Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Sprint Rolls out WiMAX Access

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the to-go-with-their-new-card-toy dept.

156

Tokin84 writes "Today, Sprint announced that it would pour over $4.5Bn into a 2.5Ghz WiMAX system to be rolled out across the country. From the article: 'Sprint Nextel, the nation's largest holder of radio spectrum in the precious 2.5 GHz band, has reportedly chosen to deploy Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX) as the foundation of its technology platform for the carrier's mobile broadband Next-Generation Network (NGN) build-out.'"

cancel ×

156 comments

This comment is currently under construction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15867818)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along

Re:This comment is currently under construction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868162)

Sprint should focus on better customer support (what they have now is piss poor) and better phones. I am stuck in a 2 year contract with a 3.5 year old phone. If I choose to upgrade the phone for a $50-$75 credit, I get reamed with another 2 year contract. In a few months when the contract is up, Sprint gets flushed, will they give a rats ass, not likely. Just another number they can bash...

Here's an idea... (3, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867819)

How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

Re:Here's an idea... (5, Interesting)

Synic (14430) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867874)

If you could use wireless reliably on a desktop machine over a equivalent or higher speed than your current wired connection, why would you say no to it?

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867899)

Some of us are just paranoid.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868094)

Some of us are just paranoid.
So what? It's harder to sniff than cable, ethernet, or dsl.

And besides, most wireless point-multipoint systems do encrypt all traffic or sell the option.

For instance:
http://motorola.canopywireless.com/solutions/isp/ [canopywireless.com]
http://www.alvarion.com/bwawimaxnewbreezenetb100/ [alvarion.com]

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868096)

he see's no need. i have been praying for this for years. once again my god (not yours) is proven to be listening ;)

what took them so long? if they'd started this (nextel or whoever) a few years ago the costs would have been much less (energy/inflation) and they'd be dominating the market... now maybe i'll consider sprint.

Re:Here's an idea... (5, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868104)

Because that would mean that there is something wrong with the wire and it needs fixing.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

gb506 (738638) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868119)

I won't have an opportunity to say no. There isn't even cellular phone service in my town, so I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for Sprint WiMAX!

Here's a reason (2, Informative)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869157)

The current wireless providers cancel accounts when people actually use them; the boards [broadbandreports.com] are littered with EVDO users complaining that, for example, Verizon axed them when their throughput hit 10 gigs a month. Heck, even Consumer Affairs [consumeraffairs.com] got shafted.

Will there be similar limitations on WiMax? Without a reasonable TOS, I'd turn it down.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869314)

I have Sprint(Nextel) Wireless and I can't get a reliable Cell signal - 0 bars in a densely populated section of town as if right now.
And the best DSL I can get is 512Mb down. (Sprint Business)

This is Vegas for Chrissakes. Not BFE Idaho!

Sprint can take a flying @&*#.

Fix the services you have NOW. don't add more.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869427)

That's very weird considering my Sprint phone worked all over Vegas just last weekend. Also the cellular modems work great with much faster connectivity than all the other providers seem to be offering. I'd be curious about the quality and/or condition of your phone as that plays a very large role. My Samsung A900 for instance get's far better reception than my old phone. Of course that phone was 4 years old so I guess it served its purpose. It was an LG phone which I've so far been horribly unimpressed with in regards to reception.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869364)

That depends is Sprint going to control the network? If so, they I will pass up a wireless network at 200Gb/s with dancing girls and a trip into space. I've been burned by Sprint in professional and personal networking over and over again. This time never again means never again.

Re:Here's an idea... (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867878)

How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

You obviously don't get out much.

I predict the logical successor to the 4x4 SUV will be a vehicle with a desk in place of the dashboard, because I swear more business is being done on the road than in boardrooms.

excuse me officer, do you have an appointment?

Re:Here's an idea... (4, Funny)

THESuperShawn (764971) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868625)

So YOU are the guy I almost sideswiped while typing on my Blackberry and talking on my Treo while doing 90 mph down 77 the other day. Sorry about that, the user was pissing me off....

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867894)

Because its very expensive to do that. WiMax promises higher bandwidth and reliability without the costly infrastructure required for FTTH.

Re:Here's an idea... (3, Insightful)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867962)

How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead.

