 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Cringely Quote Cringely also goes on:
"And don't forget Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) which will eventually be here with the odd characteristic of 100 percent market penetration, since every home has electricity and every home will get a smart electric meter that speaks only IP."
That's somewhat funny since over the last three years BPL's market penetration has reached something like 0.0001% and despite nearly every home in the US having copper twisted pair, we don't have DSL everywhere. Just because electric lines are there doesn't mean the costs of lighting them up with BPL will be viable. Does Cringley even understand the technical aspects of BPL... or WiMax for that matter? | |
|  | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: Cringely Quote Note - ODD CHARACTERISTIC. It is true that BPL will have 100% market penetration. I have it, my neighbor has it. Granted it is only used for our power meters and we both have DSL, but that will not matter to the market hypesters.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL | "Former" Employee That says it all IMHO....a "former" employee....probably got fired...so now just wants to spout off about their former employer in the negative...go figure. | |
| 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Cringly .... riiiiighhhhhtttt Cringly should always be taken with a grain of salt. A few years ago the DSLR group here caught him basically lying about a passive wireless lan repeater. I guess you could call it creative journalism 
In this article he gets everything pretty much right, but to complain a WIRELESS internet company uses *gasp* WIRELESS links between it's towers instead of a wired "T1" as he put it is just plain stupid!
Point to Point microwave works great. Hell the phone companies still use the same technology. | |
| | 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Cringly .... riiiiighhhhhtttt said by Jerm  :Point to Point microwave works great. Hell the phone companies still use the same technology. Very much true, and they do it well. The cell towers are mostly powered by microwave, and handle floods of calls each day. Microwave technology does not have horrible latency like other wireless technologies, and thats why they still use it. To make a comment like he did about "WIRELESS links between it's towers instead of a wired T1" doesn't say anything bad to us, not to mention I am GLAD it's not a wired T1, because some of these towers would crawl if they had a T1, he's thinking more along the lines of multiple T1's per tower, or a T3. I love when morons babble, it just gives us stupidity to pick on for days.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | 
MTC_Wes
join:2004-04-22
Fergus, ON
| "to speed deployment they use microwave point to point" - Of course they would... and microwave is far better in many ways than wireline. I've worked on many cellular sites that have protected (redundant) OC-3 (or bigger) microwave link.. how many T1's in a OC-3?? Lots.. and how long do you think it would take ma bell to pull in oc-3 to every cell site? alot longer than the 3 weeks it take the cell companies to provision a microwave OC3... - end rant- | |
| deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
 ·Cox HSI
| It's a bad idea I think it's a bad idea to rely on Wireless of any type as a major provider of broadband. It's just too apt to be subject to interferance, hacks, all kinds of stuff. Not to mention that the speeds just don't cut it most of the time when you start trying to do anything other than surfing and e-mail.
We, as a country, need to quit fooling around with stop-gap measures like WiMax and deploy as much fiber as possible if we expect to be viable as a broadband force in the world. | |
| | Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL
| Re: It's a bad idea I guess you don't really understand WiMax then.
WiMax uses the 2.5 (Licensed spectrum in the US) and 3.5 GHz spectrum...it's not WiFi...so interference is not an issue
As for "hacking"....doubtful...granted nothing is ever totally hackproof...once again...it's not WiFi.
"All kind of stuff"...please enlighten us about this comment...I'm certainly wondering what "stuff" is.
Speeds don't cut it? Not sure where you're coming up with that comment...let's repeat...it's not WiFi.
Honestly...you almost sound like a cable company "shill"...all kinds of filler...but no substance....just for the record...I don't use a WISP...I use comcast...and will most likely jump over to Verizon FIOS soon.
WISP's are for the last mile where the telco's and cableco's just don't want to go...not to mention having OTHER options for service is always a good thing for consumers.
You might want to educate yourself before spouting out some of the things you said. | |
| | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: It's a bad idea Taking the analogy further, coax, copper pairs and fiber are subject to "interference" from backhoes, lightning strikes, wildfire and some drunk plowing into a pole at 120 MPH. Nothing is "interference proof".
A properly designed microwave link has enough fade margin to remain up during weather events.
