Wireless Net over 30-mile distance - 802.16a
With speeds believed to reach 70 mb/s, and platform test units due relatively soon, the 802.16 standards could bring most of the inhabited US into the broadband family.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/pub/buzz.html
Intel is making silicon for this standard, and is apparently attempting to be a first mover in this.
This is one reason that analysts are saying that WIFI hotspots are doomed as a money-making proposition (not as a useful thing), because the 802.16 standard reaches much further and faster, proving "last-mile" broadband for large areas.
Anyone have any clues regarding Apple, others looking into this?
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/pub/buzz.html
Intel is making silicon for this standard, and is apparently attempting to be a first mover in this.
This is one reason that analysts are saying that WIFI hotspots are doomed as a money-making proposition (not as a useful thing), because the 802.16 standard reaches much further and faster, proving "last-mile" broadband for large areas.
Anyone have any clues regarding Apple, others looking into this?
Comments
Originally posted by NOFEER
is the standard backward compatible, since by the time they roll out most people will have b, or g and companies don't want to have to invest in a new standard.
802.16 is not an end user technology (at least not in the beginning) - don't expect to see 802.16 cards in your computer any time soon.
There will be bridges between the two standards.
Originally posted by Anders
If this come down in price it will KILL telcom companies.
Well, there are a lot of technologies out there. Last week, Bob Cringely talked about Dynamic Time Metered Delivery that works over cooper wires. There are also small telecoms who are working to bring fiber to the house, which is a good thing, I'd think, given the bandwidth potential.
theFly
www.flyonthemac.com
Rumors You Can Bet On
I mean, how many more Yanni concerts and 1974 episodes of some long-forgotten British sitcom do we have to continue sitting through?
Discovery, TLC, The History Channel, A&E and other cable networks do this type of stuff (concerts, biographies, history, home improvement, quirky/niche programming, etc.) better anyway. Let them provide culture, high art and sci/tech-based programming for those that enjoy it.
Screw PBS. The money could be better spent.
Originally posted by TheFly
There are also small telecoms who are working to bring fiber to the house, which is a good thing, I'd think, given the bandwidth potential.
I think broadband access in the States is getting pathetic....I got Cable to my apartment 2 years ago at 1.5M/640k in Boston. Today, the BW is 1.5M/640k (ATTBI). It costs like $60/mo.
In Japan, where I'm from, 2 years ago, 1-2M DSL was the norm, and SOME companies had 8M services in limited areas. Now, 12M DSL is the standard, and it will move over to 24/26M DSL within the next 6 months. The average monthly fee is around 20-30 USD. FTTH (Fiber To The Home) and B-Flets (also a fiber service) is also becoming common, and in the big cities, you can get a 100M fiber service (shared among 8 residents) for something like $80/mo. That price surely will come down in the coming months.
I think the problem here is that, there's really no competition going on. I mean, I don't see any of these numbers being advertised, neither on TV nor on the web. Do Americans not care about speed? Before I signed up for ATTBI, I looked EVERYWHERE on their web page and couldn't find a single mention of bandwidth. I had to actually call them to find out the speed. In Japan, OTOH, the numbers are all over the place. Watch TV and the commercials all scream about 24M this and 100M that. Of course, most people don't understand what those numbers are, but they all know that higher numbers are faster - hence competition. Any way, sorry for the long post. First post at that.
That's always been the catch-22 of the broadband industry: To get people to subscribe you need services which utilize broadband, but services won't develop until broadband subscriber rates reaches a critical point.
I don't think broadband providers really know how to market the service to people. What's the key point that makes someone want to switch to broadband?
Sure browsing is a little faster, but fast enough to justify twice (or more) the monthly cost? Watching movie previews? Downloading MP3s? Always on?
Verizon has recently announce a lower cost for their DSL service, which may spark some competative pricing. But right now there's not a great demand for the service to really make competative advertising worth the money when they need to spend equal amounts just to get people to think about broadband services.
theFly
Originally posted by rawhead
Slightly off on a tangent...
I think broadband access in the States is getting pathetic....I got Cable to my apartment 2 years ago at 1.5M/640k in Boston. Today, the BW is 1.5M/640k (ATTBI). It costs like $60/mo.
