Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WiFi 802.22 Can Cover 12,000 Square Miles

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the thats-a-lotta-sq dept.

Wireless Networking 216

tekgoblin writes "IEEE has just announced a new Wireless standard, 802.22, that can cover up to 12,000 square miles. The standard is actually for Wireless Regional Area Networks (or WRAN), which use the white spaces left in the TV frequency spectrum."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949316)

Cool! Frist psot!

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949338)

And I made that post using an experimental WRAN network that I just constructed.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949354)

Cool! Frist psot!

I would have had first post but i was 61.9 miles away from the tower and lost connection to slashdot :(

Finally (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949322)

Someone's finally planning to plan to do something with the spectrum? We didn't downgrade ourselves to digital TV for nothing?

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949486)

Umm, this and all the 'Verizon 4G LTE' stuff they are starting to advertise. And AT&T's competing offering which I don't think is out yet.

Mostly this is practical for rural areas only. But for areas that have no cable/dsl options this is a large improvement over dial-up or satellite.

Re:Finally (5, Funny)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949564)

It's pretty useless really. How many people can afford to buy a house that covers 12,000 sqr miles? What's the point in that? When will technology companies learn that enough is enough! It's just like the time Apple went and released the iPad. My iPhone squeezed in my trouser pockets just fine, but I had to get all my trousers upgraded to the 'apple approved trouser pocket size' when I got my iPad, and to add insult to injury, they only went and bloody removed the 'phone' part. This is just yet another unreasonable attempt at extracting more money from consumers, and I for one am disgusted! Right. I'd better go start saving for a larger house....

Re:Finally (1)

xclr8r (658786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949638)

Think Agriculture or more specifically ranching. Rancher's spend a lot of their time monitoring their animals... if it can be done remotely that saves a lot of time, gas and keeps you playing WoW/Eve Online longer if you have real-time remote monitoring.

Re:Finally (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949676)

Wow, imagine when everybody has this in their Netgear router. "You have 120,000 unprotected Wi-Fi access points near you. Select a source to connect"

Re:Finally (3, Informative)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950112)

Actually what they're talking about is ONE base station covering a radius of 62 miles (pi r squared = 12,000 sq miles). The 22 MB/S is based on use of one 6 Mhz tv channel and that's a TOTAL for all user traffic and overhead on the channel. Some channel hopping is possible but it is doubtful that people would want antenna covering the whole tv spectrum (great big UHF/VHF antenna). Antennas made for a portion of the spectrum could provide better gain and in some cases much smaller size. Clients would have an outdoor directional antenna and GPS. Range would usually be best at the lowest frequencies (channel 2 is 54-60 MHz) But the antenna for that would be pretty large. The upper UHF frequencies can do pretty well if line of sight. Coverage at a distance would be spotty otherwise.

Let's hope the signals occasionally getting reflected off of airplanes doesn't cause too much grief for tv reception.

PDF overview of standard
http://www.ieee802.org/22/Technology/22-10-0073-03-0000-802-22-overview-and-core-technologies.pdf [ieee802.org]

Re:Finally (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949840)

Not needing to pay $60+ a month to tether a mobile laptop legally would certainly be cool to companies and their short-range travellers / roaming techs. 12000 sqr miles is not that much really. It represents a rectangle 400 x 30 miles.

It's way too big for any farm I know of, but should suit your M.A.N. just fine, and probably save a ton of cash on line-of-sight lasers for college-campus building conglomerate connectivity, or even ground-tearing for fiber runs. For a cab company that wishes to switch from spectrum-monitored waves to wifi-like connectivity so that they can easily encrypt their signals, connect real laptops to get cheap connectivity on their employee's on-car smartphones (supposing there's some kind of adapter from 802.22 to USB and that they have mapping apps or something) of having to purchase full-price GPS (mostly 100+ bucks for cheap ones)

Depending on the prices for this tech, companies would save a TON of money if they could drop all their Verizon 4G tethering and instead use one-time-only charge hardware to connect to this private network. Cable guys, for example, work in wide areas and would benefit from that.

Re:Finally (1)

saider (177166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950116)

400x30 is a really poor visualization for a WiFi like antenna. A circle about 85 miles across, is a much more intuitive way to understand 12000 square miles.

And of course (1, Insightful)

airconswitch (2038108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949340)

It will never see widespread adoption because the unwashed masses will think it causes cancer.

Re:And of course (1)

ad1217 (2418196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949390)

so true...

