how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
473 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Why is this so complicated? I'm assuming, since this is for a "new broadband delivery method," that a company would have to set up a series of transceivers (like cell towers) to interface these wireless devices with an existing, land-based network. Why can't the consumer devices listen across all channels for instructions from the tower as to which channel to use? Then there wouldn't be a need for the device to use GPS, database look-ups, etc.
Am I missing something? Is this supposed to be a replacement for Wi-Fi (for example), which would negate the "new broadband delivery method"?
While a 6 Mhz television channel can carry a bit of data long-distances, it still seems like it would be fairly expensive to set up all the infrastructure for a third pipe. This might work well as a last mile replacement in areas without DSL or cable, assuming they set it up similar to a cell phone network (relatively low power transceivers covering small areas). | |
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by probboy:While a 6 Mhz television channel can carry a bit of data long-distances, it still seems like it would be fairly expensive to set up all the infrastructure for a third pipe. This might work well as a last mile replacement in areas without DSL or cable, assuming they set it up similar to a cell phone network (relatively low power transceivers covering small areas). Look! Someone thinking critically instead of greedily drinking Microgoogle's third-pipe kool-aid.
Yes, it might work for small areas, but why? WiMax has much more bandwidth, is less susceptible to interference, and costs no more to set up.
I'm getting really tired of saying this will be used for phones/SMS/light data and NOT broadband. But by offering the mythical third pipe everyone is starving for, Microgoogle have gotten it rammed through, free TV be damned.
--
"The sacrosanct free market would supposedly regulate itself. The problem with that approach is that regulations are just rules. If there are no rules, the players can cheat." - Ellen Hodgson Brown, JD | |
| I'm getting really tired of saying this will be used for phones/SMS/light data and NOT broadband. But by offering the mythical third pipe everyone is starving for, Microgoogle have gotten it rammed through, free TV be damned.
then stop posting it nobody cares what you THINK about whitespace internet,or how bandwidth limited you THINK it will be.you don't have any idea how good or bad it will be.im sure people said the same thing about evdo that work just fine with limited bandwidth
you just keep enjoying your dsl or whatever high speed internet you have while i live 1 1/2 miles from the city limits,and cant get nothing but dialup,and satt.we just want another option that don't cost a arm and a leg,and you don't think dialup,satt.,and evdo are what you call low bandwidth,and many many people use it because that's the only option they have.so buddy it your tired of posting your shortsighted uneducated opinion then just stop posting,and shut the fuck up | |
| Why would any company spend any money setting up the infrastructure for a network that relies on UNLICENSED spectrum?
I hate to break it to you, but if the incumbent phone company won't extend DSL to where you live and the incumbent cable company won't extend cable service to where you live, and you can't get a cellular option where you live, NO ONE is going to build the infrastructure to support this service where you live.
I know it sucks, but that's how the real world works. Using whitespace to magically deliver internet to everyone isn't going to happen.
I have yet to see how Microsoft/Google/et al plan to use the whitespace. Are they going to set up a cell phone like network (expensive, and as someone else pointed out, why not just use Wimax)? Are they going to set up one giant tower somewhere and blast a signal across a huge area (also expensive, interference prone, and one 6Mhz channel serving a lot of people isn't going to be speedy)? Are they going to rely on a mesh-type network and what are the details (who, in this day of caps and MPAA lawsuits is going to allow their fiber/DSL/cable to be the interface to a wider network based on these unlicensed whitespace devices)?
As you see, lots of questions and (at least I) haven't seen any details from the Microsofts and Googles of the world. Both have tons of money and could have bid on the 700 Mhz auction and didn't. | |
| my above post goes for you too.none of you know how,or where this is going to be used,and just want to put down anything new.why do you even care i wouldn't if i could get dsl or cable | |
|
