Cisco Unveils Amazing New Wireless Plans 147
StDave writes "Yesterday Cisco announced a very cool technology. It is a 44Mb wireless technology that doesn't require line of sight and has a range of 30 miles. Take your ADSL line on the road with you. " Wow - they've found a way to use the "ghosting" caused by obstructions to tv and cell signals. Base units will cost around 150,000$ and the transceivers will be under 500$, with start of marketing sometime around June.
Um, Santa? (Score:1)
I've been a really good boy all year and now is the time to really show me how much being a good boy means to you. I know that 150 thousand dollars is a lot of mney but I'm sure you have an elf or two at cisco right?
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Break the Monopoly! (Score:3)
What about security though? I assume they'll have link level encryption.
Drool (Score:1)
Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]
This will change the ISP landscape (Score:2)
There are problems though. In my area a 30 mile radius encompasses a few million people. Is there the ability for orthogonal coding or seperate channels, or is this bandwidth shared per foot print? How many orthogonal channels are capabale in a footprint? If it's not a lot this could be worse then cable modems (I used to work with cable modems in high density installations about 10 years ago, and after the first large group gets on you wish they hadn't).
MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:2)
Still, it's very cool to have yet another fat pipe, especially since it's wireless. I'm just sort of puzzled that the article seems to be implying that MMDS is some sort of fantastic new invention. The Cisco tech's a novel use of the spectrum, granted, but the bandwidh's been there for a while; since the beginning of time if you want to be literal
-Chris
The $64,000 Question (Score:4)
If shared, then over a radios of 30 miles it's not necessarily a whole lot -- especially in the city.
If per station... err... Please mommy?
Impressive Engineering Feat (Score:5)
While I don't doubt the article, I want to see it in production before I praise them too much.
One thing that I've always wondered, why do we see so few high bandwidth wireless technology. I mean, one should be able to just use more frequencies. I guess that there is a real shortage of available frequencies. I wonder how much of that is technical hurdles and how much is beaurocratic messes between the DOD, FCC, etc., fighting over it.
Well, as IP carries more and more information, I wonder if we'll be able to reclaim all the bandwidth from audio/video broadcasts as the world moves digital. HDTV promises more (over the airwaves) channels because the signal is smaller... that seems a little silly. People that want more channels currently have Cable and DSS options, and Telephone will do so too. I think that society has more uses for the airwaves than broadcasting more garbage. As long as people get reasonable channels for their kids, news, and evening entertainment, I think that society would be better served by allowing new technologies to claim the bandwidth... but that's just me.
On the other hand, more radio stations with lower barriers to entry (licenses trump the real expenses) so that there are real alternative stations instead of the same drivel on all of them.
Alex
this would be a excellnt oppertunity for a isp (Score:1)
now only if i could get the money to start this up in my town !
music the paint
dancefloor the canvas
Security and "Dropped" Data (Score:2)
1) What kind of security will be implemented? What kind of ecyrption will they use to make sure no one will catch all my "bits and packets" (hehehe kind of like "bits and pieces") and seeing all my pr0n?!?
2) I have a cellular phone from a certain digital provider that will remain nameless (::cough:: sprint pcs
Charlie
-- .sig files go when they die?
Child: Mommy, where do
Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
I've never been the same since.
Cool, but not going to revamp telecom (Score:2)
I like the tech, on the other hand, if it can be developed as a service-provider based alternative to microwave. I have seen DS3 microwave systems going moderate distances across a metro area, and you end up saving the cost of the hardware very quickly when compared to paying local loop fees for that kind of circuit. If this could be rolled out by a motorola as a point-to-point connection between business buildings, with cpe hardware costing a few hundred dollars, they could bank.
Maybe that mythical Metro Area Network will emerge eventually, after all...
Here come the links! (Score:3)
Re:Security and "Dropped" Data (Score:2)
Maybe this will tell BT where to get off? (Score:2)
Here in the UK, BT have announced that a 512Kbs ADSL line will cost the end user 50 pounds a month plus installation and equipment costs. If this new Cisco wireless stuff really can give me 44Mbs all to myself with no connect charges... I'll buy one straight away.
