he uses a laptop with wireless capabitlities from a remote, rural site at his onion fields in Hermiston, OregonStudies suggest that 86% of households with income of more than $75,000 have broadband access. But the share is just 38% for those with an income of less than $30,000.Huge areas of US countryside outside major towns and cities are also poorly served.Ironically, one of the frontiers of wireless accessibility is found in a rural swathe of Oregon, which is thought to have one of the world's largest wireless hotspots. [ Reply to ThisRe:Just while we're on the subject of Wi-fi by olddotter (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:25PMRe:Just while we're on the subject of Wi-fi by YrWrstNtmr (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:51PMRe:Just while we're on the subject of Wi-fi by timeOday (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:54PMRe:Just while we're on the subject of Wi-fi by planetmn (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:06PMRe:The Onion by madman101 (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:20PMRe:The Onion by fiannaFailMan (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. What about security? (Score:3, Interesting) by d'oh89 (859382) * on Thursday October 20, @01:37PM (#13837549) Ok, let's say 5 years down the road most folks use WiMax for internet connectivity along the same lines of coverage that broadband follows. How secure are those connections going to be? With my cable modem at least i can stick a firewall between me and all the nasties out there. What I can't imagine is how Joe Schmoe is going to protect his PC enough so that he doesn't get comprimised by a hacker/slacker. People have enough of a time configuring their wireless routers...Now imagine having to connect to a tower 5 miles away where there's a lot of ohter folks doing the same thing. What can one do to protect themselves? [ Reply to ThisRe:What about security? by veediot (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:53PMRe:What about security? by vertinox (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:22PMRe:What about security? by Castar (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @05:36PMRe:What about security? by wronskyMan (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @08:05PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Use Mirrordot! (Score:1, Redundant) by Mr. Sketch (111112) <(mister.sketch) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday October 20, @01:38PM (#13837557) http://mirrordot.org/stories/effe3f9d48d28ed804ea6 9d34be7bfb1/index.html [mirrordot.org] [ Reply to ThisRe:Use Mirrordot! by TripMaster Monkey (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @01:44PM gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas (Score:3, Informative) by Mashdar (876825) on Thursday October 20, @01:40PM (#13837571) but people living in rural and undeveloped areas would surely benefit from itUnless you are talking about automating your farm equipment with wifi, I doubt many rural areas will see this until far into the future.Who is going to pay to set up a tower to give 20 people internet? The reason wimax is so attractive in cities is the user density. I suppose the point is that it is cheaper than laying new land lines in rural areas (where broadband capable lines may be absent)?It doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon, though. And there is still the matter of wiring the towers. Unless you wanted them to route signals wirelessly... I wouldn't want to risk my data travelling hundreds of miles over air. Fifteen is bad enough. [ Reply to ThisSure we'll see it in rural areas, why not? by WillAffleckUW (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @01:46PMRe:gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas by QuantumRiff (Score:3) Thursday October 20, @02:16PMRe:gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas by north.coaster (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:21PMRe:gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas by Grym (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:33PMRe:gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas by clockmaker (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @02:24PMRe:gl hf... not going to see it in rural areas by Spit (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @11:04PM One problen with rural connection... (Score:3, Insightful) by JoeCommodore (567479) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Thursday October 20, @01:45PM (#13837610) (http://www.portcommodore.com/) Is that some folk who live in hilly or mountainous regions where you would have to have lots of access points to ensure any sort of decent coverage. Probably one of the reason people are looking at airship transmitters.Some folk in our area can't get anything as they are too remote for lines, to hily for towers and those same hills and trees block sattelite access. [ Reply to This Of interest to not just rural/remote people (Score:4, Interesting) by Safe Sex Goddess (910415) on Thursday October 20, @01:45PM (#13837611) (http://www.safesexzone.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 22, @01:14PM) WiMAX is of interest to those in urban areas who are working to provide universal net access to even those who can't afford $50/month.I think Municipalities could probably find ways to offer free wireless internet in their communities if they are creative. For example, they could offer free municipal wireless with the excuse that they want to provide job search capabilities to everyone in their community.Also providing access to any local, state, or .gov site. And what about include access to any non-profit site, and also to any site offering free e-mail.Add a little peer-to-peer networking between people using the same free networks and who needs any corporate advertisements or sites or access to the "private subscriber" side of the internet? [ Reply to ThisRe:Of interest to not just rural/remote people by RUFFyamahaRYDER (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @01:56PMRe:Of interest to not just rural/remote people by ethanms (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:32PM The problems are not so easy to fix (Score:5, Insightful) by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday October 20, @01:45PM (#13837615) (http://www.asomaworld.net/zinn | Last Journal: Tuesday October 04, @08:28PM) and they all relate to regulations. The FCC has, so far, taken a hands off approach to regulation of data services, both wireless and wired. This approach is having an effect of establishing new networks, or seems to be. The problem is that all these new networks are being built by companies that plan to make money from distributing digital content... and we ALL know how sticky that problem is. For instance, music and video distribution is tightly being strangled by the *AA, and MS is trying to get in on the game too, with DRM'd content. All of these efforts are good, and believe me, WiMax is a *GOOD* thing.The problems are content and distribution. Right now, plans are being made for IPTV and radio, and many many things that are digital in nature, all of which make life better or easier to cope with. Still, copyright and patent law will fsck it up if changes are not made now... Later is no good, the changes need to be made now....two cents used [ Reply to This eeeeeeeeew! (Score:2, Informative) by Spy der Mann (805235) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (todhsals.nnamredyps)> on Thursday October 20, @01:49PM (#13837651) (Last Journal: Wednesday October 12, @02:42PM) Nothing worse than exposing your php/mysql site with an error message. Hello.... security?(let's hope the website is fixed soon) [ Reply to ThisRe:eeeeeeeeew! by temojen (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Good for cities too (Score:2) by PixelSlut (620954) on Thursday October 20, @01:50PM (#13837658) After the FCC ruling [slashdot.org] regarding DSL lines, this might be a way for Internet providers to keep providing high-speed network connections once the telecoms close off their DSL lines and refuse to provide them for the other ISPs. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. WiMax is a step in the right direction (Score:1) by realmolo (574068) on Thursday October 20, @02:00PM (#13837750) But didn't I read somewhere that the Feds/FCC were going to open up some of the UHF/VHF frequencies currently used for TV broadcasts? Wouldn't that allow even better coverage?Seems to me that the problem with WiFi and even WiMax is that they use such high frequencies, that the signal can't get "through" much of anything. Trees are enough to screw up the signal. If they could use freqencies in the ~100 Mhz range that VHF TV broadcasts use, they would be able to go through most stuff. Seems to me like that is what will eventually happen. [ Reply to ThisRe:WiMax is a step in the right direction by sanx (Score:1) Thursday October 20, @08:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Municipal-provided Access Will Hurt Us All (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @02:05PM (#13837785) Will large ISPs be able to provide high-speed access at current prices if municipalities provide lower speed access for free? I get the sense that many ISPs will decide that they can't make any money providing access to a limited number of customers who want truely high-speed access everyone will be stuck using the "free" service provided by the government. How much insentive will they have to keep making the service better? [ Reply to This no people (Score:3, Insightful) by slapout (93640) on Thursday October 20, @02:06PM (#13837800) "Now this probably won't matter to those of us with 24/7 connectivity, but people living in rural and undeveloped areas would surely benefit from it"The problem is that there are not enough people in those areas to make it profitable. [ Reply to ThisRe:no people by slapout (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @11:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Overhyped (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, @02:07PM (#13837802) Just from the intro (site still buckled) it sounds like an overly hyped analysis of 802.16. Sure, the technology promises to provide wireless broadband to the masses and to some extent that is correct, however 15 miles is probably referring to a point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connectivity from a base station to basestation architecture. 802.16e, or, the mobile side of WiMax is the ultimate end user standard not yet finalized (e.t.a. 2007). This standard has much less range - typically 3 miles or less for portable and mobile users. How does this footprint differ from cellular broandband? Differing modulation schemes, power usage, frequencies, etc is a start, but the underlying advantages of this technolgy versus cellular broadband are still untested and definitely a long way to go before they become implemented. It's hard to say if this technology will still provide us with a competitive market over the growing cellular broadband market. [ Reply to ThisYou're right, cellular is overhyped. by argent (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @04:13PM Still in the Dark Ages of information (Score:2) by dada21 (163177) * <dada@d n g i nc.com> on Thursday October 20, @02:08PM (#13837809) We have to admit that we're in the Dark Ages of information sharing.In the U.S., a ton of bandwidth is wasted (regulated) to antiquated technology. OTA analog and/i> digital television frequencies are two decades outdated. Lower "open" frequencies (old cordless phones, etc) are underutilized.Information is like a river at a dam ready to break. Once we free up the limitations on frequencies, we'll see so many wireless forms of communication that publicly paid WiFi will be too expensive to compete.In my town and the 3 neighboring towns we have 2 free WiFi providers (who also sell higher speed connections): Jimmy Wireless and Db3. They want to provide MORE free towers in more cities. Guess who prevents that? Government.If tiny companies such as these were allowed more frequencies and fewer regulations, we'd see 5MB/1MB connections for $9/month. Maybe as low as $50/year for 2MB/512KB.In ten years, every form of media we've seen from 1920 to 2004 will be dead. Government gave those media forms privilege, the Internet choices of millions will go around the privileged few.You want it free? End the taxing authorities' strangehold. You want it fast? Get rid of OTA TV and radio. You want it now? Vote out any local