WiMax has one critical characteristic coax, copper pairs and fiber lack: Mobility. If it indeed comes to market, that is where you'll see it.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | adsldog
join:2000-12-01
Woodstock, GA
1 edit | Yes it is non line of site. That is not to say that if your in a bunker that it will get a signal to you, it will not or if the tower is transmitting out and you are in a low spot that the signal might skip over you. The best way to look at it is like a transistor radio if the radio has the antenna up and sitting in the window you should get good reception. If it is in the center of the house or in the basement your signal will degrade. The distances that it will work at are 3-7 miles for fixed WiMax. The ones I have worked on had 4 to 6 T-1's feeding each tower with as many as 3 towers in one area. Not meant to compete with WiFi or DSL but can even be the back haul for WiFi. Keep in mind this is a solution for areas that are stuck with dial up only. | |
| | | | Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL
| Since WiMax will be run in a licensed part of the spectrum...you can up the power a lot more to deal with obstructions...now I'm not saying this would make it be able to penetrate say a mountain....but you can get further penetration into a home.
As for geography...WiMax isn't a P-t-P solution...its a solution for the end user. I would certainly hope if a WISP were to use WiMax they don't think they can just drop a base station into a location and service a 30 mile radius.
As for weather...you'd be pretty surprised at how well wireless when setup properly works in inclement weather...I don't think there'd be an issue this side of a hurricane/tornado/something of that magnitude.
Properly installed systems have fade margins for weather built in. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by KoolMoe :But does WiMax have some mystical ability to overcome weather, geography, and structures? With anything wireless, there will always be some type of possible interference... Perhaps this is arguing semantics, but topography and signal attenuation due to precipitation are totally different items from interference. A properly engineered point-to-point or multipoint system won't have availability issues due to weather. While you need to have line-of-sight for typical microwave systems, there are lower speed non-line-of-sight systems in use, so yes, wireless does have mystical abilities to overcome structures and geography  | |
| | | deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| All correct points. I don't even bother to study WiMax that much so I know next to nothing about the actual tech side of WiMax.
The one thing I keep seeing a lot concerning WiMax is delay after delay after delay, coupled with a lot of talk about how unproven the technology is.
If it is so great, why has it not been rolled out?
Am I to understand that it's better than a FTTH solution in your opinion?
Heh, cable shill. That is a good one. If I am a cable shill, then you must be a WiMax shill. I dunno where you got that idea from. Maybe because I have COX HSI for my broadband service? I bet you have a ton of "Jump to Conclusion" mats in your closet at home.
Please enlighten me as to why you felt it necessary to reply to me in such a manner? Are you just hostile? Do you feel the need to prop up WiMax at whatever cost to make yourself feel better about unproven tech? Something else?
The bottom line is that broadband sucks in America. IT SUCKS. All I want is real broadband. No more, no less. Isn't that what we all want, or am I mistaken? | |
| | | | Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL
| Re: It's a bad idea said by deadzoned :All correct points. I don't even bother to study WiMax that much so I know next to nothing about the actual tech side of WiMax. There you have it...this is exactly WHY I said what I did...you admit you know nothing about it...yet you make a post basically saying wireless in general is worthless and then go on to call WiMax a "stop gap" measure.
Like I said before...please educate yourself before posting about something you know nothing about.
As for being a WiMax shill...guess you missed the part about me being a comcast customer and will likely switch to FIOS. I merely defended WiMax as a last mile solution/solution where there is no cable/dsl/fiber/etc/ | |
| | | | | deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Re: It's a bad idea So no answer for my other questions? Just educate myself on WiMax before I talk to someone as knowledgeable as you? I don't buy it. Not at all.
Show me how great WiMax is. Explain to me or point me to some information that shows me how it works and how it's going to be the next big thing.
BTW - WiFI.. You got me there too. I was truly thinking wireless in general actually.
I still say WiMax is Stop-Gap at best. IF it even sees the light of day. (Which I sort of doubt) This is my whole issue with WiMax. Can you tell me that it will have what it takes to provide the bandwith needed to compete with a FTTH line? I seriously doubt it. It seriously jacks us around and puts us further behind in the broadband world when we waste time and effort on tech that is going to be obsolete in no time due to the fact that it doesn't have enough capacity.
