rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to rahvin112
Re: Wireless Has To Improve
Hasn't the FCC been selling dedicated spectrum? Have any WISPs bought dedicated spectrum? I know it's expensive but if wireless is the path to a true third choice, why hasn't a company with cash (Google, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM) purchased some spectrum?
For that matter, why must spectrum be purchased? Why can't the government classify spectrum for a certain kind of use and then license lots of small guys to use it? Why the big money grab?
Regarding interference, at least at my parents house it isn't coming from them. Their WISP is using 900mhz band. Their phones are 5Ghz, their access point is 2.4Ghz. One of their dish network receivers has a wireless remote that transmits in the UHF band but the packet loss is consistent and doesn't seem to get better or worse with any particular activity in the house. At 2AM, the packet loss is there but the speed is better.
The packet loss is present between their router's public IP (statically configured by the ISP) and the next hop. DNS lookup identifies the next hop as owned by their ISP. This leads me to believe the packet loss occurs between in the wireless link.
Their satellite LNBs convert the Ghz satellite signals to high Mhz signals that's more suitable for coax transmission. I suppose this could be leaking and causing interference.
Of course that doesn't explain the link in the lab where I work. I don't know what band it's using and being in an office park, the interference could be coming from anywhere.
I don't doubt that wireless could be better but in my opinion, today's links cannot offer serious competition to a hard link. Perhaps dedicated frequency would eliminate these problems.
I'd agree we need a third choice but it won't be able to compete unless it's rock solid, low latency and very low packet loss. |
