[UFO Chicago] Question: wireless internet access in Chicago?

[sjk]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Neil R. Ormos wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, sjk wrote:
>
> > JMHO, AWB is an example of what's wrong with a
> > number of wisps - they flood areas with canopy
> > signaling - creating more pollution, they have
> > extremely high latency, and their network is not
> > well managed.  With the deployment of WiMax
> > quality wireless offerings may appear next year
> > in urban areas, but till then I'd suggest you
> > avoid any mass market wisp.
>
> I don't know anything about AWB, but what are you
> suggesting a wireless ISP is supposed to do other
> than flood their service area?  And how will WiMax
> be any less pollutive than Canopy or other
> existing wireless solutions?
>
> --Neil

WiMax is more of a cell based technology allowing for multiple IDs and
channel power. The spectrum used by almost all point to multi-point
wireless systems (2.4GHz) is extremely polluted -- by flooding large
areas, instead of targeting specific service areas, you create
interferance problems. In wifi -- for example -- you only have 3 usable,
non-overlapping, channels available. As channels congestion increases the
overall quality of service decreases. Within large urban areas the
congestion is so bad that the networks can become unusable.

The Canopy system, employeed by AWB, works as a quasi-mesh architecture;
however, as nodes are added the overall amount of RF signaling causes so
much contention that network performance suffers. Instead of flooding an
entire area with RF, it sould be better to target service locations with
directional sector antennas.

--sjk


-------- Aude Sepere -------
sjk at dredel.com
http://blog.dredel.com
---- Audax et Cautus -------