I already have it [verizon.com] . 15 megabit/sec down, 2 megabit/sec up. Finally, I have true high-definition TV and static-free phones, as well.

Of course, it depends on where you live. I was fortunate to be in one of the early deployment areas. However, the speed of the service depends on the competition. Where I live, 15/2 is the highest speed for a reasonable price. Elsewhere, people are getting 20/5 (or even higher) for a similar price.

Once it's installed and configured correctly, it has been reliable. But, there have been administrative problems every step along the way.

FTTH is Unnecessary (4, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868510)

Fibre to the home is cool, but totally unneeded for 99% of people. Chances are you already had a coax line into yoru house. Do you have any idea the theoretical bandwidth you can shove down a coax cable? It's in the Gbps. There are already existing ISPs that sell 30Mbps over coax.

The problem is all the spectrum is being hogged up with the analog cable channels. The cable companies are itching to get rid of these - once the price point is low enough on set top boxes so they can give them for free to anyone who needs them, you're going to see available bandwidth over coax explode.

The coax pipe is very thick. It is not as thick as a fibre pipe, but it is more than enough to be able to drive all the HD streams and internet porn you could ever want.

30 Mbps? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868567)

There are already existing ISPs that sell 30Mbps over coax.

Where, what's rent like, and do I have to learn a new language or wear funny hats?
Oh, and can you acutally USE it for more than a couple of days without going over your limit for the month?

Re:FTTH is Unnecessary (1)

smclean (521851) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868640)

Well, coax cable may be capable of carrying large amounts of data, but the signal on the line isn't just yours, it's your entire area's signal. You might be sharing that signal with tens of thousands of other households. Even if fiber is normally arranged in the same way (is it?), the throughput potential is still so much greater... But yeah, they should nuke those damn analog channels and give me some real bandwidth :)

Re:FTTH is Unnecessary (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868672)

where i live you have a switching node that sends a powered cable out to a box. then max 4 houses plug into this..

the switching node is fiber so.. no you don't share it with thousands of other households.. mabey a few but not many

Re:FTTH is Unnecessary (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868840)

yes, fiber is also shared with a bunch of households. Here are some things you probably didn't know about both fiber and coax; first, the fact that fiber is a loop, and well-shared. Second, that the cable network starts out as either fiber or HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) and only becomes coax on its way to your door. you do not have an unbroken line of coax leading to the cable co unless you're next door, and even that is doubtful.

Re:FTTH is Unnecessary (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868693)

Of course, Verizon could give a shit about the coax running into most homes, they don't own it. For them, the point of FTTH is having a big fat pipe to sell.

Re:Here's an idea... (5, Informative)

filmotheklown (740735) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867989)

Cheaper to cover an area with radio signal than to trench cable any day of the week.

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Interesting)

parlyboy (603457) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869319)

Absolutely. To put some real numbers to on this, according to Sprint, the total capital expenditure for WiMax infrastructure is about 10 percent the cost of a comparable fiber or cable build-out.

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Interesting)

oldave (160729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868129)

Sprint/Nextel isn't an ILEC (mostly, and not at all if the spinoff of the local phone business is complete - I didn't check), nor even a CLEC.

In other words, Sprint doesn't have cable facilities already in place passing by subdivisions with thousands of potential subscribers. Verizon, AT&T and (for this week) Bellsouth do. Those are the guys you should be asking for fiber.

I expect wireless connectivity to take off in a big way over the next 2 or 3 years, and Sprint's taking this step to try to be at the forefront. Remember, business users were the reason they wanted Nextel.

Re:Here's an idea... (2, Interesting)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869327)

They spun off the local phone stuff as Embarq http://embarq.com/ [embarq.com] .

Here in Overland Park you can't work in IT without having a few ex Sprint people around as well as coworkers with spouses who work there. We hear a lot of stuff.

Word is that Nextel people are taking over Sprint management from the inside. They may be able to pull this WiMax thing off if they can get the internal politics and bureaucracy under control.