Re:And of course (2)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949474)

Only in California though.

Re:And of course (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949500)

Just like radio!

Oh, wait.

Re:And of course (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949946)

Which brings up a point... Television and Radio are broadcast. They don't require a return signal for two way communication.

What kind of output will your home antenna need to reach back to a tower that's 50 miles away?

Re:And of course (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950010)

I would not mind having to set up a mobile antenna 2 - 3 meters high to have a cheap fast connection

Re:And of course (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949852)

No. It will see wide spread adoption because the power of the transmitter would be cost exorbitant to most small concerns. Thus it will be sold by large businesses as another wireless internet option.

Re:And of course (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950052)

power of the transmitter

This thing reaches 100 km on less than 100 watts.

And it's in a frequency band that's been in use for decades on transmitters up to 100 kilowatts.

Standing one of these up will cost a few hundred bucks, max. Which isn't to say that people selling them won't ask for kilobucks, but that's Laissez-Faire for you.

Re:And of course (1)

Grelfod (1222108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949856)

Not cancer but possibly sterility o.O

Re:And of course (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950074)

Did Broadcast Television make you sterile? Because it transmitted at power levels 100X as great as this needs, on dozens of channels at a time in the same frequency band as this.

Re:And of course (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949908)

It doesn't need widespread adoption.

Just an access point in my house and a dongle on my notebook.

And if those are open-source HW, all the better.

For scale (1)

rafe.kettler (1946264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949352)

12000 square miles is about the area of Maryland.

Re:For scale (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949412)

It's easier to think of this in terms of linear distance between transmitter and receiver. If you do the math, this gives you a radius of about 62 miles.

Re:For scale (3, Informative)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949470)

That's suspiciously close to exactly 100km - could that 12,000 square mile figure have been derived from a metric back-of-the-envelope figure of "about 100km"?

Re:For scale (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949756)

Does radio care which standard of measurement is used?

Re:For scale (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949906)

Does radio care which standard of measurement is used?

Depends on if you are transmitting to a Mars probe.

Re:For scale (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949414)

Can we get some help from the EFF so that we don't get sued by the big telcos?

I'll ask for help from my math-betters "how many of these routers does it take to cover 90% of the country with 90% coverage" (aka keep the averages down by skipping the giant national parks out west etc.)

Can we get someone like on a T3 (or whatever) to host a rack of these and tell those phone companies to take their data caps and shove it?

Thoughts?

Re:For scale (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949858)

If you do some other math, that's about two miles wide by 12,500 miles long; enough to reach around the world! :)

Re:For scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36950024)

And by "other math", I obviously mean bad math.

(Slinks away sheepishly).

Re:For scale (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949894)

It depends on what shape this volume is. Imagine if you were on Diskworld, and BSJ designed it to be just 1 inch wide, to go with his fish pond.

So if I pick one up at Best Buy (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949360)

Should I change the password and enable WPA?

Or allow my neighbors in a 12,000 sq mile radius to share my connection?

I like sharing, it seems neighborly.

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949482)

As the post says, this will not be for residential use. That would be just silly. At a 12k mile radius, i imagine it will be used to provide internet for a continent or two.

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949546)

Do you know the difference between linear units and square units? Even with a silly imperial unit system, there is a big difference between linear and square...

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

jbonomi (1839286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949550)

Closer to 60 mile radius.

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949594)

At a 12k mile radius, i imagine it will be used to provide internet for a continent or two.

12000 square miles != 12k mile radius. Total math fail by both you and the GP. 12,000 square miles would be a bit less than 61 miles radius. You guys did learn basic geometry [wikipedia.org] , correct?

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949740)

you win at geometry

i win at humor

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949860)

12,000 square miles would be a bit less than 61 miles radius.

Partial math fail. It's a bit *more* than 61 miles. Square root of (12,000/pi) = 61.80

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949878)

A bit more, actually. Somewhere around 61.82. I got 61.82 but that was with round up to the 100ths decimal after each step and using 3.14 for pi.

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (2)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949532)

Ha ha, what is a 12,000 sq mile radius?

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949822)

A really big circle?

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949842)

A hypersphere with great WiFi?

6,000 miles? (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949880)

nt

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949674)

This new tech is probably very different, but you brought to mind another interesting problem I have with the "backward compatibility" of the N standard. Isn't every N router supposed to slow down accomodating for any stray neighbors that use slower speeds?

