Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet

Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks 48

DarrellD writes: "This story on Business Wire points out the new Wireless MAN standards approved as IEEE 802.16. More high speed wireless coming our way soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Can't wait to read about the Wireless WOMAN double standards.
  • by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Saturday December 08, 2001 @03:21AM (#2675026) Homepage
    Could this standard be used to bring high-speed connectivity to neighborhoods? Back home we pay yearly dues to the neighborhood organization, it would be easy to rent out a few T1 lines, or a T3...
    • i dont see why not.
      perhaps it can be used for the 'last mile' and drive the price of high speed access down.
      as it is now the costs are extreme.
      i personally like the idea of neighborhood access
      only thing is, that getting everyone to chip in
      on the initial expense isnt the easiest thing
      most people dont see what they are getting until its handed to them.
      i would really like to see a neighborhood network connected this way. run the T into a hut, and have an access point. everyone in the neighborhood online without digging trenches and renting equiptment, getting permits and permission.
      i wouldnt bother with the built-in security. its already been proven worthless.
  • by wirefarm ( 18470 ) <`jim' `at' `'> on Saturday December 08, 2001 @03:31AM (#2675047) Homepage
    How soon before I can set my cellphone to VOIP mode and wander around town making calls all over the world on my 'unlimited' ISP account?

    Until then, my little vaio could get a wireless card and get tossed into my backpack for this purpose.

    Of course, encryption and authorization schemes will have to be wildly more strict than the current systems to keep people from 'war driving' even more than they are now.

    Plus, of course, this moves the access points out of the homes and offices and into the hands of the ISPs and providers. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing - I like the grassroots feel of the efforts going on now. (Sure, the two could exist side-by-side, but a lot of wireless equipment would be made redundant if the services are cheap enough.)

    Jim in Tokyo
  • by PurpleBob ( 63566 ) on Saturday December 08, 2001 @03:35AM (#2675052)
    Wireless Man, Wireless Man.
    Doing the things that wireless can.
    What's he like? It's not important.
    Wireless Man.
    Is he a standard or is he a spec?
    When he's in the last mile does he connect?
    Or does the mile connect him instead?
    Nobody knows. Wireless Man.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Fiber man, fiber man
      Fiber man hates wireless man
      They have a fight, wireless wins
      Fiber man

      DSL man, DSL man
      Size of an ILEC cable plant
      Unusually cruel to CLEC man
      DSL man

      He's got reserves you can't withstand
      Anticompetative with shonky plans
      And when they meet, it's a no win land
      DSL man
  • Lucent/ATT (Score:2, Informative)

    by jpostel ( 114922 )
    Several years ago, when I was working for Lucent, (when they had just spun off from ATT) some of the wireless guys told me that they were working on fixed wireless to replace phone wires. They wanted to setup cell towers in areas and slap pizza boxes (that's what they called them) on the side of the houses. They were looking at digital services so that some wire jockey would not have to come to climb the pole when you want a fax line.

    That idea was my favorite until I saw the Sprint ION plan. I think they are both dead right now. I don't know if Lucent is developing anything for consumers like this.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Aussies have a a wireless MAN access service [].
  • Ok, LAN, WAN, PAN, MAN, (and whatever my unsober mind can't think of) have all been around... Now we are getting W's put in front of them all. Wireless is here now, but, something else will be here then. In the words of Fletch, "It's all ball-bearings these days". I wish more import were given to the fact that all of these have places under the IEEE 802 umbrella for standards.

    I'd still love to have a neighborhood wireless network. I need to move to a different neighborhood.

  • Okkkay.. now I'm wired. Thank god.. Oh wait, I can't afford and/or receive said wireless service. What to do?

    I'm staying away from ANY wireless "standard" in my metropolitan area (NYC) until I can find a cheap and reliable service provider. Right now my SprintPCS phone provides better internet access at a better value than any PDA based wireless networks in the area. A step in the right direction maybe, but more PDAs need wireless included as a standard feature before this becomes great news for the majority of us.

  • HA HA HA!

    Soon my nefariously brilliant plan will be complete! When the entire world is wireless, I will put my scheme into action. . .

    I will march into the financial district 10 minutes before the end of trading on a particularly good day, and activate my powerful cross-spectrum white noise generator and shut down all wireless communication within three square kilometers!

    HA HA HA!

    Of course, if I don't want to get caught before I put my plan into effect, I should start wearing a turban so that the uber-authority New World Order choreographers will quickly forbid their street level FBI officers from arresting me. Now all I need to do is hail from some country the U.S. wants to annex, and I will be unstoppable. . !

    HA HA HA!

