WIMAX: Next big thing? (DSL, screens, dial up, wi-fi)

[Brian.Pearson]

Looks like it could bring down DSL and cable rates and provide rural areas with connectivity they might not otherwise be able to get.

Link (encyclopedia)
Link (FAQ and other information)

[WillysB]

I use Clearwire today for my broadband. They're working with Sprint/Nextel to development a WiMax product but having some problems. I'm looking forward to giving it a try when possible.

I found this link about Chrysler today...

The long-term outlook is much different. Robinson calls Chrysler's early EVDO cellular router system a Trojan horse that portends the coming of viable mobile WiMAX, a wireless standard that makes WiFi look like dialup. That kind of speed and coverage could make in-car internet access commonplace, kill satellite radio and drastically change navigation. And it could happen as soon as 2012.

By that time, Robinson predicts, we'll have the infrastructure to support in-car broadband, entertainment and vehicle diagnostic systems using a truly mobile WiMAX standard. Such a standard would provide for the efficient transfer of signal between access points, something WiMAX can't do yet. It's "mobile" only at speeds less than 6 mph, which is why the AutoNet system relies on EVDO technology and why North American drivers can access satellite radio.

[Brian.Pearson]

I heard on the radio they now have Internet connections available on some airlines. I guess they get that from satellites?

[scorpy01]

I've been hoping for WiMax since I first read about it, back in 2002 I think, when the company I worked for was looking for a way to move from dial up to broadband. We did wireless but in the hills of West Virginia, line of sight can be very challenging.

Anyway, 6 years later and it's still not common in the US. I think I've read that it's available in some Asian countries. Maybe Europe? Can't remember but it's definitely not widely available here.

[ihatetucson]

Wi-Max does sound like a big thing for folks on the move from one side of town to another. I think I also heard that it was less expensive than the cable company High-Speed Internet and cell phone provider data services. Tucson was going to roll out city-wide Wi-Fi with the use of those 2 antennas you see on traffic lights and pedestrian signals. But the idea was shot down because people already have high-speed internet that we are paying a PRETTY PENNY for!

[Brian.Pearson]

Odd. Was there any news with citizen comments?

[themaster]

Sprint/Clearwire has the only real wimax initiative I know about.. and they turned it on for once in boston.. I don't think unless it's a scalable technology that it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread..

It's major advantages = more speed then EVDO or other 3g networks
It seems to have a high latency too.. I believe I heard the sprint reported at 60-70 ms as the 1st hop

The best thing it will do is bring prices down for all and offer yes more competition..

There will be a 2nd offering of these type of networks much later say 2012 or so.. being LTE what verizon and other company’s are going to use for a new data/cell network

But the truth be told in the 2nd internet war.. only 2 contenders that I know off are prepared to offer real high speeds.. that's the cable companies like comcast with Docsis 3.0 and that's verizon with fiber.. (which is likely able to hit 1% of the population at this point) no one else will be able to compete with their speeds.. (wimax will have a drag on ms and may not be that scalable though I hear tell it can with upgrades do 100 mbit.. we'll see)

So the truth is.. the clear winner is raising internet speeds up and up and up is comcast and cable companies.. they will at current rates dominate in 10 years (on speed alone) and while they'll have plenty of lower speed competitors (DSL, wimax) all should be super cheap then.. there may be only 1 high speed king the end.. (which is again BAD.. need competition for prices)

[Radek]

uhmmm...

i work for an ISP that uses wireless infrastucture as our main product offering. They exist folks. I don't know about major cities, but in rural states and cities, they're big. We have a large number of our customers because we are the ONLY provider.

I didn't read too much into the links, but I'll try to give a short breakdown of the Wi-Fi services and how they are similar and different from the ones you'd see at home.

Note: this is about the fixed location stuff, and not about mobile stuff

Large scale Wi-Fi uses primarily Line of Sight (LoS) offerings, where there is a stationary receiver/radio on a building aiming to and aiming from the distribution site.

Your wireless router at home doesn't require large antennas and receivers, because its not broadcasting at huge ranges. It works well, it handles interference well, etc. And it works on a Point-Multipoint system. Aka, base station to receivers. And you can do multiple base stations... etc, but thats not important.

A large amount of the wi-fi options offered are Point to point links, that are dedicated links to and from single antennas. These deal really well with interference because of a narrow beam (its not heading out in all directions, but straight to the other side). And they tend to offer larger bandwidth, and more dedicated.

The other option, and is a bit more common is the point to multipoint again. One base antenna, a large number of subscriber antennas, and very similar to what you have at home.

We can get 300mbps or faster on wireless links, and on flat, level terrain you can beam a signal 80 miles. With elevation changes, you can get over 80. (at 80, you hit curvature of earth issues) The majority of our backbone to distribution links are fed via wireless links.

The big issues with wireless technology are 4-fold.

1) Bands and interference. A large number of wireless links are 2.4ghz band, and are thus subject to interference, I've seen customers complain because when they pick up their phone, their internet cuts out... well their 2.4ghz phone is sitting right underneat our antenna... switch the phone to 5.8 or move the receiver somewhere else. So, a lot of people simply can't be serviced because we can't fight through the interference, and to fight through the interference requires licensed bands:
2) Licensed bands are EXPENSIVE to purchase for an area. It is a huge yearly license fee, and most ISPs will usually use these for their links between sites, to ensure reliability there.
3) Cost. Antennas cost money. Radios cost money. I think the cheapest I've heard for customer premise equipment is like $100. And most are much higher than that, so we lose a few customers to Cable and DSL because the equipment cost is much much cheaper for them, there. Hopefully these prices will continue to drop.
4) Line of Sight. We HAVE HAVE HAVE to have a clear view of our tower to install an antenna. We've got some great locations for my company, but often times, a tree or a building will just flat out block the view.

SO, theres some cool stuff coming out for cell/mobile stuff, but that stuff will hopefully be heading through the 900mhz or smaller bands (these bands have much better penetration through buildings, trees, weather, etc than the 2.4ghz and other bands).

Theres also some cool stuff on the ISP side for Wi-Fi, using a newly opened band. We've seen some amazing signal, aka... my coworker and I were giggling like schoolboys when testing.. we saw 8mb down/3mb up at 12.1 miles on a point to multipoint setup. It was... simply fantastic.

Themaster: the difference between individual companies and the speed you get is their oversubscription ratio. How much are they pushing off a sector versus how much can they pull out back to their core network.

So, while cable companies offer 15mb down/1mb up... we tend to offer a max of 2mb down/1mb up for residential customers and they will get that, always, every day. I have NEVER seen 15mb down on my cable connection.

[Brian.Pearson]

I was wondering if they could use existing structures for antennas, places like water towers and cell towers, or even tall buildings. Or do you mean that the antennas all by themselves are expensive?

[themaster]

I see it all the time.. want me to post a 16 mbit download screenshot?? when I talked about Docsis 3.0 ruling.. did I mention it's already deployed in the twin cities and yes for a whopping $150 a month.. you can get 50 mbit.. (16 mbit is already offered by comcast in certain cities where it has to compete with Verizon's fiber, the twin cities is one such city)

BTW I've read some story's about beam proprietary internet providers in the boonies and not everyone get's it to even work.. bottom line is if wimax catch's on has the range/capabilities talked about you might see serious competition for your proprietary technology in 10 years..

Sprint will only be launching to major cities for now..

I would not call wimax "yet" the next best thing.. however I would call it a great *option*