In Japan, where I'm from, 2 years ago, 1-2M DSL was the norm, and SOME companies had 8M services in limited areas. Now, 12M DSL is the standard, and it will move over to 24/26M DSL within the next 6 months. The average monthly fee is around 20-30 USD. FTTH (Fiber To The Home) and B-Flets (also a fiber service) is also becoming common, and in the big cities, you can get a 100M fiber service (shared among 8 residents) for something like $80/mo. That price surely will come down in the coming months.
I think the problem here is that, there's really no competition going on. I mean, I don't see any of these numbers being advertised, neither on TV nor on the web. Do Americans not care about speed? Before I signed up for ATTBI, I looked EVERYWHERE on their web page and couldn't find a single mention of bandwidth. I had to actually call them to find out the speed. In Japan, OTOH, the numbers are all over the place. Watch TV and the commercials all scream about 24M this and 100M that. Of course, most people don't understand what those numbers are, but they all know that higher numbers are faster - hence competition. Any way, sorry for the long post. First post at that.
Wow.
And to think VerizonDSL wants you to be grateful for being lucky enough to get 1.5M ADSL, if you happen to be close enough.
Originally posted by TheFly
Sure browsing is a little faster, but fast enough to justify twice (or more) the monthly cost? Watching movie previews? Downloading MP3s? Always on?
TheFly,
Well... Maybe 100Mb is a little more than most people need. But 24Mb is enough for hi-quality video broadcasts, hi-quality voice and video chat, more than enough for VoIP...
I think one day we will have most services (Video On-Demand, Audio and Video Conference, et. al) through the Internet. Everything will run over TCP-IP.
It will need huge backbones and multiple channel of very high speed, but it seems quite clearly to me as the most viable option for the future.
_iCeb0x_
A basic ADSL plan with a non major telco here in Australia is US$50pm for 512/128 plan with 6gb on peak 10gb ish off peak download limit..
The major telcos actually cost more and have smaller d/l allowances!
Also factor in that most places in the middle and west coast cannot get cable broadband and have to use adsl (if that is available), I cant get either of them until a adsl equipped exchange come on line in in my area late October.
I view this as a game of leapfrog in which your relative position isn't necessarily indicative of flawed governance. Given Europe's distain for ugly but cheap, above-ground wiring in city streets, for a while, their wired telephone service lagged behind north america. When mobile technology became economically feasible, they quickly adopted it. Now, Europe has arguably superior telephony.
We are likely to observe the same phenomenon in wireless networking. Each nation or region will adopt at a different point, leading to an inevitable game of standards and quality leap-frog.
While I do think there have been bad regulatory decisions in just about every country... it takes more than a short-term price disparity for me to think something is wrong.
Originally posted by rawhead
I think broadband access in the States is getting pathetic....I got Cable to my apartment 2 years ago at 1.5M/640k in Boston. Today, the BW is 1.5M/640k (ATTBI). It costs like $60/mo.
In Japan, where I'm from, 2 years ago, 1-2M DSL was the norm, and SOME companies had 8M services in limited areas. Now, 12M DSL is the standard, and it will move over to 24/26M DSL within the next 6 months. The average monthly fee is around 20-30 USD. FTTH (Fiber To The Home) and B-Flets (also a fiber service) is also becoming common, and in the big cities, you can get a 100M fiber service (shared among 8 residents) for something like $80/mo. That price surely will come down in the coming months.
I think the problem here is that, there's really no competition going on.
Another issue the US has that Japan does not is Population Density. Where I live (Texas), the average house size of a new home is approx. 2300 sq. ft. on a .25 acre lot. It makes for cities that are sprawling with little concentration, unlike the East Coast. Even if there are pockets of high density, the Telecoms must also provide the service to the Suburbs, where most people live and where the higher incomes are located. Japan has 1/2 the population, but that population is compressed in a much smaller area. Texas alone almost measures 900 miles by 900 miles.
I do agree there could be more competition, but entry costs are high with only large companies able to compete. The types of conglomerates that Japan has have been illegal in the US since the early 1900s. Also, hasn't Japan been on a deflationary track for several years now? This helps lower costs.
Originally posted by rawhead
In Japan, where I'm from, 2 years ago, 1-2M DSL was the norm, and SOME companies had 8M services in limited areas. Now, 12M DSL is the standard, and it will move over to 24/26M DSL within the next 6 months. The average monthly fee is around 20-30 USD. FTTH (Fiber To The Home) and B-Flets (also a fiber service) is also becoming common, and in the big cities, you can get a 100M fiber service (shared among 8 residents) for something like $80/mo. That price surely will come down in the coming months.
