802.16 WiMAX....the Holy Grail of nationwide broadband???

I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL. I've been
exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
download policies. Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
far.

I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream? It is
supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput! This is
pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
large metropolitan areas that early.

When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

Intel's WiMAX site:
http://www.intel.com/netcomms/techno...imax/index.htm

TJM wrote:

> I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
> internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL. I've been
> exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
> seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
> download policies. Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
> affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
> far.
>
> I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
> called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
> broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream? It is
> supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput! This is
> pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
> stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
> large metropolitan areas that early.
>
> When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?
>
> Intel's WiMAX site:
> http://www.intel.com/netcomms/techno...imax/index.htm

I don't mean to put WiMax down, but don't expect to surf at 70 megs
soon. Even Wifi has had between 5½ - 7 megs capacity for a long time and
I don't know of many WISPs that are providing that kind of bandwidth.
The actual point to multipoint connections in the article you provided
the link to speaks more of 3 - 5 mile ranges instead of 30. I think
WiMax may be a major player as time goes by, but right now 802.11b
equipment is far cheaper and WiMax will have a long way to go to get the
prices down.

What you said is probably true, but 70 Mbps at 30 mile range sounds a lot
sexier!

Even a 5-mile effective range would provide access to a LOT more people who
currently cant get wired broadband. Plus, with the 802.16 standard and
economies of scale, WiMAX seems to promise rapid deployment due to cheap cost
for the service providers.

Stay tuned....

> > Intel's WiMAX site:
> > http://www.intel.com/netcomms/techno...imax/index.htm
>
> I don't mean to put WiMax down, but don't expect to surf at 70 megs
> soon. Even Wifi has had between 5½ - 7 megs capacity for a long time and
> I don't know of many WISPs that are providing that kind of bandwidth.
> The actual point to multipoint connections in the article you provided
> the link to speaks more of 3 - 5 mile ranges instead of 30. I think
> WiMax may be a major player as time goes by, but right now 802.11b
> equipment is far cheaper and WiMax will have a long way to go to get the
> prices down.

R?g?r <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> TJM wrote:

>> I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup

Stuck? I am rural by choice, but that's another topic.
If it's worth enough to you, you can always get service higher than 64K.
There is a point of diminishing returns, though.

How rural are you, and how flat is the terrain?
There are several stories of people putting up their own wireless links to
share access from some point that does have wired access.

Cringely is dubious. Some people say it didn't happen.
Part one
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010628.html
Part two
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010712.html
References
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20010712.html

David Taylor's is a good story and good writeup.
http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/Equati..._broadband.htm

Craig's is a long link, with good mapping detail.
http://www.craig-bartell.com/

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:21:33 -0400, "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote:

>I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
>internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL.

OK, you live in a cave. I don't but I'm familiar with the problem.
Some clue as to your location would be helpful.

>I've been
>exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
>seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
>download policies.

OK, so that means ISDN 128Kbit/service is out due to limited bandwidth
and high price.

>Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
>affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
>far.

Wireless providers do not just throw up an access point and announce
"we have bandwidth, who wants it?" They do surveys of towns and act
upon inquiries which revolve around marketing research. If there's a
need in the area, and the number of customers served is sufficient,
you can probably attract the attention of a WISP. I suggest asking in
the ISP-Wireless mailing list to see if anyone is interested in
providing service.
http://isp-wireless.com
If you live in an RF hole (valley), surrounded by high mountains full
of RF absorbing trees, I don't think a WISP will work. Prices for
reasonable bandwidth (1.5Mbits/sec) are also somewhat astronomical for
wireless.

What some small towns have done is purchase a T1 with ISP service and
resell the bandwidth using anything from wireless to barbed wire for
distribution. The cost of such a T1 in the middle of nowhere will be
pricy and depend mostly on the number of repeaters requied from the
neaest telco office. Effectively, you would be building your own ISP.
My guess(tm) is that this method becomes economical with about 20-30
paying customers.

>I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
>called "WiMAX".

Every new product is pure hype until the hardware appears. WiMax is
just a better 802.11b without the inefficiencies and timing problems
that limit range and performance. The power levels are the same and
the range/bandwidth equations are identical. Like all business
ventures, nobody is going to install a WiMax WISP in the middle of
nowhere without some means of having it pay the bills. It's certainly
better for WISP service than 802.11b but is not a magic bullet or
miracle cure. If anything, it will be initially far more expensive
than 802.11b.