    -Fantastic Lad

  • What can I do? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john,lamar&gmail,com> on Saturday December 08, 2001 @09:56AM (#2675257) Homepage Journal
    Should some of my pals all get huge antennae and blocks of ip address, domain names, mail and news servers?

    It sounds like a great idea, even windows is ahead on this with XP's wireless lan features [i do believe any PC is capable of using wireless... so why is it one of their selling points? It's just software!]

    Could this be pulled off by people with DSL/Cable/Sat connections? Hell, could any old 56ghey serve as an extra uplink?

    My point is: Let's turn this out gnutella style. Anyone with Cable/DSL gets an antenna, plugs it in, and leaves it on. He adjusts what percentage of bandwidth he wants to share - and can turn it off whenever he wants. Could serve him because he's got a laptop. He's asleep, he's not using that bandwidth. He's at work, he can't use it there.

    Maybe he's neighbor's got one too. Maybe lots of people do, and soon they are everywhere!

    Too bad no one would pay for the ISP if their neighbor has his on and open.

    I guess we would still need someone to pay for the T1 [or T3, redundant OC-3] and all pitch in. But would it be any cheaper or better?

    I guess I'll just have to buy the book. [] Or wait for this crap to come out [] from Clear Channel.
    • When you bought cable service you bought a the right to use the cable network for personal use. You did not buy bandwidth.

      When some punk sends a death threat to the president through your uplink, what are you going to do?

      No, anonimous networks are not a utopia. Read some non fiction every once and a while.

      • You are 100% right when it comes to sending the prez a threat through my connection.

        However, I can give away as much usage of my cable as I'd like... as long as I give it away and I only use two of their ip addresses.
  • One of the possibilities I'd like to come out of such wireless service is always-on-if-in-range connection, but not just in-city. If I'm in another city with the same service provider, I want to connect seamlessly as if I was in my "home coverage area" (quoted because I hope that's a term / concept which it's time to dump :)).

    As the network patchwork fills in, I want to be able to use the cheapest / most appropriate current connection available as I switch between areas that have different things available. Merlin, sucks but it's wireless. Ricochet is cooler, if it wasn't out of business. Starband is nice, but it's Windows-only and requires expensive install. IP-over-cellular exists but is expensive. Iridium still sort of exists. Dialup works from Motel 6. DSL, cable have their own sets of goods and bads -- but I'm talking things that could be at least potentially mobile.

    Topping off the list of I Wants, I want to be able to cruise around the country (or the planet, but I'd settle for North America) on a Honda Goldwing with reasonable wireless internet access from anywhere I choose to stop.

  • by wolske ( 162772 ) <cwolske@ h o> on Saturday December 08, 2001 @03:49PM (#2676141)
    I was under the impression that wireless MANs already existed - I know there are several vendors that have products that can push over 40 Mbps up to 15 miles. it's business class service, not for the average home or consumer, but it's already out there. companies like airBand in the northeast, MAE Dulles around DC, Teligent (defunct), even AT&T and Sprint had broadband wireless offerings (though they might have been dropped recently). yes, they require an antenna or dish. no you can't use them with your PDA. there is no indication that 802.16 wil bring these connection speeds to your wristwatch either.

    at there doesn't seem to be very much information unless you want to pay for the draft of the spec. does anyone have any real information on 802.16?

    I never thought I'd be picking at details like this, but that wasn't a story on Business Wire, it was a press release. a story would have followed up on the details that were not covered by the release.
    • I got a reply from someone else, and a link to a more detailed presentation: 8.pdf The reply I got:
      Actually the target for 802.16 is 5.7ghz, part of the recent allocations of the UNII bands. Power in that band is 4 watts up from 1 watt in ISM and the other UNII bands. The MAC layer is also being designed specifically with multi-km link lengths in mind. The MAC of 802.11b wasn't designed for long haul links so is prone to collisions on such links. A good intro is at 8.pdf
      ok, this sounds more interesting now...
  • The distance will be effected by how much power the FCC will allow us to use in this frequency range. It will may vary from country to country. The IEEE Standard covers how the thing is going to communicate between vendors products (Lucent [] and Cisco [] have to play nice with each other). The bandwidth allowed will depend on how many channels we are allowed to use, or the product will let us use. One GHZ channels should be able to pump DS3 or higher speeds...Let's keep our fingers crossed. I'll be happy to beta test any gear :)
  • IT seems that most of the stationary wireless vendors have packed it in. While I applaud the new standard, it doesn't appear that anyone is interested in setting up the networks.
  • "More high speed wireless coming our way soon."

    We'll have it "real soon now", just like DSL, right?

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling