Hyping WiMaxIntel nudges first WiMax enabled county ( old news - 05:17PM Tuesday Dec 30 2003) tags: wireless · hardware · alternativesIntel continues to push its WiMax brand as the last mile wireless savior of the future. Their push now takes them into the municipal residential broadband arena, where the first "802.16 county" is being born in Georgia. - Intel, Nokia, Fujitsu and several other companies recently founded WiMax, a new corporate entity dedicated essentially to hyping the 802.16 wireless technical standard Intel has has been trying to make popular for years. According to Intel, the standard provides coverage over an area of 30 miles, compared with the 300-foot range of the now common 802.11b wireless LAN. The standard is primarily tailored for the development of MANs (Metropolitan Area Networks), and is more of a complement for Wi-Fi than a replacement for it. Using wireless technology for "last mile" connectivity is hardly new; in the late nineties the FCC auctioned off bandwidth for something called Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS). The supposed perk of technologies such as 802.16 and LMDS is that they're less expensive than comparable alternatives. Only this time, with Intel and other big players at the helm tinkering with various 802.16 flavors (802.16, 802.16.2, 802.16a, 802.16c) some (like this Inquirer journalist) think Wimax could be the proverbial kick in the pants the wireless sector needs. Intel is certainly one of them, calling the specification "the most important thing since the Internet itself." Opinions differ among technophiles about the usefulness of the 802.16x wireless specification, but that hasn't stopped its well funded march toward large scale commercial - and now municipal adoption. Spotted via Jim Baller's muni-network mailing list, the Macon Telegraph and MuniWireless.com chime in on Intel's latest Wimax push. The company is hoping to make Houston County, Georgia the first county to be fully wired (or un-wired as the case may be) via Wimax. The project is still in the planning stage, with the $2 million dollar price-tag being the obvious obstacle. Not Intel, as their primary motivation is to "help the county get started by providing experts to study the issue and possibly selling the necessary start-up equipment," according to the Telegraph. Intel did however fund a $30,000 wireless technology lab in a local area high school. Both reports claim county residents will see service in the $15 to $30 a month range, once two communications towers, each providing service in a 30-mile (48-km) radius, are built. Local providers Cox or BellSouth would obviously provide the pipe to the web. Wimax's technical specifics can be found at the WiMax forum website.
Related:- Chrysler To Offer In-Car Wi-Fi
- Netgear Offers Open Source WGR614L
- Sprint Launching Airave Service July 15
- How To Tether The 3G iPhone
- Sprint Launches Airave Service
- The Year For FemtoCells is 2010
- Google Android Dropping In September?
- We Get It: 2008 Is NOT The Year Of The Femtocell
|
 
matt380
Dangit, Bobby.
Premium
join:2002-06-12
Kennesaw, GA
clubs: | yee-haw!! Looks like the yokels will be able to get all the pr0n the can handle from anywhere they want! wouldn't est. this in a larger metro area be a bigger selling point? | |
|  | | | | 
cyberthugin
join:2002-03-12
Kew Gardens, NY | Re: yee-haw!! I guess it easy to deploy in rural areas than in big cities, esp where big building would interfere. | |
| | | | 
GNXPower
Got Boost?
Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: yee-haw!! said by cyberthugin  :
I guess it easy to deploy in rural areas than in big cities, esp where big building would interfere.
Competition from other established wired providers is what stops residential WISP deployment in big cities, not buildings. | |
| | | | | joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Wayland, MA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: yee-haw!! said by GNXPower :
Competition from other established wired providers is what stops residential WISP deployment in big cities, not buildings.
Don't underestimate the value cutting the wire brings the user. Having my laptop go anywhere in my house and yard is fine, but to be able to get in the car and have that range is worth the second fee, or changing providers.
JOE
--
Live and Learn, Die and Forget it All | |
| | | | | |
GNXPower
Got Boost?
Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: yee-haw!! said by joetaxpayer :
said by GNXPower :
Competition from other established wired providers is what stops residential WISP deployment in big cities, not buildings.
Don't underestimate the value cutting the wire brings the user. Having my laptop go anywhere in my house and yard is fine, but to be able to get in the car and have that range is worth the second fee, or changing providers.
JOE
Roaming (like hot spots) is a tiny niche market compared to the possible market served by providing last mile connectivity to users who currently have no options save for satellite. | |
| |
GNXPower
Got Boost?
Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
| said by matt380 :
wouldn't est. this in a larger metro area be a bigger selling point?
No, there is a bigger market in serving those providers looking to deploy to consumers who can't get alternative access than trying to introduce competitive technology for the hotspot market. In the vast majority of metro markets, there is little problem with last mile deployment, either from a conventional WISP, cable, fiber or telco provider.
In a large number of rural markets last mile deployment is cost prohibitive and there is a large market for filling those deployment needs. | |
| | | mattgyver
join:2003-07-22
Macon, GA
| Re: yee-haw!! I just moved from Macon, GA (right outside Houston Co). One reason they may be trying it there is that there's a huge air force base there employing about 25,000 military and civilian personell. Plus the large numbers of big-business military contractors--Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. | |
| | | |
GNXPower
Got Boost?
