buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME | That's Great
Why don't we work on getting wired speed greater than 3megs at say some random distance like 18,000 feet. |
|
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by buzz_4_20  :Why don't we work on getting wired speed greater than 3megs at say some random distance like 18,000 feet. It's already there, through fiber. |
|
buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME | Fiber requires a lot of infrastructure investment. New DSL tech only requires equipment upgrades. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  No penetration thru structures; so not for mobile wireless
The technology looks like a very high speed replacement for fiber in a campus like environment, but it can't be used for high bandwidth mobile use.
An interesting technology, but line of sight and attenuation thru atmosphere characteristics limit its use to specific applications.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimetre···ications
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| A replacement for Sneaker Net?
100 gigahertz is good for what, 6 feet? At that wavelength, the particles in the air would be enough to attenuate the signal. If you put enough wattage behind the signal to get it where you want it, it seems like you'd end up cooking anything near the tower.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB | Wireless will always be inferior to wired.
"at least so far in the lab"
Everything looks better in the lab. In the lab you have no obstacles, short distances, almost zero possibility of interference, near ideal conditions! Out in the real world however... not the same. |
|
XPAMD
Premium
join:2002-06-08
united state
 ·ViaTalk
| Could making renting and buying movies easier
This would have a huge market in either sales and rentals of DVDs and Blu Ray DVDs. Exept no more disk. At just 10 Gbps your sending a file at 1.1 GigaBYTES per second.
Venders could market a steady state drive with this built in wireless capabililty. You Take a small card to your local Walmart, Best Buy, CC or what ever. You could purchase/rent a movie/show whatever in less than a minute that movie is transfered to your card. Then you take it home plug it to the adapter to connnect it to the TV. This adapter would also have internet capabilties to continue renting the movie longer or if you really liked it, purchase it out right, unlocking it for you do with as you wish. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | reply to TheMG
Re: Wireless will always be inferior to wired.
well you gotta start somewhere...
pretty much 'everything' started off in some sort of a controlled environment. |
|
parasonic
I Am Not A Bot
join:2002-03-29
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| fasdf
"...but hasn't been used much due to the cost and difficulty involved in forging a millimeter-wave signal, encoding information on it, and then decoding at the other end."
No, it has nothing to do with the encoding and decoding. That is the easy part. All sorts of algorithms already exist for that, e.g. DSSS and OFDM(A).
"Forging" the signal as you call it is the hardest part because test equipment and manufacturing costs for anything above Ka band becomes orders of magnitude more expensive.
--
"We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. We are the Borg." SETI: Too many TFlops to keep up with. |
|
premio
join:2002-02-17
Antelope, CA | Hmm
A lot of people will be upset walking back to the dorm with their groceries and having their popcorn start popping in the bag. |
|
mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
3 edits | wireless trying to compete or beat FTTP/cable will hurt --
My feelings about this...
Wireless can be a good thing but one of the problems with these attempts to find solutions to even match reasonable transmission speeds as an alternative to cable or FTTP offerings of triple play will hurt everyone getting the service.
Face it, does everyone truly pay for what their line costs, if fiber passes 10 homes in one area and 30 in another for the same distance, is the price not the same.
What wireless will do is give us an almost as good offering with tradeoffs and you can say goodbye to any rural offerings. The theory beyond the telephone company of the past was always that highly profitable areas always subsidized cheaper areas, a fair price for everyone both urban & rural.
This was the basis behind the universal service fund proposed for years, that it would collect from many sources but its been at least 10 years since the telcommunications act of 1996 and where are we. This promised information superhighway is still not here. Could be wrong but I don't think that companies want the government involved pressing rules and conditions to get funds.
Heres the thing, what I feel.. if wireless tries to push into high speed wireless offerings like cable and FTTP's tripleplay, it will be a lousy thing for everyone. It wont pay to invest in new technology, any issues this will produce, we'll be stuck with and there will be dark areas which now, it doesn't pay to ever wire. In urban areas it will be problematic for interference, semi urban areas will probably see spotty unusual problems and rural touch and go reception. If there are any issues, tough, because wired cannot directly compete with wireless in terms of price, if wireless is way cheaper, where it does work it may not look or perform that great and it wont pay to innovate since it is very hard for one who has to wire entire neighborhoods to compete with someone who doesn't have to wire.
FTTP should be tomarrows network, everyone should work to build it. The alternative networks such as FTTC/copper or coax networks are good for only some time. Wireless should suppliment with mobile solutions.
Fiber to the home could be run in an underground solution from as urban as city streets to as rural as the grand canyon. Underground will keep it out of the elements, tubes should be placed in the ground and the fiber run through it.
Everyone in the country deserves to have the best technology, everyone in the country could have FTTP/H within a 15 year window, until then either cable or a DSL/DirecTv solution could work till then.
Wireless is much more nimble and cheaper than wired, if potential competitors dont see a profit can be made by wiring, they probably won't even bother or just never improve what they have, to take in revenue with less potential customers means they have to raise their prices while wireless can go down but now if wireless doesn't work that well, you just thrown reward for investment in wired technology and advancement out the window.
Ok, let me put this short and sweet, short of some providers waiting for fiber to drop affordably enough to put together an FTTP solution, the entire nation could be wired in as little as 15 years. No question, FTTP can deliver the very best no matter what tomarrow brings with the best picture and sound available and everyone should be entitled to it but if new high speed wireless comes in like a super fast networked hot dog stand, these providers will probably not want to invest in this network.
What if this happens, what if wireless wrecked plans for wired networks then down the road, people started getting cancer who were near transmitters. We'd be stuck, FTTP or cable is the solution for now. Even FTTC/copper isn't a bad short term solution but I feel this 4G & higher wireless technology will ruin our chance to enjoy the greatest quality technology one day across the entire country. |
|
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to buzz_4_20
Re: That's Great
said by buzz_4_20 :Fiber requires a lot of infrastructure investment. New DSL tech only requires equipment upgrades. Obviously they figure an investment in fiber is better than more investment in copper.
Otherwise ADSL2plus would be more prevalent in the US. |
|
deleteme
join:2002-04-22
Chicago, IL | reply to cornelius785
Re: Wireless will always be inferior to wired.
and thus why allot of stuff sucks in the real world - too quick to profit, not enough time to develop |
|
