WiFi differences

Bit confused:

I have heard about WiFi hotspots, which as I understand are the
short-distance internet services for WiFi (within 200m). This is
commercialy picking up pretty fast.

I´ve heard about WiFi via radio, which offers a long distance internet
service (15 km radius), which is not really picking up and I don´t
hear a lot about it.

Can anybody tell me the differences, the specs and maybe why the
short-distance one is picking up so fast. To me long distance sounds
much more attractive.

saludos,

Yogi

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
Yogi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:Bit confused:

:I have heard about WiFi hotspots, which as I understand are the
:short-distance internet services for WiFi (within 200m). This is
:commercialy picking up pretty fast.

:I´ve heard about WiFi via radio, which offers a long distance internet
:service (15 km radius), which is not really picking up and I don´t
:hear a lot about it.

:Can anybody tell me the differences, the specs and maybe why the
:short-distance one is picking up so fast. To me long distance sounds
:much more attractive.

*All* WiFi is via radio. Usually, "WiFi" is further restricted to
the context of the unlicensed radio frequencies such as near 2.4 GHz
(802.11b, 802.11g) or 5.8 GHz (802.11a). Using the same sorts of
technologies over frequencies that require a license would usually
be called "wireless" but not "WiFi".

The difference between a ~200 m coverage and a ~15 km coverage is
mostly in the antennas. The sorts of antennas that easily fit in a PC
card are useful for short distances at any angle -- offering mobility
if you are close enough. The sorts of antennas you need for 15 km are
much bigger and have to be very carefully aimed -- not much mobility.

Indeed, by the time you get near 15 km, you are probably having to
mount the antenna on a mast in order to get proper radio signal
clearance around the curvature of the Earth and over nearby buildings
(it's not as easy as just being able to -see- the other end.)
--
Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics
they see in .signatures.

WiMax does 50 km non point to point.


"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bve9om$hu0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> Yogi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :Bit confused:
>
> :I have heard about WiFi hotspots, which as I understand are the
> :short-distance internet services for WiFi (within 200m). This is
> :commercialy picking up pretty fast.
>
> :I´ve heard about WiFi via radio, which offers a long distance internet
> :service (15 km radius), which is not really picking up and I don´t
> :hear a lot about it.
>
> :Can anybody tell me the differences, the specs and maybe why the
> :short-distance one is picking up so fast. To me long distance sounds
> :much more attractive.
>
> *All* WiFi is via radio. Usually, "WiFi" is further restricted to
> the context of the unlicensed radio frequencies such as near 2.4 GHz
> (802.11b, 802.11g) or 5.8 GHz (802.11a). Using the same sorts of
> technologies over frequencies that require a license would usually
> be called "wireless" but not "WiFi".
>
> The difference between a ~200 m coverage and a ~15 km coverage is
> mostly in the antennas. The sorts of antennas that easily fit in a PC
> card are useful for short distances at any angle -- offering mobility
> if you are close enough. The sorts of antennas you need for 15 km are
> much bigger and have to be very carefully aimed -- not much mobility.
>
> Indeed, by the time you get near 15 km, you are probably having to
> mount the antenna on a mast in order to get proper radio signal
> clearance around the curvature of the Earth and over nearby buildings
> (it's not as easy as just being able to -see- the other end.)
> --
> Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics
> they see in .signatures.

In article <5BzSb.47050$(E-Mail Removed)>, . <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:WiMax does 50 km non point to point.

Do you have a reference for that 50 km ? I'm reading the white paper now,
http://www.wimaxforum.org/news/downl...Whitepaper.pdf
and the figure listed in the 'Coverage' paragraph of
"Differentiating the IEEE 802.16a and 802.11 Standards - WiFi versus WiMAX
Scalabiity" is a bit different:

The robust OFDM waveform supports high spectral efficiency (bits
per second per Hertz) over ranges from 2 to 40 kilometers with up
to 70 Mbps in a single RF channel.

There is then a brief mention of ways it might be extended, but no
distances are shown there.
--
Sub-millibarn resolution bio-hyperdimensional plasmatic space
polyimaging is just around the corner. -- Corry Lee Smith

40 50, whats 10 km here or there


"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bvek82$mjs$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <5BzSb.47050$(E-Mail Removed)>, . <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> :WiMax does 50 km non point to point.
>
> Do you have a reference for that 50 km ? I'm reading the white paper now,
> http://www.wimaxforum.org/news/downl...Whitepaper.pdf
> and the figure listed in the 'Coverage' paragraph of
> "Differentiating the IEEE 802.16a and 802.11 Standards - WiFi versus WiMAX
> Scalabiity" is a bit different:
>
> The robust OFDM waveform supports high spectral efficiency (bits
> per second per Hertz) over ranges from 2 to 40 kilometers with up
> to 70 Mbps in a single RF channel.
>
> There is then a brief mention of ways it might be extended, but no
> distances are shown there.
> --
> Sub-millibarn resolution bio-hyperdimensional plasmatic space
> polyimaging is just around the corner. -- Corry Lee Smith

>40 50, whats 10 km here or there

Specially as it is NOT available just yet...

No but hey lets NOT plan in advance.

"Martin²" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:VLDSb.227$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >40 50, whats 10 km here or there
>
> Specially as it is NOT available just yet...
>
>