Premium
join:2003-12-18
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: yee-haw!! You called it. One of the articles states that Intel selected that county because of the IT and military contractors located there and the county is looking to stimulate growth....thus share in the $2M cost.
I think it's a great idea...muni-owned WISP infrastructure...then consumers can choose from a list of content providers that can deliver service. People get service and competition without massive infrastructure costs, or big paybacks in the form of cable or telco monopolies and the constant crap service and high prices consumers receive. | |
| | 
mamoon
@fdn.com
| Seems to me to be a positioning thing. Anyone who bothers spelling correctly also understands the location is closer to the center of Georgia than Atlanta. As some of us know The Macon area is the next area set to grow exponentially in this state. They are getting in on the ground floor. | |
| 
CenTex2
join:2003-04-16
Marlin, TX
| sounds nice, BUT...... My partner and I own a wireless ISP in rural Texas, and I can say with a 110% amount of certainty that 802.16 gear IS NOT going to be the solution for broadband access in under-developed areas. Anyone here ever heard of "scale of economy"? You simply can't sell a $600 radio and the associated additional equipment to the average joe that lives in the sticks, no matter how fast the porn comes in...lol. Lemme break it down for those of you not in the business like I am, and i'll use the actual numbers to instill the fear of God into anyone that belives all the WIMAX hype. If you think ANY major provider is going to go through all this trouble for a handful of clients that they never showed interest in to begin with, time to change your medication! LOL Here's how the wireless business works:
As an example, let's say you live in a rural area, with an approximate population of 7,000 persons in a town of approx 6 square miles in rural Texas. Due to pure insanity, you decide to provide fixed wireless broadband services to the area, as no other options are available and the major players don't deem a population density this low worthy of their time and investment to provide services. You sink you life savings into setting up an infrastructure to handle about 300 clients (servers, radio equipment, establishing an office, staff, etc.). As wireless technology requires line-of-sight between your main transmitter and your client radios, you must either rent space on an existing structure or build your own tower on land you must purchase and zone appropriately to construct a 200ft. tower. Now that you've invested $50,000 worth of equipment and have a tower to transmit from, you have to feed this beast with some type of broadband connection to resell to your client base. In a great deal of rural markets, a SINGLE T1 will cost anywhere from $900 - $1,200 each, per month. There is generally no competition for your business, as the local telco is the only game in town that can offer you your T1's, and they will NOT cut you a deal because 1) you are now their competitors 2) there's no other competition, so you'll pay what they're asking if you want service. To get decent pricing (if that's what you want to call it), you sign away your life on 2 T1's to start off with, for a contract period of 3 years at a cost of approx. $2,000 per month. Since you're a newly formed business with no D&B rating, the local telco reluctantly sells you service after you provide them with a $3,800 down payment. After approx. 60 days (or whenever they get around to it), your T1 lines are hot and you're ready to sell services! Only problem is, good commercial grade equipment isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination. YOUR cost as a provider to hook up ONE client runs between $500 - $600. Unless you're EXTREMELY well funded, you'll need to pass at least half of this cost down to your customer as installation fees of some type. Remember that line-of-sight issue I mentioned earlier? Well, most rural areas have trees - and LOTS of 'em. You'll also have to erect a tower or mast at your client's site in order to recieve the wireless signal. You HAVE to clear the vegetation and other obstructions, or the link won't work - adding more upfront costs to you and your subscriber. By the time all things are setup and working properly, the customer's out of pocket expense is $350 (assuming you're willing to eat half).
Let's say your first month went well, and you convinced 15 rural households that they need to spend $350 of their hard-earned money during a natoinwide recession on a service that is not generally considered a necessity. In 3 of these households are teenagers that LOVE downloading and sharing music and movies on their computers - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the wireless technology, your peer network speed drops to a dead halt for your subscribers while a few kids flush your $2000 per month investment down the toilet for a fleet of badly produced CD's and movies that they burn onto CD's. Time to invest another $2,500 of your money on a device that controls how much bandwidth each customer gets, and integrate it into your existing network. You now have the ability to control who's using what, and can start offering various levels of service at different price points. How much to charge? Good question! As a rule of thumb, I keep my prices competitive with the average DSL and cable service in surrounding markets (even though it is not available here). At $40 per subscriber per month, it takes you 50 clients to break even on your monthly bandwidth costs, THEN you can start recouping your other expenses.
Running a wireless ISP is a 24x7 operation that takes a sick sense of dedication to keep running smoothly and keeps your clients happy. As your client base grows, it requires a small army of support personnel that know all aspects of the business very well. These technicians and engineers cost money, and must be willing to relocate to where you're going to offer service in order to provide quick resolutions to problems that arise.
Does anyone in this forum REALLY believe that ANY major player is going to go through all of this to provide last-mile internet connectivity to all of rural America? HaH! These people have trouble competing in the markets they specialize in....lol. All they understand is PROFIT, plain and simple....and unless things drastically change in the telecommunications market very soon, IMHO there will never be enough profit to make their efforts worthwhile. I might be wrong, but if I were, there would already be broadband available EVERYWHERE, right?