Edit: lfrog you beat me to it..
HUGE difference you're overlooking... Broadband services and it's cost mostly come down to cost of infrastructure that is required to provide the service...
How many countries the size of Japan can put fit inside the Continental US?
- Japan has a total land area of 145,883 square miles
- US has a total land area of 3,537,441 square miles
Granted a fair amount of those additional square miles are not inhabited but the fact still remains getting "broadband in the US" is nowhere near as easy as getting broadband in Japan or Europe or most other places.
If you wanna do a proper comparison you'd have to take a place the size of 'todays' Russia.
The US has a luxury of space and people don't have to live on top of one another (unless they so choose to) and that too becomes another reason BB in the US isn't as easy... The less people per SQ mile the more it's gonna cost those people for the services... The infrastructure still has to be paid for.
Another factor that somewhat plays into the equation is WWII... Much of Europe and Japans communications facilities were damaged (to one degree or another) and thus were forced to upgrade (rebuild) where the US didn't and finally the US telcom system isn't government owned and operated and this too could be looked at as a bad thing WRT rolling out broadband services... I'm not 100% sure I agree with that last one but the argument can be made.
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Edit: lfrog you beat me to it..
HUGE difference you're overlooking... Broadband services and it's cost mostly come down to cost of infrastructure that is required to provide the service...
How many countries the size of Japan can put fit inside the Continental US?
- Japan has a total land area of 145,883 square miles
- US has a total land area of 3,537,441 square miles
Granted a fair amount of those additional square miles are not inhabited but the fact still remains getting "broadband in the US" is nowhere near as easy as getting broadband in Japan or Europe or most other places.
If you wanna do a proper comparison you'd have to take a place the size of 'todays' Russia.
The US has a luxury of space and people don't have to live on top of one another (unless they so choose to) and that too becomes another reason BB in the US isn't as easy... The less people per SQ mile the more it's gonna cost those people for the services... The infrastructure still has to be paid for.
Another factor that somewhat plays into the equation is WWII... Much of Europe and Japans communications facilities were damaged (to one degree or another) and thus were forced to upgrade (rebuild) where the US didn't and finally the US telcom system isn't government owned and operated and this too could be looked at as a bad thing WRT rolling out broadband services... I'm not 100% sure I agree with that last one but the argument can be made.
Dave
Dave,
I think that it is fair to say that the equipment of the 1940s is long gone in the U.S. Even small local telcos have upgraded many times since then. The only thing that is common to that era is the continued reliance upon copper wire, but even that has changed in many ways. That said, the continued reliance upon copper wire has limited the capability of the telcos. I have observed the local telco continuing to install copper wire to get the capacity up to serve growth in the area I live and have even spoken with them about it. They are very reluctant to embrace fiber optic technology except as a backbone. Part of it is cost of the technology and part of it is the realization that it would take a very long time to convert over and there is a thought that "what's next" will leapfrog current equipment in capability and, more importantly, cost. The telcos simply do not believe that there is sufficient demand for the services that are dependent upon fiber optics to warrant the expense. Wireless, on the other hand, can be installed much more quickly and at a lower cost (this is especially true when the area involved is either the lower population density suburbs or rural areas).
All of these things have resulted in a lack of competition in most areas of the country which has, no doubt, kept the price of broadband from coming down, except in some of the major cities.
And yes, distances are quite different in Texas and Japan. In the 300 miles between San Antonio and Ft Stockton there are many areas where there is no service at all for cell phones because of any number of reasons, including the lack of a single national technical standard with regulated roaming reimbursement rates for users of providers other than the owner of the particular equipment. The users simply want the phone to work when they call a number. The current regulatory environment is not structured to accomplish this. There are, no doubt, similar problems with broadband.
Cheers
Getting things back on topic tho...
I sure hope nobody here thinks that 802.16a will provide 'airport like coverage' thru walls etc with a range of 30 miles NLOS...
In short: The laws of physics can't be changed by an IEEE standards committee.
Dave
Back on topic. Wireless internet acces over as great a range as possible WITHOUT intervening hardware is the Thing.8)
Originally posted by DaveGee
I sure hope nobody here thinks that 802.16a will provide 'airport like coverage' thru walls etc with a range of 30 miles NLOS...
Dave
If they can get it to where an external antenna (or better yet one in the attic) picks it up and connects to your network just think of all the cable that will not have to be laid.