It's all going to end up at the same place. Fiber. Fiber is the only thing that will work capacity wise. The good thing is that our idiotic government is probrobly going to kiss the hands of the big companies anyway and ruin the internet and broadband as we know it anyway. I guess that it all works out in the end right? At least we can count on WiMax. Oh wait, no we can't.... | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by deadzoned :The one thing I keep seeing a lot concerning WiMax is delay after delay after delay, coupled with a lot of talk about how unproven the technology is. I won't disagree with that, there's plenty of WiMax hype However, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; wireless in general has plenty of capacity and flexibility and is proven. Long haul point-to-point links delivered long distance calls in the 70s and 80s until fiber came along (that's how MCI got its start). Cellular carriers continue to use it today to backhaul voice and data traffic from cell sites. I think WiMax is an attempt to get the standards and ubiquity like 802.11, but with mobility, scalability, and protocols that can be used both in unlicensed and licensed spectrum. 802.11 has been both a boon and bane to wireless. It shows how flexible wireless technology can be, however it also shows what happens in out of control unlicensed spectrum or when people who don't know the first thing about RF engineering try to build a wireless network. I think WiMax will eventually succeed. Will coverage be ubiquitous in the US? Not likely. | |
| | | | | deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Re: It's a bad idea I think wireless has it's place, I agree with that. It's certainly nice to have from a convenience perspective. But it all goes downhill when you try to do anything other than surfing, e-mail, and basic downloading.
I have a Wireless G setup in my house. I use my laptop for the wireless connection and use it for some streaming media stuff. It works okay but i'm always fighting with other networks, losing signals, rebooting the router, etc....
When I am docked and plugged in with my trusty ethernet cable to the same router obviously, I have no problems at all and my speeds are much faster, not to mention I can stream movies again with no hiccups.
Wireless is great and has it's place, it's just not reliable enough to be a major broadband service in my opinion. | |
| | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: It's a bad idea said by deadzoned :I think wireless has it's place, I agree with that. It's certainly nice to have from a convenience perspective. But it all goes downhill when you try to do anything other than surfing, e-mail, and basic downloading. I have a Wireless G setup in my house. I use my laptop for the wireless connection and use it for some streaming media stuff. It works okay but i'm always fighting with other networks, losing signals, rebooting the router, etc.... When I am docked and plugged in with my trusty ethernet cable to the same router obviously, I have no problems at all and my speeds are much faster, not to mention I can stream movies again with no hiccups. Wireless is great and has it's place, it's just not reliable enough to be a major broadband service in my opinion. Again, you're looking at wireless from the perspective of 802.11. 802.11 is merely one type of wireless technology. It's on an unlicensed frequency band so of course it's like the wild west. Of course you can't build a major broadband service on technology you get at Best Buy or Circuit City. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by deadzoned :I think it's a bad idea to rely on Wireless of any type as a major provider of broadband. It's just too apt to be subject to interferance, hacks, all kinds of stuff. Not to mention that the speeds just don't cut it most of the time when you start trying to do anything other than surfing and e-mail. There's more to wireless than just 802.11 or WiMax. Licensed FCC Part 101 wireless can deliver point-to-point speeds up to a gigabit.
Note that WiMax doesn't specify licensed or unlicensed spectrum. Clearwire happens to be using it on licensed 2.5 GHz (MMDS/BRS) spectrum which eliminates most if not all of the interference issues common in the 2.4 Ghz unlicensed 802.11 / ISM band. | |
| Chewyrobbo
join:2005-04-12
Tacoma, WA
| Wireless Links As you've all pointed out, one plan for nationwide doesn't work. I live in western washington where a lot area is served by Comcast and Quest of course. Eastern Washington however is a very great test bed for the Microwave links, and WISP. Everyone is essentially right, WISP's are good for where they need to go, rural areas with mild weather and small amounts of trees. I think WISP's will definitely find their footing. One person said lay as much fiber as possible. Why spend that much money on some place where a return on investment would be extremely low. I saw a good example of a plan on »www.first-step.com. WiMax will hopefully have its day sometime soon. | |
| | | | | |
|
|
WiMax Viability Questioned
·