Hopefully Cisco won't delay selling this stuff in the UK. (which is what normally happens) I could see quite a few people in the UK switching to this kind of technology if it can deliver what it promises. (Like we all believe press releases...)
Where do I sign up?
On another note, if I could get 44Mbs over 30 miles, would I get 4.4Mbs over 300 miles? I realise that is an oversimplification, but 4Mbs+ over 100s of miles would be a godsend to countries with poor infrastructure (e.g. Africa, Russia)
Why do geeks want portable tech? (Score:1)
Re:Any Health Concerns? (Score:1)
You can not move with this fixed wireless (Score:1)
Re:Break the Monopoly! (Score:1)
I just do not see an opposing viewpoint.
I guess the moderator works for the cable co!
This is intriguing... (Score:3)
Coincidence?
Maybe so, but even if it is, you've now got virtually all the ingredients needed for "car traffic control" systems. All you'd need, to finish it off, would be some decent sensors on the cars, to detect what objects are near, and some means for a central computer to determine optimal paths.
The latter part is almost done, with existing car navigation systems, but this would need to be a bit more refined.
I see a lot of potential for this device, far beyond mere wireless web surfing.
Cisco would become a 'worthwhile' big company (Score:1)
Re:You can not move with this fixed wireless (Score:2)
regardless, i can't wait to see the antennae sprouting up everywhere! beautiful!
Re:Break the Monopoly! (Score:2)
It would be nice to see something I can afford for my own little network. I hope the $500 units have an option network together in the spirit of the internet. I'm using the 2mbps Zoomair modems around my neighborhood in a simple network. Too bad they don't cover the city . . .
Re:Moderate this up! (Score:1)
Solution to the "Last Mile" problem? (Score:2)
While I'd like some more technical information on this, my first thought was that this may be the (relatively) inexpensive solution we're looking for to solve the infamous "last mile" problem.
I'm not sure how much it costs to lay fiber, but I'm willing to bet it's not cheap. I'm betting it's even more expensive in more dense, urban areas. While your average Joe can't afford to cough up $150K for the base unit, your average telco *can*.
Imagine getting your home net access wirelessly. Your ISP could sell or lease you the receiver unit in much the same way that some people lease their cable modems. The connection speeds are higher anyway (is this 44 megabits shared? anyone know?).
The increasing use of wireless networking technology has us all focused on dinky little PDA things, dreaming of roaming connectivity. It had never even dawned on me that wireless connections might be the solution to the last mile problem.
I'd be a little worried if I was a cable provider...
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
"Cisco technology in the base station would allow 3,000 simultaneous users to receive data 1,000 times faster than they would from a typical voice line."
For 3000 simultaneous users at ~28k, you'd need about 80meg. For 3000 at 1000x ~28k, you'd need an 80,000meg pipe (~80Gb). Someone please check my numbers, because either the article is fscked or I can't do simple arithmetic.
Re:this would be a excellnt oppertunity for a isp (Score:1)
In an attempt to resolve a problem that has plagued television watchers and cellular phone users in big cities for years, Cisco plans to market technology that essentially harnessesand redirects the voice and data microwave signals that bounce off many obstructions in large cities.
What about rural areas in the Midwest U.S.? Can they take advantage of this? Or rural areas in the Appalachias? Can mountains obstruct signals like buildings? If not, rural mom 'n pop ISPs will not be able to justify the expense, placing rural areas at yet another disadvantage. Still, sounds really cool.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
Re:Drool (Score:2)
Re:This will change the ISP landscape (Score:1)
What I am thinking about is how apartments in urban areas, such as New York, Chicago, LA, could speed things up with these. With 3000 users on a such a setup, it would require more than 300 of such units for a population of one million... Even more in the major urbanc areas.