>It is
>supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput!

More like 30 miles or 70Mbits/sec, pick *ONE*.

The limiting factor is the tradeoff between BER (bit error rate) and
transmission rate. What all these radios do is reduce the
transmission rate when the BER climbs above a specified threshold. No
sense in sending high speed garbage that can't be used. Slow down and
the error rate decreases. So, at 30 miles, my guess(tm) is that
you'll get about 0.5Mbits/sec if there's no interference, and zero if
there's a leaky microwave oven, sodium RF lamp, utility wireless link,
plastic molding pre-heater, or outdoor event with wireless TV cameras
somewhere in the path providing the traditional interference. It's
also line of sight, which means that it won't work in your cave,
valley, or forest.

Incidentally, the previous holy grail was NLOS (near line of sight)
which methinks has turned out to be little better than hype.

Stay tuned for mesh networks, the next big thing in science fiction
and marketing hype. This also includes self configuring, self
healing, and advanced routing algorithms.

>When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

About the same time as it becomes economical to provide the service.
Whenever the FCC hears the latest great idea in spectrum grabbing,
it's always justified by providing rural service. Doesn't matter what
the service does, it's the rural communities that are suppose to get
the benifits. For example, the FCC is currently entertaining comments
on the re-use of UHF TV spectrum for wireless LANs on a
non-interference basis. It's suggested for rural use where there are
few TV stations. However, as soon as the technology is endorsed and
the licenses are issued, the technology always appears in the more
populous areas simply because it's more profitable. Bluntly, I
wouldn't hold my breath.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

> If it's worth enough to you, you can always get service higher than 64K.
> There is a point of diminishing returns, though.

The only viable options for me right now is ISDN or 2-way satellite. Both
options are too pricey for the mild performance gains. I had ISDN a few years
back before DSL or DOCSIS even existed, but it was $60/mo. for 128K (usu. 64K)
speed. I've test-driven StarBand but the high upfront equipment cost and
monthly fees are hard to justify for 500K service, not to mention it blacks out
during bad weather.

> How rural are you, and how flat is the terrain?
> There are several stories of people putting up their own wireless links to
> share access from some point that does have wired access.

I live in a valley of tall oak trees. I thought about contacting one of my
neighbors who live across the valley about 500 yards where they can get
broadband from the local cable company, but I assumed the hardware involved
(directional boosting antennas, wireless bridges, etc) would be
cost-prohibitive. Maybe I should shop around and see what the total cost would
be. If I could invest less than $700-800 for all the equipment, then the $30
monthly cable internet fee for 1.5 Mbps service would be worth it. I might even
convince my neighbor to split the monthly cost with me. The biggest obstacle is
the mighty oaks....I would have to run a tower 50' to get above them.....or can
the antennas transmit through heavy foilage?


> Cringely is dubious. Some people say it didn't happen.
> Part one
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010628.html
> Part two
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010712.html
> References
> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20010712.html
>
> David Taylor's is a good story and good writeup.
> http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/Equati..._broadband.htm
>
> Craig's is a long link, with good mapping detail.
> http://www.craig-bartell.com/
>
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
>

> OK, you live in a cave. I don't but I'm familiar with the problem.
> Some clue as to your location would be helpful.

I live in a small valley with tall oak trees. I have neighbors across the
valley about 500 yds. who have access to cable broadband, but in the summer the
foilage is thick.....can boosting antennas transmit through heavy foilage?

> OK, so that means ISDN 128Kbit/service is out due to limited bandwidth
> and high price.

I had ISDN about 7 yrs. ago.....I was paying $60/mo. for 128K, although it was
usu. 64K and disconnected frequently. StarBand looks interesting, but I've
heard a ton of horror stories about it.

> What some small towns have done is purchase a T1 with ISP service and
> resell the bandwidth using anything from wireless to barbed wire for
> distribution. The cost of such a T1 in the middle of nowhere will be
> pricy and depend mostly on the number of repeaters requied from the
> neaest telco office. Effectively, you would be building your own ISP.
> My guess(tm) is that this method becomes economical with about 20-30
> paying customers.