That means that every time your nosy neighboors sniff / try wrong passwords for your N router's WPA2 from their slow G connection your router must pay attention until the handshake ends. I have removed the fallback for A, B and G partly because of that too, even though handshakes are negligible.

Extrapolating, though, we know that down the road we'll have mid-range consumer routers copying a cheap subset of this article's 802.22 reach... let's say it covers only 100 square miles. Won't it be a problem to have everyone in that neighborhood clashing / snooping over your "private" network make things slower for you? (tech-savvy guys with cash on their hand for this new tech anyway) For proportion, the dense population of Manhattan is 1 million, and it fits within roughly 34 square miles (17 by 2).

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949812)

From TFA: The technology uses a series of base stations within that radius, so it isn't actually one central router like everyone seems to think. In fact, I'm struggling to figure out what makes it so different, other than the frequencies used.

Re:So if I pick one up at Best Buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949718)

Check out http://www.fon.com
Safe WiFi staring.

Silly Specification (1)

lee1 (219161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949398)

Range in "square miles"? That's as silly as this [lee-phillips.org] .

Re:Silly Specification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949566)

If my Math-Fu is not failing me.

sqrt ( 12000 / 2 * Pi ) = 43.7 mile radius.

If I screwed up the math, please correct me! (but this radius sounds both more sensible and realistic than the obviously hyperbolic 12000 square miles!)

Re:Silly Specification (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949626)

Where did you get the 2 * Pi from? The area of a disk is pi times radius squared. The actual answer is sqrt(12000/pi) which equals about 61.8.

Re:Silly Specification (1)

eggled (1135799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949640)

Try sqrt(12000/pi) = ~ 62 mile radius. (AKA 99 km... )

Re:Silly Specification (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949690)

area of a circle = pi * radius^2
-> radius = sqrt(area / pi)
so the radius is 61.8 miles

Re:Silly Specification (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949956)

If my Math-Fu is not failing me.

sqrt ( 12000 / 2 * Pi ) = 43.7 mile radius.

The math is weak in this one :)

The formula for the area of a circle is pi * r^2 (really, Slashdot, you don't allow the ASCII ii symbol?) Solving for r gives us sqrt(12000/pi) which turns out to be about 61.8 miles [google.com] . As other posters have pointed out this is suspiciously close to 100 km, leading one to believe that it's an estimate and not necessarily accurate. It does mean that you might be able to deliver internet to space by the most common definition :)

Re:Silly Specification (1)

marcle (1575627) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949606)

That works out to a radius of about 60 miles. Doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 12,000 sq mi.

Re:Silly Specification (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949684)

Actually, it's quite impressive when compared to the current spec who's range is best measured in yards. 60 miles is a huge jump over the one to two hundred yards the current spec is limited to on the high end.

Re:Silly Specification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949772)

More like 61.8039 miles(99.463736 km). This is slashdot not cnet.

Re:Silly Specification (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949954)

That works out to a radius of about 60 miles. Doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 12,000 sq mi.

Having read the parents post... your 12,000 sq mile coverage area isn't nearly as impressive as my competing technologies 989,113 cubic mile coverage area*!!!

* As tested in outerspace

Re:Silly Specification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949786)

Admittedly, a WiFi hotspot covering an area makes more sense than a walkie-talkie covering an area, but yes, linear distance is the meaningful quantity here in both cases.

Nationwide broadband (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949400)

By my calculations, you could cover the entire continental US with just under 250 of those base stations. Obviously real life factors would increase that number quite a lot, but that still doesn't seem like that many towers. I'm guessing it's probably not practical to put very many people on a single tower, so such a system would have to be fairly exclusive (probably expensive).

Re:Nationwide broadband (1)

Saishuuheiki (1657565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949572)

While I'm sure not that many people could go onto each tower, this could still be useful for getting broadband to areas where homes are very spread out.

Re:Nationwide broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949602)

Your calculations are a bit off. 12,000 square miles is the area of about a 62 mile radius circle.

(Someone check my math though - a = pi * r^2; so I worked that back to find r = sqr_root( a / pi ). Truncate pi to 3.1415, plug in 12,000 sq miles, and that's how I got approximately 62 miles for the radius)

Re:Nationwide broadband (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949660)

The flip side is that you don't need to cover the entire country, and most of the areas you would need to cover have fairly low population density. This could be a real solution for rural areas that are going to be hard to service with cable or DSL. Urban and suburban areas already have wired access; and while more choices are always nice I can't see this being a match in capability, reliability and price.