Re:Here's an idea... (3, Interesting)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868268)

Fiber to the home may sound like a wonderful thing, and I must confess that I used to think that way. I had that sentiment until I practically found myself in a Douglas Adam's book arguing with Verizon contractors who were intent on trenching my property for fiber optic lines. They were offering this wonderful new service to our neighborhood. I actually sat in front of my house to make sure that they did not dig up any more than the 10 feet from the street that they are allowed by city code. They then offered me a pittence of a discount to adopt the new technology without even bothering to patch the holes in my lawn. After writing a (mostly friendly) letter to corporate HQ, Verizon finally seeded part of the damaged area. Never will I use the their FTTH Internet connection. Don't so sure that Fiber is the solution.


If Sprint WiMax can save another city the troubles that faced my city, I am in favor of it. I would also like to have full coverage no matter where I go within my area.

Re:Here's an idea... (4, Funny)

mattkime (8466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869304)

You value your lawn more than fibre to you home? ....who told you about this website?

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869454)

It can be worse then that. When SBC, Everest and Time Warner were trenching here in Overland Park they kept hitting gas and water mains. The city finally had to halt all trenching until a survey of mains was done.

We also had the problem that there was no coordination in laying the fiber. SBC might dig up a street one week and lay some fiber and then Everest would come in the next month and dig it up again. It made a mess of the streets and traffic. You could hardly go anywhere without it being one lane and then you'd have to drive over those big metal plates all over the place.

Re:Here's an idea... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868777)

How about fibre-to-the-curb or even better, to my demark point instead. Wireless is nice, but I spend 90% of my on-line time connected to a wire.

1) Demarc. As in demarcation.

2) It costs a fuck of a lot more to maintain a bunch of fiber than it does to maintain an antenna.

Wires are the Old Way(tm). The future is a huge sloppy mesh-networked topology that will allow the network to extend itself to anyplace there's sufficient numbers of people. Actually, if you got really froggy, you could use some highly accurate clocks (like those in GPSes) to synchronize data transmission, and you could actually turn a group of transmitters into a phased array... And the range would increase with the number of transmitters, too. This probably requires a lot more processing power than we have available in mobile devices at the moment, but it's coming.

Get over this fascination with wires. Whether you're wired or no, you're no more secure than your encryption.

Investitudinally speaking... (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867856)

"4G" "NGN" "WiMAX" "UMTS-based technology dubbed TD-CDMA" "Flash-OFDM" Nice load of acronyms, that's $4.5Bn invested.

I for one welcome our new Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX) technology platform foundation mobile broadband Next-Generation Network (NGN) build-out 4G overlords.

Re:Investitudinally speaking... (1)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868044)

MMDS [wikipedia.org]

Missed one!

Re:Investitudinally speaking... (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868359)

For those not acronym-challenged (TnAC):

IFOWON WiMAX TPF mobile broadband NGN build-out 4G overlords.

Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich. (3, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867867)

Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient.

A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.

I BETYA SPRINT WILL MAKE WIMAX REALLY AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE !!!!
http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&p a=showpage&pid=37 [acmqueue.org]
http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.ht ml [greaterdemocracy.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_spectrum [wikipedia.org]

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (4, Insightful)

ThisNukes4u (752508) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867976)

Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient. A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
I'm all for the public, free use of the radio spectrum, but what makes you think that the government would do a better job? They're the ones who split up the spectrum in the first place.

The govt will certainly do a better job... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868966)

I'm all for the public, free use of the radio spectrum, but what makes you think that the government would do a better job?
 
...of conducting massive surveillance, logging and recording everything that passes thru a wireless network infrastructure if they build and run all the towers and backhauls.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867986)

A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.


You mean you don't see this as a salvo in the public/private WiFi battle?


"Senator Claghorn here, and I most strenuously, I say strenuosly protest the people's tax dollars bein' spent competing with this fine company. I say we shut down the government funded public service and give the money back to the other porkbarrel projects it was so wrongly taken from. Now excuse me, I have a golf outting this afternoon with some fine corporate gentlemen."

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

theJamAbides (947551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867992)

I wouldn't want our government owning that stuff.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868124)

Riiiiight. The phone companies are our good buddies. They are so consumer friendly and would never lie & cheat us.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868251)

"Riiiiight. The phone companies are our good buddies. They are so consumer friendly and would never lie & cheat us."