I doubt I could get this going in my neighborhood. I live on the border of
civilization.....big housing complex to the north and mostly farmland to the
south. If my house was on the other side of the stream only 100 ft. away....I
would be able to get cable broadband.

> ventures, nobody is going to install a WiMax WISP in the middle of
> nowhere without some means of having it pay the bills. It's certainly
> better for WISP service than 802.11b but is not a magic bullet or
> miracle cure. If anything, it will be initially far more expensive
> than 802.11b.

True, but it sounds like it will serve many uses that 802.11 cant
handle.....like backhaul traffic for the local cellular providers, "last-mile"
broadband for business and residential, low-power roaming access, etc.

> More like 30 miles or 70Mbits/sec, pick *ONE*.

Those are theoreticals.....I would imagine 5 Mbps at 5 miles would be achievable
in the initial stages?

> About the same time as it becomes economical to provide the service.
> Whenever the FCC hears the latest great idea in spectrum grabbing,
> it's always justified by providing rural service. Bluntly, I
> wouldn't hold my breath.

I dont think 100% nationwide wireless coverage is going to happen for many
years, but even a single tower that can handle non-line-of-sight wireless at 5
Mbps in a 5-mile cell radius would really expand broadband access in America.
With that kind of capability, the DSL & cable internet providers wouldnt stand a
chance, esp. since we are moving toward a totally wireless world where people
are going to want to take their laptop, tablet, PDA, etc. out of their house and
enjoy reliable broadband as they drive around town and to Grandma's house for
Sunday dinner.

TJM <tjm@nospam> wrote:
> I live in a valley of tall oak trees. I thought about contacting one of my
> neighbors who live across the valley about 500 yards where they can get
> broadband from the local cable company, but I assumed the hardware involved
> (directional boosting antennas, wireless bridges, etc) would be

500 yards away, and they get cable? You can't get cable, or don't want it?
You could run your own DSL if you could run some cable from them.

How far can cable go? Maybe your neighbor could sign up for a second cable
modem, and you could run the cable over to your house? I have no idea if
500 yards is too far for that.

Tall Oak trees... I used to have some of those.
http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/Oak.jpg
But it wouldn't prevent line of sight somewhere on the property to another
parcel. 500 yards should work, if there's line of sight.

Don't overlook the Equation solution that I cited earlier. That involves a
third location. "A" provides the backbone, "B" has line of sight to "A",
and line of sight to "C", the intended recipient.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

> 500 yards away, and they get cable? You can't get cable, or don't want it?
> You could run your own DSL if you could run some cable from them.
>
> How far can cable go? Maybe your neighbor could sign up for a second cable
> modem, and you could run the cable over to your house? I have no idea if
> 500 yards is too far for that.

A long cable run would work......but I would have to bury coax through another
person's yard, across a county bridge, and then pray no utility truck ever
severs it when they are laying drainage pipes. Too risky. Then again, I could
always string it alongside the power lines overhead

> http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/Oak.jpg

Hey nice oaks!

> But it wouldn't prevent line of sight somewhere on the property to another
> parcel. 500 yards should work, if there's line of sight.

So heavy foilage is gonna kill the whole wireless idea? Damn those trees......

In article <R9udnbSiM8ganZrcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)>, TJM <tjm@nospam> wrote:
>
>I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
>called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
>broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream?

It's neither, but it is pretty cool.

> It is
>supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput!

Potentially... .

> This is
>pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
>stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
>large metropolitan areas that early.
>
>When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

Note, don't expect people to sell WiMax service direct to home users. The
expectation is that WiMax will be used by broadband providers to connect
a central hub to WiFi local stations. With overprovisioning, a provider
might be able to support something like several dozen to several hundred
"personal" 802.11 leaf nodes per WiMax distribution node.

Think of WiMax as wireless fiber to your neighborhood and WiFi as the
wire from your neighborhood SLI to your house.

Also, note that given the frequencies at which WiMax typically operates,
it's much *more* susceptible to interference from things like trees than
WiFi, which is more susceptible than digital mobile phone service. WiMax
really needs unobstructed line of sight.

--
Nick Christenson
(E-Mail Removed)