China & cell phones (1)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949900)

This has potential to dramatically improve US internet access. In China, they have been able to completely ignore the pain that the US had in wiring the entire country with telephones because they can just stick up one tower and give an entire remote village cell phone service. This allowed China to get the entire country phone service in a matter of decade (not decades). It'd be great if the US could do something similar with broadband internet.

Re:Nationwide broadband (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949920)

"This could be a real solution for rural areas that are going to be hard to service with cable or DSL."

This.

Re:Nationwide broadband (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949966)

Well, first off, I'm assuming that you just took the US land area (in sq miles) and divided by 12,000. Unfortunately, the areas are circles, not squares, so you need overlap in order to cover all land area. (fitting circles edge to edge leaves ~22% of the area uncovered.) I have no idea how many extra stations you would really need, and no time/ immediate desire to calculate it, but it would probably be at least 30-40% more, at a quick guess. Not counting for terrain. (the problem of the most efficient way to cover a square area with circles is left as an exercise to the reader.)

More importantly, though, the throughput on these is ~22Mbps, shared among all users of that station. So, you either have many, many more stations, or just very few users, as you said. So, it'll never replace other systems, but it could be useful for government work (search and rescue, park rangers, and of course the military) or people who live way, way outside civilization and can't get satellite systems.

Re:Nationwide broadband (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950134)

"So, it'll never replace other systems, but it could be useful for government work (search and rescue, park rangers, and of course the military) or people who live way, way outside civilization and can't get satellite systems."

I wonder about potential mesh-networking applications? Somewhat highspeed wireless backbone, anyone?

I know that licensed Ham radio operators can already take WiFi, adjust the frequency it operates on to be inside amateur portion of 2.4 Ghz, connect it to external, directional antennas, and boost the power. So, even with 'conventional' WiFi, hams can get some distance.

Still, I wonder if this new spec would be even more robust for long distance (> 20 miles) wireless links ?

Nationwide BLIMP-band (1)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950164)

Blimps/Aero-Sattelites hovering at around 40,000 ft that gets them above a lot of the atmosphere and a lot of the weather.

At that height the output of solar panels goes up compared to ground based solar, because there is a lot less atmosphere absorbing the energy before it gets to the panel.

The solar power could be used for the repeaters, antennas, eletric propellors for station keeping, etc.

And systems like these could be deployed over a disaster site like Haiti very quickly to network emergency responders and other aid organizations.

Can we just call that 61mile radius? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949424)

The 12,000 square miles number is kind of useless when trying to figure out what kind of coverage you are really talking about. 61miles is pretty close to 12,000 square miles in a circle which unless they have done something weird with changing the laws of nature is what we are talking about.

Simple maths: (4, Informative)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949432)

12000 = pi r^2
3819.7186 ~= r^2
61.8039 ~= r

So, simple maths suggest that we're definitely not going to have reception if we're more than 62 miles away from the tower, and that doesn't take into account the curvature of the earth, the height of the tower, atmospheric distortions, etc.

but it does suggest the standard would allow for decent reception within a 30 mile radius. That ain't too bad.

Quit showing off, willya? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949576)

Not everyone is a super geology expert, ok?

Re:Quit showing off, willya? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36950012)

Knowing about the area and radius of a circle should be 5th grade math (but it gets taught in the US in high school). It has nothing to do with geology. If he was going to show off, he would have calculated the fresnel zone [wikipedia.org] for the proposed frequency range to calculate the required tower heights.

Most likely, this tech will be using existing TV towers.

Re:Quit showing off, willya? (1)

pnaro (78663) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950168)

Stop being such a stone-head. Jeez!

Re:Simple maths: (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949870)

Now you assume that the signal is distributed over a circle, in most cases, the antennas aren't even close to 360 degrees, they are usually closer to 2 degrees.

So, no, it can reach way, way longer than that.
Otoh, those ranges are without disturbances with low load.

So it will probably be lower in reality.

Re:Simple maths: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36950098)

Now you assume that the signal is distributed over a circle, in most cases, the antennas aren't even close to 360 degrees, they are usually closer to 2 degrees.

So, no, it can reach way, way longer than that.
Otoh, those ranges are without disturbances with low load.

So it will probably be lower in reality.

If i remember how to do this... 12000 square miles is the 2 degree section, so...

2/360 = 12000/x

x = 2,160,000

A = pi * r^2
2160000 = 3.14 * r^2
r^2 = 687898.089171975
r = 829.396219651

Soo, that's 830 miles before distortion. cool. (assuming they're telling the truth, and can accurately account for bullshit.)