Riiiight. Government entities are our good buddies. They are so citizen friendly and would never lie & cheat us.

Companies are nothing but a group of people (yes, real human beings like me and maybe you) that are all working towards comon goals that will hopefully produce a profit. These humans include stock holders, board members, directors/managers, and employees/volunteers. There is nothing *evil* about a company, so don't try and personify it.... this also goes for gov't entities. I've worked for numerous organizations in both the private (F500s to mom & pops) and public (local, state & fed) sectors and it is my strong opinion that there are many-MANY more bad practices/deals/etc in public sector organizations than private ones.

Now, do I agree with Sprint owning this spectrum? No... but I wouldn't agree to a gov't entity owning it either. Do you want your provider to have the efficiency of the USPO? I sure the hell don't.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868787)

Sigh uspo is the worst example in this situation, due to history etc. In the corporate case all people are working toward a common goal, making more money, as much money as possible for the owner(s) i.e dodge v ford. Now in a gov the goal is to serve the people. Granted if the people dont keep the govt in check it goes to a chaotic system, which is usually much worse than a corporation.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

theJamAbides (947551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868970)

I'm just saying that I would trust private enterprise over any government. And that goes for whomever is in office at the time. Smaller gov't is better gov't in my opinion.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868054)

Yes, plus it would make it easier for the government to filter content and eavesdrop on its citizens. Sounds wonderful.

State-sponsored monopolies have been used successfully in the past. I would prefer my communications not to be owned by the government.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1, Troll)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868174)

Would there have been an internet without gov help ?

Do you believe the phone companies loved cannibalizing their own product ?

I love getting nickel and dimed by the jackal phone co's for web access.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868388)

The answer is "who knows" but government help isn't the same as government ownership.

I think government involvement is essential to the buildout of infrastructure. Otherwise a large portion of the population won't be served. I don't believe government ownership of the infrastructure is in our best interests, and that's something that's consistently believed in the US but not always in other countries. The US accomplished these things through granted monopolies, regulation, subsidies and mandates.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868430)

"Would there have been an internet without gov help ?"
I would bet that an infinite number of universities with an infinite number of researchers doing an infinite number of networking experiments (with an infinite number of generous alumni) could create something similar to the modern Internet.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868125)

Other ideological considerations aside, replacing a corporate monopoly with a government monopoly does not efficiency create. Government failures can easily be far worse than market failures.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

$1uck (710826) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868220)

I agree completely. I also think things like cable/power lines/water pipes/roadways, basically any network system that requires use of eminent domain should belong to the people (ie the government).
The end points and suppliers should all be non-government (with the possible exception of water as thats is a natural resource). To bad there isn't a common-sense party that is largely libertarian but uses common sense and acknowledges where the government is useful (or should be useful).
   

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868448)

A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
ROFL.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868484)

I understand your concerns, but sorry, I don't see "the public" investing a $4.5B network and have a shot at making it effective, not in the US. Maybe the Fed or many of the states might spend $45B combined and still make it a worthless piece of trash. At least with WiMax, there can be competitors using other spectrum.

WiFi is not good for connectivity, it is way too short-range, especially if one county needs 60,000 radios (like in the county Ann Arbor, MI is in) to make such a sufficient mesh to cover all the land area. That doesn't make for a good nationwide network, especially if you multiply that by 3,141 counties.

Maybe WiMax won't really work, but I don't think WiFi is effective either. With WiMax, they can use a good amount of power, combine it with a bunch of sector antennas to divide the user base (like standard cell towers) so fewer towers can handle the same or more users.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the "Open Spectrum" ideology. Maybe if they demonstrate or diagram the physics in actual implementation detail without handwaving arguments, I can consider it.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868968)

I understand your concerns, but sorry, I don't see "the public" investing a $4.5B network and have a shot at making it effective, not in the US.
The Interstate Freeway system is effective. In fact I'm pretty darn grateful for it, and glad that it's not privately owned. And I have my choice among thousands of private companies to carry me or my stuff down the road.

Re:Spectrum belongs to the public and not the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15869227)

But the spectrum isn't a like a truck that can drive down the freeway, it's really more like a buch of tubes....

