 Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK | i don't think it's completely unreasonable this summer, I've been testing some wireless connections that were 3500/2500 at a range of about 18km from the tower
line of sight is an issue of course, and 100mbps wireless at any distance is still a ways out there, but it's not impossible | |
|
 | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
|  Re: i don't think it's completely unreasonable
said by Tikker_LoS  :this summer, I've been testing some wireless connections that were 3500/2500 at a range of about 18km from the tower line of sight is an issue of course, and 100mbps wireless at any distance is still a ways out there, but it's not impossible Goldman sounds like Dvorak in an earlier story here today at BBR. He talks about 100 mbps wireless, but offers no evidence anything like those speeds is going to be available in the mid-term future, let alone near-term. All the systems being built today are barely delivering 1 mbps and that only under optimal conditions. His dream is probably 10 years out, if then.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | 
viperm
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Winchester, CA
| Re: i don't think it's completely unreasonable I dont know who you have been talking to about wireless but we have customers pulling 5 + megs from our sites.
I just installed a customer today ran some speed tests to our own internal servers getting ^ + megs down and about 4 up at about 15 miles from our site.
--
ComTrain Certified Tower Climber. American Tower Certified approved contractor | |
|
| | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | You can also connect to your local ISP wirelessly using a special antenna. All you need is a line of sight and they can provide you up to 100mbps up and down. But it's not something a customer can afford, since prices are around that of a T1 and up. | |
|
| | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: i don't think it's completely unreasonable I am a bit concerned about latency and reliability. Care to elaborate? | |
|
| | | |
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
1 edit | Re: i don't think it's completely unreasonable Reliability will most likely be greater since you are not physically attached with wires. All you need is your responder and a power supply to connect.
If power goes out you can always back that up with a generator with voltage regulator or with a UPS backup and your connection would be up and running just fine. Unlike if a pole snaps across the street and now your block is without phone service. Even if the CO on the other end is running just fine your link is broken. So that's advantageous over any wired network.
Latency depends on the technology used there is canopy, EV-DO Rev A, RF, and more from what I heard. I can't give you more information than what I know since I am currently looking into that data myself. But there is a WISP forum here, if anything we would find our answer there from people who actually own the equipment.
I at least know Canopy operates somewhere in the 5.8Ghz range.
EDIT: I know this is not a reliable source but here >> »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_%28wireless%29 | |
|
| | | | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
 ·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| said by grandpinaple :I am a bit concerned about latency and reliability. Care to elaborate? latency isn't too bad actually (in the tests I've done)
it's not dsl/cable but it's no where near satellite pings
it's a lot like being on interleave profile in dsl (15-30 ms pings) | |
|
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427 | tell me something i don't know " a combination of un-net savvy, financially compromised politicians and an apathetic FCC will keep wired networks relatively slow for now.
Hasn't this been the case for some time now? | |
|
| 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: tell me something i don't know said by kdandaoc :" a combination of un-net savvy, financially compromised politicians and an apathetic FCC will keep wired networks relatively slow for now. Hasn't this been the case for some time now? Seems to me the thing keeping wired networks so slow is that it's damn expensive to crank the speeds up. Politicians deserve a lot of blame for a lot of ills but it's not their fault that laying and maintaining vast networks is a big undertaking.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| short
join:2006-07-21
| said by kdandaoc :" a combination of un-net savvy, financially compromised politicians and an apathetic FCC will keep wired networks relatively slow for now yup....politicians are corrupt....every one of them gets money from cable companies....same goes for fcc....isnt it illegal and immoral for public officials and to accept corporate money...last time i checked the punishment is fines and/or improsinment | |
|
|
| |
| | 
Jon Geb
Wal-Mart Sucks
join:2001-01-09
Novi, MI | Re: Speed vs. Ping EVDO pings hang around 120-160ms and when rev A is rolled out next month it will be in 50ms range.
I have EVDO now. | |
|
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | Well, technically satellite is wireless...
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
| wirelesstech
join:2004-08-08
Waterford, VA
clubs:
| I'm looking at my running copy of PingPlotter right now which shows me an average of approximately (I'm eyeballing this) 25ms across my WISP's network to the edge router at Equinix.
If you're seeing 400MS then your WISP has you far down the POLLING queue in his access point. Or something similar, but that's too high a number.
Shoutout: Good article, Alex. Unfortunately I think you're spot-on. | |
|
| MZR
join:2006-08-12
TX
1 edit | 400ms ping? are talking about clearw re? then yes...
but most WISPs have realy low pings. | |
|
| pbaldwin
join:2002-12-17
Dupo, IL | I'm on a WISP and get 45 ms pings to DSLR all day long. Play games on-line all the time and use Vonage with no problems. It appears you don't quite know what you say.  | |
|
| 
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04 | I've never seen a ping that high unless there was heavy network traffic. | |
|
| |
Brianv5
Low Level Functionary
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Keyser, WV | His own site doesn't work Next Gen? How about basic HTML for God's sake. Doesn't make you look all that great when your own site doesn't work.
--
Its not a bug.. Its a "feature" | |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
1 edit | Pretty Good Chance in Next 10 Years All I have to say is who ever thought ten years ago that one day we'd see 1 TB hard drives? Now we will probably be seeing them by the end of this year since Seagate released their 750 GB perpendicular recording drive.
Maybe after the 802.11n spec is finally approved and they start working on the "next generation" of wireless (which will probably take an additional 5 - 10 years at the rate they move) I feel there's a pretty good chance we will see 100 Mbps+ wirelessly. | |
|
beat_the_taxes
@verizon.net | do an end run dance I'd sure wish wireless providers did an end-run around traditional ceullar voice service with voip over wireless broadband.. it would sure do an "end-run" around traditional piggy bank tactics every little taxing authority has on your wallet! | |
|
Air WAV
join:2000-09-16
Saint Louis, MO
| Ken is not so far off... Our wireless in St. Louis can get up to 9 mbps with latency as low as 12 ms. I am curious to see how he incorporates mesh technology to increase speed. To me this means that there is substantial redundancy on the network.
I know of several RF radios that will do 100 mbps ptp, so why not multi-point?
--
StLBroadband.com | |
|
SpookyET
join:2001-04-30
Lawrenceville, GA | BellSouth Dialup 2.0 So, BellSouth are selling Dialup 2.0 over fiber optics with their shitty 1.5 IFITL. | |
|
|
|
|
1.5 Mbps is 'Dialup 2.0'
·
·