Re:Maybe this will tell BT where to get off? (Score:3)
On another note, if I could get 44Mbs over 30 miles, would I get 4.4Mbs over 300 miles? I realise that is an oversimplification,
but 4Mbs+ over 100s of miles would be a godsend to countries with poor infrastructure (e.g. Africa, Russia)
-----------------------------------------------
no, probably not, i'm afraid. the article didn't say anything about what kind of frequencies were involved, but if they are using vhf/uhf/microwave/etc., which they almost assuredly are, then line of sight is about the limit (i'm only talking about the distance the radio waves will travel, not how the technology will compensate for buildings and such.)
really, it would depend upon how high up they got the antenna. if you had a mountain nearby, it could conceivably cover much, much more than 30 miles...doubtful this would be the common situation, i'm afraid.
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:3)
Sure, usually when "real" leading-edge (or bleeding edge) technology gets to common people like us, it has been "there" for long years. (Though, in the software world the timescale is many months rather than many years). It always takes somebody to take the step to implement something based on that technology so that it is accessible to the public.
Just like most new OS technology/concepts usually goes around only in academic circles for a while, before somebody in the industry decides to actually use it to produce "real" OS's for people to use. (Eg. witness how many years behind Windows is in terms of OS design? Even Linux is still based on macrokernel design, and very few people even know about Hurd which is based on microkernels -- arguably the "front-line" of OS research. But by now, there's probably already something newer.).
It's always easy to criticize in retrospect (yeah Cisco didn't do anything like, new, this MMDS stuff's been around for 20 years, yeah but nobody except researchers could use it until now.) Just like Columbus said that he can stand an egg upright. When greeted by disbelief, he proceed to simply crack the bottom of the egg slightly on the table so that it would not roll over. The people then criticized, "That's cheesy, I knew how to do that all along!" It takes a pioneer to take what looks like an "obvious step" in retrospect.
Back to my point: I think it's a good thing Cisco took this step to make this technology available to people. I wouldn't be so quick to point out, like the people who criticized Columbus, "but hey, this technology's been around for so long!" Having said that, let me just add the standard disclaimer: I do not intend this as flamebait, nor am I trying to criticize Chris or anybody else. Just pointing out something... (you never know how people can misread you on Slashdot, better disclaim everything!) :-) And of course, if this technology is going to be available any time soon, I want to try it!!
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
Deosyne
Is the "cool new" technology really new? (Score:1)
Re:Great but expense? (Score:2)
Re:Why do geeks want portable tech? (Score:2)
Actually it is Pro-BSD stuff. (Score:1)
IMO- My guide to flamebait on
End of high power transmitters (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:1)
Then I read how much it cost.
Ouch!!
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
Where you make a mistake: A 56K bits modem transfers (about) 6K bytes/second compressed and 12K bytes/second uncompressed. That's what I see, so feel free to give me alternate numbers if I'm in error.
If we take 1/2 of the uncompressed rate to simulate a 28K modem and multiply it by 1000 then by 3000, and divide by 1024 to get K bytes, we get;
6144x1000x3000/1024=18,000,000 (K bytes)
18,000,000/1024=17,578.125 (M bytes)
17,578 MB/second is still impressive
Using the $150,000 transmitter cost divided across the 3,000, this would break down to a one-time cost of $50 at the transmitter. Hell, any medium-sized community could easily afford one of those things. Yet, the 80meg transfer rate doesn't match the 44Mb (not MB) transfer rate. There's some loss or delay that must be accounted for -- and I don't see it.
The only way this makes any sense is that they are taking into account delays and pauses typical in sending the packets, or maybe they bunch up the packets per-user -- actually transmit to a fraction of the users -- and then call this "simultaneous".
Has anyone heard of Metricom? (Score:2)
Cisco late out of the gate - Wishful dreaming (Score:1)
Just so you know, I write this from the background of a hardware engineer in the Wireless group at Newbridge. If you have any questions, please post them. I'll be watching. Otherwise, try emailing me at "myname"@newbridge.com
I have SOOO many comments to make, I'm going to have to make them in point form otherwise I'll be here all day. So, here we go:
1. What Cisco is proposing using multipath effects to avoid the line-of-sight problems is asking a LOT. I really doubt this is possible. I was involved in a research project over a year ago that basically ruled out this from being possible.
problem A: If you use a non directional antenna (easiest to set up, no alignment issues) you are then presented with the amount of processing needed to weed out signal from reflections - it is enormous. Your antenna also has no gain - a big problem with lossy low power MMDS or LMDS systems. No signal = lots of noise = low bandwidth or high error rate.
problem B: The other problem is cost to install a system like this. Lets say you find a nice shiny building to bounce your microwave signal off of. It's a LOT tougher to align your dish antenna to a unknown point on a building (trial and error) then to point your dish to a fixed known point. This could NOT be done by joe blow on his roof - you would need a pro installer to do this with specialized test equipment = $$$$$! You also need to do LOTS of thinking about what reflection you are going to use - too much work to make it cheap. TIME = $$$$.