Be sure to use a password... (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949436)

..or else 100,000 people will bog down your bandwidth.

Seriously, though, the range must be somewhere around 62 miles ( since (Radius^2)*Pi = 12,000 square miles, then Radius = 61.8 miles ).

Re:Be sure to use a password... (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949536)

Yeah. Slashdot article submitters sometimes put the most useless things in their summaries. Range is much more useful to me than area, because what I really want to know is how *far away* one node can be from another.

I suppose if you are someone thinking about building a WiFi access network/ISP (along the lines of a cellular network), then area might give you a good idea of just how many customers you can squeeze into the range of a tower.

Battery life? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949448)

12,000 square miles

12000 square miles is not very impressive from a purely RF perspective. In fact, its not even trying very hard.

A=pi*r**2 thats sqrt(12000/3) thats sqrt(4000) thats a bit more than 60, since 60**2 = 3600.

So estimated in my head they're saying a 60 mile radius. BFD.

Now 60 miles at "digital TV" spectrum freqs and bandwidth with less than a couple kilowatts out to a 500 foot tower, now that would be impressive.

Or a battery life that does not require tethering the device to a 440V 3-phase AC supply rather than being "wireless".

I'm curious how they're working around that "obvious" physical limitation.

Re:Battery life? (1)

kjoyce (123612) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949680)

Hmm,

I'm pretty sure this is for home/office only at this point so no battery use. Also we still have 600mhz stations which should work for the uplink. I mean they are starting to use the 700mhz spectrum for cell phones - so I don't see why the 600s would be an issue. They could use the lower frequencies for downlink only.

Re:Battery life? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949958)

I would imagine that they use case for this is similar to LTE / Mobile WiMAX - you have a fixed high power transmitter with a huge antenna, and then a load of smaller units with much less powerful transmitters. You won't get point-to-point transfer between mobile devices at that range, but something the size of a phone can transmit to the big antenna on the hill. The aim of this stuff is to make it relatively easy to deploy rural broadband - if you get one connection at a decent speed, then you can use this for the last mile (or, more specifically, for the last 12 miles).

Re:Battery life? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950020)

If you read the article, you'll see that customers are expected to install a box in their house. I'd imagine their standard 802.11a/b/g/n router would then plug into that, rather than into a cable modem or something of that sort. 802.22 is not the sort of thing that you'll see in next generation laptops for use anywhere.

Not enough details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949476)

Distance isn't the only problem with wireless. Bandwidth is an issue (couldn't find how much the specification can handle, theoretical - overhead - inefficiencies) since bandwidth is shared among all users within that same distance unless it was point to point communication which isn't practical for the isp transmitter having to serve many random people.

On the other hand, rural areas with low density and large distances would benefit since it seem likely that such a system would be cheaper then installing cables.

The Wireless Mesh age comes. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949508)

This will be GREAT for the wireless mesh people who want to get away from the mess of the internet and communicate without fear of the big bad media companies spying on their every move.
Of course, yes, we all know the bad side of archaic, no-censorship networks (child porn, terrorism, etc.), but you just have to deal with that.
The creators of the products to mesh technologies probably should work together with encryption and sandboxing companies to create an ecnrypted sandbox so that people don't have their lives destroyed because of a thumbnail that someone ELSE uploaded, or at least advise people on products they can use.

No doubt the governments will try suppress such things by making it illegal to run a WRAN without a licence or some shit.

350 miles by 350 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949514)

Roughly? Close enough...

Re:350 miles by 350 miles? (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949646)

No, that's not even roughly correct. It would be a circle with a diameter of about 124 miles.

Re:350 miles by 350 miles? (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950066)

No, that's not even roughly correct. It would be a circle with a diameter of about 124 miles.

Which is also incorrect, it's about 61.8 miles [google.com] .

Re:350 miles by 350 miles? (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950102)

No, that's not even roughly correct. It would be a circle with a diameter of about 124 miles.

Which is also incorrect, it's about 61.8 miles [google.com].

Uh, of course a diameter of 124 miles is correct, I mixed up radius and diameter for a second there :)

Sorry.

White spaces spectrum FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949518)

From this article, and others like it, it seems as if white spaces spectrum will improve communication across the U.S., making weak signals and dropped calls a thing of the past. http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/How-Enterprise-Mobile-Communications-Can-Benefit-from-White/ba-p/131 [hp.com] Here's hoping for widespread adoption.