Why would we want this? (1)

TheDrewbert (914334) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867887)

There are already two great free wireless internet providers out there. All you have to do is set your SSID to Linksys or Dlink

positive space (3, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867969)

"This is very positive for the space as a whole," said Daniel Meron, analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

I have never felt more confident after that statement.

So many standards (4, Interesting)

dsmey (193342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867996)

Great. So now we'll have Sprint/Nextel using WiMax on 2.5ghz, Verizon using CDMA on 850/1900mhz, Cingular using UMTS/HSPDA on 850/1900/2100mhz, and TMobile using GSM 1900mhz. Why can't we be like Europeans and just settle on one wireless technology?

Re:So many standards (2, Informative)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868024)

WiMAX, even the proposed mobile standard, has nothing to do with cell phones. This is a WISP [wikipedia.org] thing. WiMAX will also be used extensively in Australia and Europe, although more likely over 3.5ghz than 2.5ghz.

Re:So many standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868351)

Um, GSM is the standard that Europe uses for cell phones and they use it on two frequencies, 900 and 1800 mhz. PCS already clogged the 900 mhz frequency, so it wasn't available here to either Cingular or T-Mobile, which use the same technology as Europe, just on different frequency. My 2 year old Motorola MPx220 can talk on all of them.

Re:So many standards (1)

dsmey (193342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868478)

Um, that is what I was referring to in the first place.

Re:So many standards (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868880)

Why can't we be like Europeans and just settle on one wireless technology?

Have you seen what the europeans are paying for text messages?

The Environment (5, Funny)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#15867999)

This is very likely going to cause even more problems for the environment. Anyone care to comment on the recent heatwave that has swept the planet within the past month? Record temperatures on every part of the globe. With the worldwide deployment of WiMax, we'll be dumping even more energies into the environment that don't belong there. This isn't just AM or FM radio we're talking here. We're talking microwaves. The VERY SAME energy that's used to cook your food in a microwave oven! All we're doing is turning the planet into one big Amana Radar Range and global temps will skyrocket to new extremes of both hi and lo temps.

We've already done tremendous and very ironic damage with air conditioning. In our interest of keeping our working and living spaces comfortably climate controlled we forgot one thing: thermal energy is like water. If you take heat from one space and pump it out, it has to go somewhere. We've been using ACs in our houses, our cars, and businesses, and god knows where else to pump the heat out. Well, where does all that heat go? Into the outside air. And what happens when you pump water into the outdoors? You make ponds, lakes and oceans. Same thing with heat, only worse. All that heat is now coming back to get us. But, even more irony... because it's getting hotter out there, we're using our ACs more than ever before and pumping MORE heat out! I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s. We've got a huge problem folks and WiMax is only going to make it worse. Stop them before it's too late.

Oh... and the internet is a series of tubes.

Re:The Environment (2, Insightful)

TimeTrav (460837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868039)

> I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s. We've got a huge problem folks and WiMax is only going to make it worse. Stop them before it's too late.

I rate this troll 9/10. Bravo.

Re:The Environment (1)

Twixter (662877) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868122)

Rockin'. I can't wait to cook HotPockets (tm) with my cell phone. Now...where do I get my Philip K. Dick codpiece?

-Todd

Re:The Environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15869272)

I heard communism is causing global warming and saving the whales has led to hunger in Africa.

Re:The Environment (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868232)

We're talking microwaves. The VERY SAME energy that's used to cook your food in a microwave oven! All we're doing is turning the planet into one big Amana Radar Range and global temps will skyrocket to new extremes of both hi and lo temps

Mein Gott... you do realize they've been using Microwaves for years now without fried Bird falling from the sky, right?

Troll.

Re:The Environment (1)

Cocoronixx (551128) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868507)

Absolutely correct. HEY! Theres one flying over your head right now actually. What a coincidence!

Re:The Environment (1)

Zippy_wonderslug (990892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868622)

MMM..fresh roast sparrow and pigeon platter. Where do I sign up? Oh wait, we can't, but I seriously love listening to these claims made by the environazis. There are massive amounts of radiation from every imaginable chunk of the spectrum falling on our planet everyday. Granted the atmosphere soaks up a lot of it, but we still get hit all the time.