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and never pet the sweaty things... | |
| | 
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: sounds nice, BUT...... Let us say the cost of the equipment goes down as it becomes more and more implemented in urban areas. At what point would it become profitable?
--
nos insuadibilis defessus, nos insuadibilis inclino, nos insuadibilis concido. | |
| | |
CenTex2
join:2003-04-16
Marlin, TX
| Re: sounds nice, BUT...... unfortunately, there's no right answer on that one. I'd personally like to see CPE equipment dip to around $200 per subscriber or less. I suppose it's possible, but not very likely. The ideal price to charge is whatever your market can willingly pay without gouging them. If we were able to offer $100 installs, we'd be booked solid for months ahead of time, but would YOU want to sit on $500 + per subscriber for 3 + years to recoup equipment cost that only has an effective service life of less than 2 years?
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and never pet the sweaty things... | |
| | phoenixtech
join:2002-10-29
Platte City, MO | Isn't 802.16 NLOS? I believe this market is as big as satellite TV. The biggest problem is going to be the shared nature. It is going to be way worse than cable internet. | |
| | |
CenTex2
join:2003-04-16
Marlin, TX
| Re: sounds nice, BUT...... it's supposedly NLOS, but it's still microwave - and microwave is microwave. We've played around a bit with 802.16 equipment, and the NLOS range is very short. Not very practical unless you saturate your service area with towers and AP's...not something anybody in the industry wants to do due to the cost. True NLOS is only going to be achieved by lower frequencies and higher power output...no matter how good your design is, you can't defeat physics. The higher the frequency, the more bandwidth the signal can carry, but it's more affected by the type of terrain and obstacles you find in rural surroundings.
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and never pet the sweaty things... | |
| | | | reverendRon
join:2002-07-27
Mabank, TX | Re: sounds nice, BUT...... Is your wireless service in Marlin? If so, where are you finding subs there? | |
| | | | |
CenTex2
join:2003-04-16
Marlin, TX
| Re: sounds nice, BUT...... yessir, we're based in Marlin, but have towers covering about 80% or so of Falls County, and stretching a bit into the surrounding counties as well. Our current service area stretches from Bremond to Waco approximately....
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and never pet the sweaty things... | |
| | | | | | neeloy
join:2002-03-08
North Las Vegas, NV
clubs:
| Re: sounds nice, BUT...... Hi Centex. Not to rain on your parade or anything but a couple of things I would like to contribute. First of all 802.16 does work in the licensed spectrum, meaning much higher power levels than un-licensed ops. I am not entirely familiar with FCC regs, but up here in Canada, Industry Canada makes it fairly cheap, but never easy to get licenses for rural areas. Secondly, aside from the mobile capabilities afforded by the 802.16e spec, the way 802.11 does things on a technical level is totally different than 802.16. Meaning that 802.16 is actually meant to be used in a metro-area or wide-area situation and therefore has mechanisims in place, mainly based off what we learned in the DOCSIS spec, to deal with the many variables in the outside environment that 802.11 does not account for. Thirdly one of the big advantages to the longer distance reach offered by 802.16 is that you can have fewer backhaul points provided you have more than one small community within 15 - 30 miles of each other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't envy your position. I don't and haven't operated a small ISP or WISP like you because I know how difficult it can be and have set up several. However I do know that as a major or "big" ISP, there is a business case to be made using 802.16e for supporting rural areas that barely breakeven or may even end-up costing money as long as you have the necessary metro area subs, because it raises your company profile, helps out businesses in certain areas, and gives your metro customers better mobile coverage. Afterall the only thing that drive down the cost of CPE devices is volume. 5 years ago a cable modem cost $300, today, you can buy one for a tenth of that.
Anyways, best of luck to you with your WISP. | |
| | feet_smellin
join:2004-01-06
Spring, TX
|  Hey Centex I would seriously look in to the Rural Communcations Act. This might relieve some or all of your financial burden in providing a service that is becoming a necessity. A Gov't subsidy that is greatly enjoyed by SWBC and all the other highly profitable companies in America. It actually sounds if you deserve such a break. | |
| JWilly
join:2000-06-02
48519-1440
| Why go only to the countryside? I'm surprised that a demo in a high-income urban setting with incomplete DSL coverage wouldn't be more economically interesting.
A considerable part of the relatively-high-household-income, low-housing-density Bloomfield Hills, Michigan area is outside of DSL range. Cable is an option, but its $60 pricepoint and shared-bandwidth performance offers more competitive-business-model room than the $40 pricepoint cited above for rural Texas... particularly with customers who are relatively capable of handling equipment charges because they have high-value homes and are accustomed to longer-timeline economic decisions.
The key in high-income urban settings, I think, will be to achieve high values of sustainable and highly reliable downpath bandwidth to all customers simultaneously--not for MP3s/porn/file-trading, but rather for upcoming commercial video content. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Re: yee-haw!!