Re: WiMax -- Pomegranates vs Tomatoes? Services vs Technology! Floor Wax vs Desert Topping?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dana Spiegel <dana () nycwireless net>
Date: August 31, 2008 2:25:57 PM EDT
To: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Cc: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: WiMax -- Pomegranates vs Tomatoes? Services vs  
Technology! Floor Wax vs Desert Topping?

Bob,

I don't disagree with your point, but I think you read a little too  
much into what I was saying.

WiMax as a technology is too expensive. We can't even begin to talk  
about WiMax as a service being offered locally if the equipment is too  
expensive for those of us that build community networks. I can buy a  
Wi-Fi miniPCI card that will operate as an AP or a client (or a mesh  
node) for $50, and along with (mostly) open source drivers, I can  
create any type of Wi-Fi network I want. I _can't_ buy a WiMax card  
for anything close to that, and since WiMax is engineered to look more  
like a cell network than a Wi-Fi network, I can't get a card that will  
be both client or AP. And we won't see WiMax open source drivers until  
the equipment is available enough and inexpensive enough for linux  
networking people to write them.

--
Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
dana () NYCwireless net
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info

-------------------
NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and  
enables the growth of free, public wireless networks
-------------------

On Aug 31, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Bob Frankston wrote:

> This is a perfect example of what I mean by an accounting problem.  
> What does “too expensive” mean?
>
> Is the technology expensive?
>
> Or is the service expensive?
>
> These are very different things – WiMax is a blivit word – you go in  
> talking about a technology and you come out talking about a service.  
> We have the same confusion between Wi-Fi as a service and Wi-Fi as a  
> technology though we’ve managed to liberate the Wi-Fi technology.  
> But it’s much harder to liberate the Wi-Max technology because it is  
> installed by providers for their purpose whereas we install Wi-Fi  
> locally for our purposes.
>
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 13:45
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Re: WiMax -- has it failed
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dana Spiegel <dana () nycwireless net>
> Date: August 31, 2008 1:16:43 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, pinneo () sbcglobal net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] WiMax -- has it failed
>
> Charles,
>
> WiMax and Wi-Fi are two totally different technologies, designed to  
> address two totally different issues. I can speak only for New York  
> City (which isn't just Manhattan, though is often mistaken as such  
> by those who don't live here), where we have loads of Wi-Fi (some  
> supported by NYCwireless) and a bit of WiMax (only provided by  
> commercial providers like Rainbow Broadband and Towerstream).
>
> In NYC, muni-wireless doesn't exist (there's a good report by city  
> consultants that was just presented that details why, you can read  
> about it on our website). Other organizations support the deployment  
> of free public Wi-Fi (this is the business that NYCwireless is in).
>
> As for WiMax, its a great technology but way too expensive for  
> consumer use. We've got a few commercial providers (actually  
> completely independent from the incumbents) that offer WiMax  
> wireless services as T1 replacements for businesses. Its actually  
> MUCH more reliable than T1s because its not susceptible to being cut  
> by road/sidewalk construction or Verizon incompetence (which is  
> widespread). It does require near-line of sight to the few buildings  
> in the city that operate as POPs (Empire State, Met Life, etc.), so  
> other buildings get in the way, and it requires a cooperative  
> building owner who will allow a small dish to be installed on the  
> building's rooftop. Some businesses use this as their primary  
> connection, since it only takes a few days to install and is much  
> cheaper than the alternative for 5-10mbps pipes.
>
> The big competitor to WiMax is metro-ethernet, which is a fiber-fed  
> technology that offers 10mbps and up service to businesses  
> inexpensively in buildings that provide this service (there are a  
> few hundred buildings like this in the city).
>
> If you want to learn more about Wi-Fi (and maybe a little about  
> WiMax, though no organization really uses it), I would suggest  
> googling: "Community Wi-Fi", "Community Wireless", and "Muni  
> Wireless". No one really uses the term "Neighborhood Wireless".
>
> The biggest issues with WiMax are:
> 1) very expensive compared to Wi-Fi
> 2) no equipment available (last I checked) that used unlicensed  
> spectrum
> 3) relatively poor propagation characteristics in urban environments
> 4) not hackable or even available for CWNs to test and play with -  
> try finding a linux driver for a WiMax card. Better still, try  
> finding a WiMax mini PCI card!
>
> --
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> dana () NYCwireless net
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
>
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
>
> -------------------
> NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and  
> enables the growth of free, public wireless networks
> -------------------
>
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 12:43 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Charles Pinneo <pinneo () sbcglobal net>
> Date: August 31, 2008 11:37:02 AM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Frode Hegland  
> <frode () hyperwords net>, Frode Hegland <frode () hegland com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] WiMax whats up?
>
> It doesn't generate profit?
>
> But from reading IP for several years I do know this: municipal  
> WiMax has pretty much failed. Nobody wants to pay for it? Dave  
> Farber should really answer this because he's been posting comments  
> on it for a two or three years. There was actually an IP thread on  
> this called "Neighborhood Wireless" or "Neighborhood WiFi." I can't  
> seem to find it on my computer or on the "Monthly Archives for  
> Interesting People." I know it's there, but it going out of date fast.
>
> Google "Neighborhood Wireless."
>
> A lot of people WERE trying to avoid paying so much money to AT&T  
> and Cable. Most have given up. This is central to Network Neutrality.
>
> Here's an article from Popular Science from 2006. It was a  
> technology about to happen in 2006, but it may be dead or dying now.  
> Maybe it just wasn't profitable. If this article doesn't format  
> properly from Mac to PC, I can resend it to you in a different form.  
> WiMax, neighborhood wireless, WiFi, municipal WiFi, are all  
> Googleable, but I just don't have time right now. I have to drive to  
> an Obama rally in Battle Creek. Try NY Wireless at <http://www.nycwireless.net/ 
> >. In Manhattan they just hitchhike on each others wireless  
> connections. And that works if you're not concerned with privacy. I  
> think this is a hot topic which died due to the profit factor.
>
>
> Archives
>
>
>
> Archives





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com