Someone needs to teach these people how a microwave really works http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave1.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Hey after reading that article, maybe we can all just tweak our home wireless setups a little bit and do the cooking from the access point.

Re:The Environment (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869013)

Mein Gott... you do realize they've been using Microwaves for years now without fried Bird falling from the sky, right?

you do realize that birds are somewhat frequently cooked by military radar - sometimes on purpose - and thus you are completely wrong, right?

Re:The Environment (2, Informative)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868354)

It's not thermal energy displacement per se that's the cause of the problem, it's the CO2 used to create the energy needed to displace that thermal energy. Make one place hotter to make another cooler and you still have the same amount of thermal energy. Mix in the CO2 discharge, and then there's the start of a problem. Add a fresh daily batch of solar heat, have CO2 prevent thermal radiation into space thanks to the green house effect, and you get rising avergage temps. There's also the problem of higher temps creating more H2O vapor which leads to higher temps but, CO2 is a bit more difficult to get rid of than H2O vapor at the temps range we have on this planet.

Re:The Environment (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868914)

Make one place hotter to make another cooler and you still have the same amount of thermal energy.

The distribution of temperature is also highly important. If you disagree, I suggest you spend your next summer vacation in an active volcano.

think about this little item: the "conveyor" (global current) is powered by ice. When the heat moves toward the poles the ice melts. When the ice melts, the conveyor stops.

Won't that be exciting? So much for anything like stability of weather.

Re:The Environment (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868492)

But, even more irony... because it's getting hotter out there, we're using our ACs more than ever before and pumping MORE heat out! I predict that by 2015, the typical summer temps on the equator will be 180F. They're already averaging about 140F and that's up from the relatively cool 95F they used to be back in the 70s.
On the plus side, it will be a relatively cool and dry 8 degrees Kelvin inside my house.

Become a Wikipedia Sysop and Vandalize -- FRIDAY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868157)

This Friday a number of vandals on Wikipedia, associated with Wikitruth, will begin a massive vandal empowerment campaign on Wikipedia. We have a user who has recently become a beaurocrat and will be giving admin privledges to vandals to allow them to delete and ban users in the largest campaign of Wikipedia vandalism ever seen before.

In order to participate you need to do the following:
1. Register an account on Wikipedia.
2. Repeatedly vandalize one of the 50 states pages (i.e. Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, etc).

Our bots will be harvesting names from these page histories and on Friday, August 11th, our beaurocrat will then give sysop to all those on the list.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION! SPREAD THE WORD!

WiMAX Pirate Stations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868189)

Sure, the spectrum is licensed, but is that really going to prevent people from hacking devices to use the spectrum in ways not sanctioned by Nextel? Besides, the range of WiMAX is such that one will be able to wardrive without leaving home (in some areas). And once the price of WiMAX modems comes down, thanks to Nextel/Clearwire/etc., who will still want to use WiFi? All that unlicensed WiFi spectrum will become WiMAX spectrum--and will be used a whole lot more efficiently.

Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations (2, Interesting)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868311)

Four things:
One: WiMAX is an open protocol that'll work over a variety of spectra. It's possible to do it over unlisenced bands, UHF (700mhz), MMDS (2.5ghz), and just about anything else you can't shake a stick at. (I assume you can't, anyway. Can diviners locate radio towers?) But one way or another, it's already on the market, and it already works its way around a WiFi wap well enough.
Two: WiFi (54 meg per sec with 802.11g, considerably more with 802.11n) will continue to be faster, easier/cheaper to implement, and far more common for small networks. That and they've got momentum behind 'em. Dig the lifespan of the ethernet port and the amount of money already spent by every coffee shop, hotel, and law firm in the country on WAPs.
Three: There very likely won't be any hacking necessary to change a modem that they sell you to use unlicensed spectrum. Assuming it's possible at all. They'll do it one of two ways: A - They'll put the modem inside the house, run RF cable up to an antenna that down converts the 2.5ghz signal into something used by conventional cable systems and use a regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodem. B - They'll embed everything in the antenna and you'll be screwed/unable to change the broadcast frequency. My money's on B.
Four: The WiMAX modems may become considerably cheaper, but that doesn't matter much. No harder to lock a rogue connection to a WISP's network than it is to knock 'em off a cable providers.

Re:WiMAX Pirate Stations (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868726)

They'll do it one of two ways: A - They'll put the modem inside the house, run RF cable up to an antenna that down converts the 2.5ghz signal into something used by conventional cable systems and use a regular DOCSIS compliant cablemodem. B - They'll embed everything in the antenna and you'll be screwed/unable to change the broadcast frequency. My money's on B.

They'll do both. They'll go with (A) if you're far enough out from their nearest tower and they think your signal will be weak. They'll go with (B) first if they think they can.

No harder to lock a rogue connection to a WISP's network than it is to knock 'em off a cable providers.

It's called "volume control", and, yes, they can do it. They change your SLA on the fly, thus telling your modem to slow down. If your modem fails to respond to the SLA change, they bring out the banhammer, and good luck getting their DHCP system to give you a new IP. And just for the record, those "static IPs" that you buy... they're just reserved DHCP-ed addresses and aren't really static at all.

No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! (4, Insightful)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868207)

Nothing has been 'rolled out' yet! It's been announced that they've decided to roll it out in the future. But is it not currently rolled out, nor is it in the process of rolling out. This is like going back in time a year and saying Vista has been rolled out...

Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868330)

i think you mean "This is like going forward in time a year and saying Vista has been rolled out..."

Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! (5, Insightful)

Zildy (32593) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868369)

Who said headlines had to be truthful? Besides, I can't count the number of times /. headlines made it sound like something has already been done when the summary admits it's "being developed", "in the planning phase", "talked about".

They do it for the clicks, man.

Review the Temporal Guide to Slashdot Headline Reading:

1. Present tense means wait a few years.
2. Future tense means it'll never happen.
3. Past tense means SlashBack.

Re:No, no, no, wrong! Bad headline! (1)

Rotten168 (104565) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868636)

Yep... you missed last week when it was announced that Japan was "building a base on the moon"(actually, the Japanese government was merely stating that a base on the moon was feasible before 2020 or so). Countless Slashdotters were screaming about how behind the US was from Japan (I guess our government hadn't gotten around to announcing that it would be feasible to build a base on the moon before 2020, making our government inferior).

hmm global warming? (2, Funny)

fury88 (905473) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868226)

I don't like the mere SOUND of Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX). Maybe THIS is what's causing global warming. Better keep those microwave meals in the freezer!

Re:hmm global warming? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868505)

don't like the mere SOUND of Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX). Maybe THIS is what's causing global warming. Better keep those microwave meals in the freezer!
Screw that, what about all the people on pacemakers? They are all going to have simultaneous heart attacks when the network goes live!

Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORKING (0)

mbourgon (186257) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868255)

Gee, how nice that they're going to offer WiMax. Meanwhile, my window-facing cube in an office building downtown gets 1 bar, if I'm lucky. Sprint's ability to manage the calls it already has is horrific - how does this help? New frequency, same crappy coverage?

Re:Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15868437)

this goes hand-in-hand with "HOW ABOUT YOU INSTALL IT IN MY AREA" -- as it is, i'm lucky to have two cell carriers to choose from, neither one of which offers any high-speed data option. (the fact that existing offerings are overpriced is, as they say, an entirely separate problem.)

Re:Another neat idea - get your PHONE SERVICE WORK (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868535)

isn't that the point in having a different frequency? different ranges, penetration, etc...

Wireless revolution (0)

ctime (755868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868267)

Great, now I'll be able to check myspace from anywhere at blazing fast 4G speeds!

On a more serious note, a unified Wimax and the ubiquitous and mobile high speed data it will provide will revolutionize society as we know it. I'm just sayin is all..

Stupid headline (5, Informative)

devjj (956776) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868276)

Sprint didn't "roll out" anything. They announced their intent to spend money to do so.

and the monopoly continues... (2, Interesting)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868327)

Huh.. reading this made me realize that wireless isn't going to change anything..

One of the major complaints about the telecom industry is how it is controlled by a natural monopoly -- that is, there are only so many physical fibers that can be distributed around the country. It means you can't have competition: A competing telecom company can't just tear up the streets and install their own lines to compete with big business.

So we've always been told that wireless will change all that.. as soon as WiMAX is available, suddenly we won't be restricted to physical lines! We'll be able to run community networks and municipal public internet access.