The numbers they are quoting sound like marketing magic.
Enough marketing hoopla. Check out what we built... and you can have today!
Here's a few more links for you. Good techie stuff.
Check out: How to maximize the use of your available spectrum [newbridge.com]
and
Newbridge features, like QOS and awesome network management. Does CISCO offer this end to end networking? I think not. [newbridge.com]
More points:
This technology doesn't work on the move. It isn't meant for vehicle platforms. Fixed sites only.
30 MILE range? I think not. NO WAY they could get regulated. Think of the interference problems on adjacent cells, especially since they are using the multipath effects.
Typical cell sizes for LMDS MMDS systems are around 4 Km. (2.5 miles)
ISP's love this stuff because it can get them into peoples homes - last mile. Don't need cable, dont need phone lines.
If you have any questions, please post em. Man, the signal to noise ratio in this topic has been pretty bad. I hope this helps clear a few things up.
Re:Impressive Engineering Feat (Score:1)
Leasing spectrum drives up the cost of these devices considerably.
-Omar
GSM clarification (Score:3)
Also, European mobile phones generally use the 900mhz band. All US cell phone providers I am aware of use 1900mhz, so unless you have a dual-band phone using that wavelength, you're SOL (many European dual-band phones use 900/1800.) In any case, most dual-band European phones I've tried in the US have poor range compared to local PCS phones.
What I really want to see is the toys Qualcomm [cnet.com] was talking about a while back. That'd really make wireless data traffic fun. And if this Cisco bit can do even local roaming, like ricochet, you're still doing very well.
yes! - a 3rd player .... (Score:2)
At 150k/base station it's gotta be comparable to cable/DSL (if you can serve something in the 800 customers range).
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Another something with RF. (Score:1)
At 2.5 - 2.68 GHz I wouldn't stand in front of the transmitting gunplexor.
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
Probably what will happen is that you will have to purchase levels of service like with ADSL, rather than a single speed level that's shared by all users (like cable modems).
Re:Break the Monopoly! (Score:1)
You're joking, right? $150k base station cost? What of a tower? Another $15-20k there... Small to medium-sized ISPs can't hardly swallow $50-$75k startup costs!
Will this work in rural areas? (Score:2)
The article talks about using the ghosting effect caused by office blocks etc.
So, will it work in the areas that need bandwidth the most- RURAL areas?
I don't understand why there is such a rush to provide more and more bandwidth for cities. Surely the bandwidth shortage is in rural areas, which often can't get ISDN let alone cable or ADSL? And why the hell would anyone want to work from home if their office was less than five miles away?
I'll never understand those townie folk... :-)
--
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:1)
But I think the Cisco technology differs in that it allows you to not require a line-of-sight to the transmitter. I have a 15ft pole on the top of my house with a directional antena on it so I can receive the signal. Lots of places (downtown, wrong side of an apartment building, etc.) can't get the service since they are not line-of-sight right now. This tech from Cisco would fix that.
$$ (Score:1)
-----
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:2)
www.spke.com
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:2)
Perhaps it's 12 and 6 GHz instead of MHz?
If it is GHz, it's still incredible that they can go 30 miles with it and/or (which is it? :) do non-line-of-sight connections.
Radio waves bounce off of buildings really well, the signal is still quite intact, the only problem is you get multiple signals due to multiple bounce paths to you, each one slightly delayed by a different amount (speed of light isn't so fast anymore once you deal with picosecond waves).
Looking at the technical specs it appears they not only worked around this problem but somehow used it to their advantage [cisco.com].
