Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category 802.16 Ratified
Prepare for more confused Wimax hype
(old news - 02:55PM Monday Jun 28 2004)
tags: wireless
The IEEE has ratified the 802.16 wireless broadband standard, meaning we're one step closer to seeing Wimax - the industry love child - deployed. Wi-Fi Networking News wisely points out that the technology still has a long way to go, despite the ample hype of the past six months. the WiMax Forum still needs to release its final specification for WiMax, a subset of the 802.16 standard. While many outlets hint that Wimax could be on store shelves as early as next year, a few analysts have predicted serious deployment dates could be as far away as 2009. Most outlets are also still confusing their definitions - and aren't even really sure what they're getting excited about; this CNET article makes only slight distinctions between 802.16 and Wimax, while this recent Slashdot article confuses Wimax with OFDM.

Related:
  1. Clearwire Launch Grumblings Continue
  2. VoIP Over 3G Still Not Working For iPhone
  3. Verizon Keeps Swinging At AT&T
  4. AT&T Launching New 7.2 Mbps 3G Modem
  5. Google Offers Free Holiday Airport Wi-Fi
  6. Sprint Announces Job Cuts
  7. Moto Sold About 100,000 Droids
  8. Verizon's Higher ETFs Annoy Senator
Forums » 802.16 Ratified
view: topics flat text 
Post a:

paulhaskew
Unoffical Dominos Spokesman

join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA
clubs:

question

why can't wireless connections for home internet use be as secure as cell phones?

Minister

join:2002-01-02
Fleeting

Re: question

Who says cellphones are secure?

jansson_mark
Markus Jansson
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Finland


1 edit

Re: question

said by Minister See Profile:
Who says cellphones are secure?

To say it short, only cell phones that are safe are the ones that use ONLY (refuse ALL other!) COMP-128-2 or COMP-128-3 and A5/3. If they use any other stuff in any way, they are insecure and can be eavesdropped pretty easily. Unfortunally most cell phone providers use COMP-128-1 and A5/1 and allow even more insecure algos to be used.

For example, in Finland, only Elisa »www.elisa.fi uses that secure combination, all other providers have insecure cell phone networks.
--
My computer security & privacy related homepage »www.markusjansson.net

Use HushTools or GnuPG/PGP to encrypt any email before sending it to me to protect our privacy.

paulhaskew
Unoffical Dominos Spokesman

join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA
clubs:
well more secure than my wireless connection at home...

garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY

Re: question

quote:
why can't wireless connections for home internet use be as secure as cell phones?
just as soon as baby monitors don't pick up cell calls...or pringle cans don't spot unsecured hotspots.

cell phones are as about secure as walkie talkies are. as in, they ain't.

Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:

said by paulhaskew See Profile:
why can't wireless connections for home internet use be as secure as cell phones?

Huh? I hear all cell phones on my pre-ban scanner. Nothing secure there. Then there are the fadeovers/harmonics that let the cell phone be heard in non-banned frequencies (I don't recall the actual term) and there are other ways to hear them. About as secure as a pair of $5.00 dollar walkie-talkies when they are sold by the tractor load preset at one channel for everyone to hear for miles around.

sabersaw
Premium
join:2001-08-21
Dayton, OH


2 edits

Re: question

said by Doctor Olds See Profile:
Huh? I hear all cell phones on my pre-ban scanner. Nothing secure there. Then there are the fadeovers/harmonics that let the cell phone be heard in non-banned frequencies (I don't recall the actual term) and there are other ways to hear them.
those analog cell phones in the 800 mhz band are almost extent in many parts of the country... I think it would take a lot of radio and knowledge to listen to cdma or tdma without knowing someone on the inside. analog signals.. piece of cake. search 862-890 mhz fm narrow band.

ObdH
Premium
join:2003-06-11

2009 huh

hmm, sounds fun, however by then I hope even I'm alive

kaisa
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs:
·Comcast

Re: 2009 huh

said by ObdH See Profile:
hmm, sounds fun, however by then I hope even I'm alive

thats the spirit!
forrestin
Premium
join:2004-02-07
Clinton, IN

Cost

What is the cost going to be for the Wimax? 802.11G is relatively in expensive.

Would this WiMax be of any use to a home user?
averagedude

join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ

Too soon for consumers

My goodness it is like alphabet soup.

As an "average" consumer I will be waiting a while before spending any money on this propriety stuff.

I am not willing to get burned on products that are not guaranteed to "talk" with each other.
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA

Re: Too soon for consumers

You won't be using it as a consumer. This stuff is designed for use by service providers. It would be kinda like having a $25000 router plugged into your DSL line.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA

WiMax/802.16 is not for the home consumer

The 802.16 standard and it's WiMax marketing subset are designed for metro area access meaning service providers and certain businesses with several offices in one city.

The real benefits that will be seen by an end consumer is that this technology has the potential to offer lower cost wireless internet services to compete with DSL and Cable. Additionally the costs should be low enough to allow for sufficient ROI in areas which currently do not make it interesting for companies to deploy in.

As to security. Anything that sends a signal that can be intercepted is insecure.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline

Re: WiMax/802.16 is not for the home consumer

said by cmaenginsb See Profile:
As to security. Anything that sends a signal that can be intercepted is insecure.

I disagree. I don't believe that RF transmissions are more or less secure than wired connections. I would modify your statement to read that anything that is intercepted is a potential security risk and I see two potential risks:

1) The intercepted packet contains secret/sensitive information. If the information is not secret/sensitive, such as the current time of day, who cares if the interceptor reads it?
2) The intercepted packet is hijacked, modified and sent to the original destination and the original destination believes the modified packet is the sender's truth. Obviously this risk is extremely dangerous since even a simple time of day signal becomes a security risk.

I would guess that given the nature of the RF, it's probably harder to accomplish #2 than in a wired environment.
Forums » 802.16 Ratified


Tuesday, 10-Nov 23:51:26 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.