Obvious problem (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949542)

IEEE has just announced a new Wireless standard, 802.22, that can cover up to 12,000 square miles.

But if just ONE person turns on a microwave...

Lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949552)

Guys, don't get your hopes up for an ISP-bucking peer to peer revolution in network topology. We're still gonna have a top down hierarchy and centralized control.

The IEEE, together with the FCC, is pursuing a centralized approach for available spectrum discovery. Specifically each Base Station (BS) would be armed with a GPS receiver which would allow its position to be reported. This information would be sent back to centralized servers (in the USA these would be managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)), which would respond with the information about available free TV channels and guard bands in the area of the BS.

Re:Lol (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949784)

Guys, don't get your hopes up for an ISP-bucking peer to peer revolution in network topology. We're still gonna have a top down hierarchy and centralized control.

The IEEE, together with the FCC, is pursuing a centralized approach for available spectrum discovery. Specifically each Base Station (BS) would be armed with a GPS receiver which would allow its position to be reported. This information would be sent back to centralized servers (in the USA these would be managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)), which would respond with the information about available free TV channels and guard bands in the area of the BS.

I am sure folks will find ways around this one.

Re:Lol (0)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36950166)

I am sure folks will find ways around this one.

Easy, just put the hole base station inside a Faraday cage :)

Note to self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949618)

Do not place 802.22 netbook on lap...

coffee shop internet... (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949692)

goes bye-bye. No reason to use it (or pay for it) when I can just connect to Joe Bob's unencrypted home network across town while sitting at starbucks without a sign-in.

Bees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949724)

are really fucked now.

Yeah, IEEE!! (3, Informative)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949778)

This news is most welcome! It has the potential to level the ISP playing field again and harkin back to the times when mom and pop ISPs existed. How? Small start-up ISPs can now offer competing broadband to the likes of AT&T and offer the service at an unlimited tier. Thus, AT&T will be forced to remove its service caps. Companies will be able to build their own MAN's without having to pay Verizon/AT&T/CenturyLink leases for the lines. I will be following this with some excitement especially because I would love to run my own small ISP.

Re:Yeah, IEEE!! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949886)

At a mighty 19Mbps for the whole thing you can forget about having any real number of customers. My home Internet connection is better than that, and it is not on a shared media like radiowaves.

This isn't for consumers, afaik... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949814)

My understanding is that this specification is for regional wifi only, and not actually a consumer-level specification.

So no... this does not mean that your home wifi can suddenly be accessible to you from almost anywhere in the same city.

How about bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949862)

From the wikipedia link: "By using just one TV channel (a TV channel has a bandwidth of 6 MHz; in some countries they can be of 7 or 8 MHz) the approximate maximum bit rate is 19 Mbit/s at a 30 km distance."

Think of the numer of potential users in a 100km radius. Even if they used a hundred channels, that's still not enough.

whats the frequeny kenneth? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36949922)

VHF? or UHF? a new way to connect to your local Internet Service Provider wirelessly sure sounds like a good idea and will give DSL & CableTV/Internet broadband some needed competition keeping the price down a little (i hope)

About the same service as a dial-up modem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949960)

22 Mbps per channel ... and each channel covers 12,000 square miles. That's about 1.8 Kbps per square mile.

Assume a population density of 21 people per square mile (Iowa's rural population from 2000, see http://www.demographia.com/db-usa-staterural.htm [demographia.com] ), works out to about 87 bps per person.

  Figure that there are 5 people per household, so about 430 bps per household per channel. If there are roughly 80 available whitespace channels, then this works out to about 35 Kbps for each family.

Which is to say, it's roughly competitive with old fashioned dial-up service over a modem - V,34.

Clearly, this is not a panacea for rural Internet. It's a point-to-point system, similar to the wifi in your home.

A home wireless router might have a long range if there are no neighbors. But if there are twenty nearby wireless routers, channels 1, 5, and 9 get clogged up ... and then your wireless router can't reach beyond fifty feet.

Only if the earth is flat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36949998)

a 62 mile radius is about as far as you can go from an earth bound antenna, provided that there are no hills in the way. This will work well in flat places like Kansas, and eastern North dakota / west central minnesota. but not so effective if there are real hills and mountains in the way.

Of course the Tea Party may force congress to pass a law making the earth flat, which could fix the problem of hills and stuff.
They could also change the radius by making PI = 3 as it says in the Bible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?