Re:Cicso or Cisco (Score:1)
Although I heard that they were trying to cash in on all of the Internet hype by developing a line of snackable network switches.
You still have to pay tpo plug in the basestation (Score:1)
Re:You can't buy it! (Score:1)
Move to the city! (Score:1)
Hell, they (Telco) don't even have the big cities rolled out yet. I cannot get SDSL to my apartment as of yet. Luckily I have Cable Modem but that still prevents me from running web/ftp servers from my home.
ChozSun [e-mail] [mailto]
"Colombus" egg! I can do it better! (Score:1)
Put the (uncooked) egg on its large base, hold it for some time (warning it can take some time!) and release the egg: it will stand still because the yellow part of the egg is heavier than the white part... Of course, it isn't very stable, but it works!!
I wonder.. if this post will be marked as interesting or off-topic ??
Re:Why do geeks want portable tech? (Score:1)
Well, WHERE IS IT! (Score:1)
I live in a fairly large city. I already get cable TV in my house. In 1998, my cable company said to wait for next year. They are still saying the same thing this year. This is all while I have read numerous press releases about my cable company (Comcast) signing a contract with @Home.
DSL? Naw... I have checked all the DSL providers I could think of, and then I looked some more up and checked those. None of them offer DSL service in my area.
Am I the only one that's in a situation like this? I can imagine that if this is happening in a fairly large city (Philadelphia, for the curious) that the situation is even worse elsewhere. (No, I'm not saying that Philadelphia is the center of the world, but it is a fairly large and known city.)
Forcing you to read Slashdot! (Score:1)
Re:MMDS isn't all that new,,, (Score:2)
It appears that this would be each user's individual channel rate, not a shared bandwidth situation
High Speed Wireless, don't believe it... (Score:1)
End-to-end crypt (Score:2)
Of course encrypted tunneling to a server solves the on-the-air-in-the-clear problem, too. (But it also provides a fixed central location for a physical tap.)
Perhaps a plurality of encrypted-tunnel servers? B-)
Cheaper and *Faster* (Score:2)
Re:Cool, but not going to revamp telecom (Score:2)
So even if it is built in such a way that you are freed from the local loop charges of your DSL line, the cost is still going to be handed to you by your provider as they have to pay localtelco for local loop charges on the circuits they add to take care of increased capacity, and long-haul carriers for more backbone capacity, and so on.
An even better start, in my mind, would be to design a system like this that does voice/vid/data, and frees you as a consumer from Ma Bell's + Cableco's presence in your house. Of course, that requires 99.999% reliability, and all that, so it is a long way off.
This will work in rural areas? (Score:2)
If it's a forest of trees you might have a problem.
Re:Maybe this will tell BT where to get off? (Score:2)
Here in Canada, I can get a 1.5Mb ADSL for $39 (About 17 pounds). The US is even cheaper.
Please enlighten me... (Score:2)
problem A: If you use a non directional antenna (easiest to set up, no alignment issues) you are then presented with the amount of processing needed to weed out signal from reflections - it is enormous.
Your antenna also has no gain - a big problem with lossy low power MMDS or LMDS systems. No signal = lots of noise = low bandwidth or high error rate.
Why not use a vaguely-directional antenna (no serious alignment problems, picks up primary and/or several major ghosts), then pick the strongest handful of unmoving signals, delay them into sync, and add them? (I thought the latter was what Metricom was already doing with their non-directional antenna.)
The box might take a minute or so to train itself on startup. But with the base and remote fixed the training wouldn't have to be tweaked in real-time after that.
Is there something I've missed?
More of an ISP thing.... (Score:1)
10 Mbs ethernet @10 GHz (Score:1)
LMDS article in Dec Wired (Score:1)
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
Is the 44Mbps shared, or 44Mbps per user?
For what it's worth; the following is from NewsScan Daily:
CISCO'S WIRELESS STRATEGY
Cisco Systems has provided more details on its new wireless strategy (NewsScan Daily 29 Nov 99), which uses MMDS technology (multichannel multipoint distribution services) to eliminate the "ghosting" phenomenon that distorts TV pictures and interrupts cell phone calls in large cities. Saying its goal is "to build alternative access technologies and provide consistent service delivery" over any type of communications device, Cisco's system will allow 3,000 simultaneous users to receive data 1,000 times faster than from a typical voice line. Transceiver equipment costing less than $500 could be marketed to consumers by mid-2000. (AP/San Jose Mercury News 1 Dec 99)
http://www.sjmer cury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/047945.ht
Slashdot (Score:1)
Re:Security and "Dropped" Data (Score:1)
But anyway, back on topic, you will eventually have the same problem with this tech. If some ISP out there decides to throw these things up on towers, the cost per tower would be about the same (or more). You are still going to have a problem with loss of service when you exceed the 30 mile range. Only way (that I can think of) to remove this limitation is to go with satilite communications (like those phones that will go anywhere in the world and cost $1/min). If someone does build such a network with this tech, it will have the same problem you are having with your cellular service durring the first few years.
-- PC^God --
Re:GSM clarification (Score:1)
Not that anyone here probably cares... I'm done now
-- PC^God --
Because... (Score:1)
Ooops! FCC licence needed? (Score:1)
"They've found a way to use ghosting"? (Score:1)
(Insert blatant Qualcomm plug here.)
--
Re:Interference is helpful. (Score:1)
At least if this is the same technology I am thinking of. I think it is, because they made such a large point out of obstructions.
Re:GSM clarification (Score:1)
In most cases, the local phone company has the first band, but California is a little different because PacBell spun off their wireless business and later decided to get back in with PCS.
--
300 times faster... (Score:1)
And why is everyone against Cisco, saying "oh, this is not new" or "it's just marketing BS".
Well, for your information it IS new. There is no other comparable solution in the market for fixed long-range high speed non-line-of-sight communication.
----
Re:Cisco late out of the gate - Wishful dreaming (Score:1)
What type of modulation/access scheme does newbridge use for it wireless systems (if you don't mind me asking)?
I heard that ofdm (a.k.a. MCM or even cofdm) (used in digital radio/tv (not hdtv)) has great multipath resistance and can performed with doppler shifts up to 400km/h (i think). Any reason why this is not used? I can see that it would be dificult to use for the uplink, but I don't see why it couldn't be used for downlink.
Dan
Something the article does not address... (Score:1)
Re:The $64,000 Question (Score:1)
The link previously posted is http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/w
I wanna live in a van, and stick an appropriate atenna of my roof to get this access. That would be cool!
Re:Impressive Engineering Feat (Score:1)
The trend over the past few years has been to get fewer fixed wireless devices (such as television) and throw that bandwidth to moble devices. For example, older TVs used to go up to channel 83 UHF. Now they only go to chan 69. The bandwidth was used for AMPS cell phones. The same plan is on tap for HDTV. All HDTV will be UHF, and the gvt hopes to auction the freed-up bandwith.
Remember that most of the available bandwith in the US is reserved for Military use. That's not likely to change any time soon. Also, there is not much really useful bandwidth available. If the frequency is too high, it is easily blocked. Too low, and it becomes tough to call something portable (1/4 wave dipole antenna is mesured in feet). That's one of the big reasons the VHF channels are where they are (and FM radio). The wavelength is just right.
Re:Maybe this will tell BT where to get off? (Score:2)
You'd have to either do satellite (earth-moon-earth anyone? :) or sky wave.
UHF and up is very practical with satellite because you can retain line of sight, however the cost could be prohibitive. Also going that far up in the sky and back down again increases latency.
Sky wave limits the frequencies you can use - the best frequency depends on whether it's day or night (at both locations), how many sunspots there are, etc, because only those frequencies bounce off the various layers of the ionosphere, which constantly varies. Also 300 miles would most likely put you in the skip zone (the area not covered by either sky wave or ground wave).
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
Re:Cicso or Cisco (Score:1)
Worldcom has the necessary MMDS licenses (Score:1)
Cisco's contribution is, per some articles I've read, Vector Orthoganal Frequency Division Multiplexing. It's a way of surviving multipath. It's not a panacaea for line of sight problems; rather, it means that if you can get the signal via one or more paths (vs. "just one" using some other codes), the multipath won't clobber it.