But then.. this article reminds me that of course the people who will be installing all the wireless access points are going to be the big telecom companies. They'll still be the ones charging for access. And there is only so much bandwidth to go around... much less, in fact, than what is available on the wires. So as long as companies like Sprint jump in and take it first, no one will be able to compete.

Sad to see that wireless won't be "the answer" to cheap and available telecom.

Excellent, any word on when... (0, Troll)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868565)

the fiber infrastructure buildout that was paid for with 200 Billion-with-a-B taxpayer dollars will be ready? What's that you say, not ready yet and you need more money? Gee, where could you find some? I have no idea... ooh look shiny new wimax towers!

Qualcomm? (1)

braindead_in (933655) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868571)

There goes Flash OFDM. Will it ever see the light of day? Dont think so.

Qualcomm definately missed a trick regarding the standards. The times had changed.

$4.5Bn ??? (0, Offtopic)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868641)

Why in the summary is there a Bn after the dollar amount? Wouldn't $4.5B be sufficient? Is there another abbreviation for a large number that starts with a B and doesn't end in an n?

Re:$4.5Bn ??? (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868841)

So it wouldn't be confused with "bazillion"?

Re:$4.5Bn ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15869048)

No. That would be "Bz". :-)

Re:$4.5Bn ??? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869207)

Because it looks a little nicer, and just 'B' is too vague for the vapid mouthbreathers in the mainstream media.

Besides, 'BN' is already taken [thefreedictionary.com] .

I will believe it and trust it when.. (0)

Zippy_wonderslug (990892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868710)

Sprint can come up with a network that functions like it is supposed to. Where I live, Sprint was the local phone company (until the merger with Nextel). They also built a new cell tower that I should have been getting full signal strength from, except they forgot to activate it. When they were finished with the tower, they basically didn't connect it to the rest of the network. Their diagnostics showed that it was functioning so they didn't believe me when I called them that my cell didn't work. They had to send out a technician to "flip the switch". I don't see a new network being any different/better.

Multiple Choice (1)

DancesWithDupes (982965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15868722)

Is this artcle:

a) News For Nerds
b) Stuff That Matters
c) an infomercial
d) all of the above

Intel may be the saving grace on this one... (1)

Mutiny32 (932593) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869125)

For those of you who say that a glabal standard isn't possible because Sprint controls the spectrum, think again. Like someone else said, the technology can run on a multitude of different frequencies. "So what? Sprint will lock you into using their service by making you use their hardware that runs on theirs ond only their network," you may say. "Nothing will change from how it is today." Well, if you didn't know, Intel will be integrating WiMAX into Centrino. Now it is highly doubtful Intel would be so foolish as to lock themselves into a single market that isn't accessible in all areas. This means that WiMAX will be "unlockable" kind of like how GSM phones are today. Which is also why GSM is the global standard. And WiMAX is already being deployed in many countries around the world, not just the US.

I wouldn't be surprised to see WiMAX/CDMA/GSM triband phones/cards popping up in the not so distant future.

cell phone radar? (1)

Riverman2 (991512) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869282)

I've got the razr + bluetooth headset, all this thing needs is a little phased array radar and it's a tricorder. That would be so cool!

a few weeks using Canopy now (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 7 years ago | (#15869440)

We got wireless wimax a la motorola canopy service and it's quite good-as long as it isn't heavy storming out, then it drops to dismal, so I have kept my landline and dialup connection as a backup. But seeing as how it has taken me since the mid 90s to now to get ANY broadband, I love it! It's a cinch that in areas not currently served by conventional broadband,(roughly still half or more the geographical area of the US) you are going to be waiting between a LONG time until never to have any of the big companies run you good copper or coax or fiber, so, wireless broadband is where it's at. So maybe sometime soon we'll have even more competition and prices will drop and speeds go up! I think a good rule of thumb is look to where satellite Tv is common-those are the areas probably not served by any broadband yet. It's a huge potential market out there, and wireless appears to be the only cost effective market solution. Satellite internet for the extreme boonies, small scale boonies wimax, every place else ya'all already got some choices most likely with wires or fiber or shortrange 802.11 stuff.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...