politician who mentions any form of media.Here's why every law and regulation and tax should have a 5 year sunset. [ Reply to ThisPreview is my friend... by dada21 (Score:2) Thursday October 20, @02:10PM Too much radiation? (Score:1) by lemaymd (801076) on Thursday October 20, @04:33PM (#13839130) (http://lemaymd.com/) 50W at microwave frequencies sitting on your lap sounds like a bad idea. 300W boils water in under 6 minutes when contained in a microwave oven. I'm not springing for this upgrade... [ Reply to This High Speed community networks? (Score:3, Interesting) by tji (74570) on Thursday October 20, @04:39PM (#13839188) (http://www.weaselworkz.com) When thinking about what WiMax will offer us, I am not sure what all the advantages will be. Obviously, the current Wireless network ISPs will be able to support a much larger area, making them a lot more useful.Beyond that, you have all the same limitations as current ISPs (i.e. I don't see this giving me a low cost 30Mbps connection.. hopefully DSL or Cable will eventually do this).But, in relatively dense areas, I see some cool possibilities in community networks. In these, we don't worry about a big pipe to the Internet, which would be expensive. We just join a local network and share resources at high speeds.As it is now, if i leave my upload speed reasonable on P2P apps, it quickly swamps my outbound bandwidth and all my Internet access goes to crap. P2P networks, file servers, could be a lot more useful at high LAN speeds -- and most people would be more willing to serve at high speeds when it doesn't effect their Internet connection.Even sharing huge files, like HDTV programs, could be feasible on the local networks.Link a few of these WiMax networks together, and you can get some huge alternate networks, where people provide useful services for their communities. Without bandwidth costs, it becomes very cheap.. I can easily set up a Linux box to dedicate to this network for a couple hundred bucks. [ Reply to This FiMax (Score:3, Interesting) by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday October 20, @04:59PM (#13839360) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM) WiFi offers maybe 110Mbps in a 700m radius. WiMax offers maybe 650Mbps in 24000m radius. That's 71bps:m for WiFi vs. 0.36bps:m for WiMax . WiFi is 200x as dense as WiMax. Rural areas have much larger areas which don't account for bandwidth usage, with big users every few miles. While urban areas have much more even distribution of consumption - even stacking 3-4 layers per meter, sometimes 20-50+ layers (like urban centers like Manhattan). Real consumption shows that WiMax is better for rural areas, or long backhauls (attenuated into beams that can carry the network maybe hundreds of miles across gaps like open water). Even in rural areas, WiFi is better for the hotspots, like actual buildings or vehicles. While in urban areas, even public places like streets are very dense, with 655Mbps shared by hundreds of people every block.So WiFi isn't exactly an "upgrade" to WiFi. It's a complementary technology. Even throttling down the power to cover only a few blocks with each WiMax AP to use its higher bandwidth is only useful as a connection "umbrella" to interconnect denser WiFi hotspots in buildings and cars. Which is also appropriate, because users in public places are usually mobile or casual, without the bandwidth demands of a stationary user. WiMax marketers are selling it as an upgrade to WiFi because WiFi is such a popular brand name, and WiMax has to sell to anyone who will buy. But we should get excited only about the WiMax features that are actually better than WiFi in the scenarios where WiFi is now the round peg in the square hole. Otherwise we'll be sorely disappointed when inappropriate WiMax applications underperform even WiFi, and we'll be stuck with the wrong solution - and the marketdroids will be stuck with our money, without which we can't buy what we actually want. [ Reply to This WiMAX is not a "WiFi Upgrade" (Score:1) by Curmudgeon Rick (730930) on Thursday October 20, @05:30PM (#13839683) I wish tech press would discard the PR-driven myth that WiMAX is an upgrade to WiFi.WiMAX is a different thread in the IEEE technical standards, designed to accomplish different things. WiFi's upgrade path is not from 802.11g to 802.16, but to the partly-completed 802.11n.The 802.11n standard is designed for faster wireless LANs - which is a different market to the WiMAX wireless local loop target. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Residents' network (Score:1) by msbsod (574856) on Thursday October 20, @05:56PM (#13839941) With a maximum distance of about 25 km, there should be no problem to build a large network within a city or even smaller villages. The hubs should not be owned by a company, they should be owned by people like you and me. Why pay a company for something that we can do for the cost of a hub and network card? All we need are a few access points with internet connection. Maybe cities realize the potential behind this idea and provide those access points for free. The rest will grow like poison ivy. New services will follow, such as free phone lines, conference connections with video, free information access for poor people, more porn - of course - and many other good things. If companies like COX and Verizon do not like the idea, then it is about time for us to ask why not. [ Reply to This Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful) by temojen (678985) on Thursday October 20, @01:54PM (#13837689) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 18, @06:06PM) In the future there may be only wireless service for consumers, due to lower cost of deployment. Given a certain spectrum width, wireless has less data carrying capacity due to the need for agressive noise correction. Also, with wireless you can't increase capacity by laying a second piece of coax or fiber beside the first. In congested areas (neighbourhoods of large apartment buildings, etc), the combination of high use, high RF noise, and complex surfaces (walls, etc) could seriously tax WiMAX. Fortunately these same areas are where the cost of deployment for coax and fiber is lowest. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.10 replies beneath your current threshold.