NYNEX was going to use MMDS here in Boston, but they discovered that the licensee's network didn't reach more than 2/3 of households. You do need something resembling line of sight at 2.5 GHz. Although VOFDM might make do with a more indirect path than plain old TV did.
Re:Solution to the "Last Mile" problem? (Score:2)
That isn't to say, however, that your average telco *will*. On a whim, I called BellAtlantic early last summer inquiring about broadband in my area. I was informed that my exchange didn't even support ISDN. I'd have to be "virtually hosted," which is to say that I'd have to pay for them to string a line from my neighboring exchange--$200 more at install, Either $30 or $50 more a month, and, I think, $0.02-$0.05/minute more.
When dealing with corporations, don't make the mistake of equating "can" with "will."
Re:Cicso or Cisco (Score:1)
Re:Cisco late out of the gate - Wishful dreaming (Score:1)
It isn't, however, too difficult to frequency multiplex (FDM) a large number of narrowband signals into the same wide-band. As bandwidth increases, more narrow-bands are added. As long as these bands are small enough, ISI is decreases to the point that no extra compensation is required. Voila: linear complexity increase with bandwidth.
Now, you're probably thinking "what about guard bands? They'll eat your bandwidth for lunch." Nope. Using orthogonal FDM (OFDM), the signal is coded such that guard bands aren't necessary. If you really want the nitty gritty, check out this page [rwth-aachen.de]
Re:Will this work in rural areas? (Score:1)
Is it really cost effective to put up one of these relays where the population density is less than 50 per square mile? Of those, how many have the inclination to use such services?
So, as far as my needs go, internet service isn't on the high priority list for improvement. I have to be happy with getting connect speeds of 49333 bps inbound with V.90 dialup equipment.
If line-of-sight is necessary, it won't work for me. There are too many trees and this house is in a small valley. Trees even block small dish signals, and I like trees better than needing high speed internet access.
--
MMDS is not new. It's already available. (Score:1)
It's an MMDS Internet Access service in the San Francisco Bay Area. Multiple ISP's are available. It's been operating for almost two years now. It's Ok if you can't get DSL but it's hardly the new age of Internet. Our servive at my previous company was actually a bit flakey. The "modem" kept freezing up and needed to be power cycled once or twice per day.
What about GPRS and UMTS? (Score:1)
UMTS will offer bucket loads of bandwidth - I forget how much..somewhere between 2MB and 9MB I think. This will take a bit longer to appear as it requires a completely new network infrastructure and set of frequencies.
Unfortunately our friends in the US don't seem to like these technologies.... A strong attack of NIH syndrome I should say.
BTW, for Europe in the previous comment read Rest-of-the-World-except-USA.
MMDS ain't new (Score:1)
List of companies include:
www.caiwireless.com (recovering from chapter 11 about a year ago)
http://www.harmonicdata.com/
http://www.speedus.com (almost went bankrupt, sold 90% of their spectrum allocation, restarting with a different technology)
Winstar and ART Telecom are using MMDS as well, and doing well, but their business model is completely different. They aim at businesses, and
they price it accordingly.
MMDS and LMDS does not work well if you do not have line-of-sight, no matter what the vendors tell you. Not-LOS span is about 1 mile, not 30.
LMDS and MMDS will work reasonably well in a rural or suburban areas, where LOS is not a major problem. But even there, the effective coverage ranger will be probably 2-3 miles per transmitter, not 30.
You must also consider that LMDS and MMDS are affected by rain and sleet. Company that decides to provide service in an area must license the spectrum from FCC. There can only be 2 licensors per area, one of them having 10x more bandwidth than the other. Licenses for a metropolitan area were going for 50-100M$. So, as result of all that , do not expect your neighbourhood ISP to offer MMDS service anytime soon...
Re:This will change the ISP landscape (Score:1)
Re:End-to-end crypt (Score:2)
Yes, but that doesn't change the issue. Even ssh is far from all-pervasive. (It's also licensed, which restricts its availability further.)