dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Carpe Diem
Winchester, CA

1 edit
reply to a333

Re: If these cities want to offer something for free...

Its obivious you dont have any clue as to WHAT you are talking about. Amplifying the AP signal with an amp does nothing but create MORE noise and also pulls in MORE noise and creates headaches! The problem is NOT with the Node its with customer laptops they only have a small if your lucky 15-30 MW card which cant talk back to an AP sitting on a pole 100Ft away!

The easiest way to circomvent this is to use Ants that have some higher gain to amplify the signals coming from the client, buy a higher power WifI card for the laptop or use things like small reapeaters that customers can buy to boost thier signal back to the node and also then that repeater acts just like I said a repeater in that local area bossting signal for everyone.

We have a hotspot system at an airport that WE designed that goes 1/4 mile with NO amplification and it picks up users in the terminals just fine! we charge for the service and were making roughly 10k per month off it till other WiFi companies came in then it became a pricing war.

The other option is to make the WIFI fixed for some users where you sell and or install a canopy or tranog CPE on theier rooftop and pull cat 5 down to thier location just like we Wisps do with out any issues. Design is key and if you dont do it right and cost effectivly you WONT make it work.

WiFi works if designed proerly that is the KEY Wimax is no different if you think your going to get miles and miles of range from WIMAX your on crack. The same thing applies its the laptops that are the weak link!

said by a333:

@ john- Well, then it's definitely a waste of taxpayer money in my book. If its purpose is to provide 'mobile broadband', or a REPLACEMENT for cable/DSL, it's an epic waste of tax money. The least the (the city) could've done is use ads to at least make up for part of the cost of operating the network.

@ patcat- No amount of amplification/antennae imporvements can reasonably make citywide WiFi feasible. The reason? Doing either requires basically drowning out nearby WiFi signals, which I'm sure wouldn't lead to a pleasant reaction from WiFi network owners in the vicinity.........
I mean, sure, THEORETICALLY, you can do that. Heck, pump the power up to something like 1 Watt, and boom! You've got ~ 600-1000 ft coverage. Question? Does it sit particularly well with local residents/businesses? I highly doubt it would.

A hot cup of integrals please

Rego Park, NY

1 edit
Those points are moot... how many people will actually go buy these 'higher power' WiFi cards for laptops, along with the associated high-gain antennas? I never said it's ain't possible. Just putting some common sense out there, that compared to WiMax, WiFi just doesn't cut it when creating a citywide network. It's like providing broadband to homes using cat5. Just doesn't work, or we'd have 100 Meg ethernet HSI by now.
BTW, never said WiMax goes 'miles and miles'. Just saying that, in urban environments, WiMax is just the better choice, as each tower can cover a lot more distance than even the best-designed WiFi, thus reducing costs for network operators. Sure, customers can get better WiFi cards and antennas, but if you're going to give subscribers new equipment, might as well give them WiMax equipment and reduce your own costs.
Finally, I don't even support cities doing this, especially when they're wiring areas that already get DSL and cable. I mean, BB isn't a utility, so the city shouldn't be responsible for it. They can get muni WiFi/WiMax as part of their franchise agreements with cable MSO's/telcos. But to spend/waste taxpayer money on stuff like this is just idiocy at its finest....