802.16 WiMAX....the Holy Grail of nationwide broadband???

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL. I've been
exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
download policies. Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
far.

I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream? It is
supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput! This is
pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
large metropolitan areas that early.

When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

Intel's WiMAX site:
http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/index.htm
14 answers Last reply
More about wimax holy grail nationwide broadband
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    TJM wrote:

    > I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
    > internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL. I've been
    > exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
    > seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
    > download policies. Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
    > affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
    > far.
    >
    > I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
    > called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
    > broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream? It is
    > supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput! This is
    > pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
    > stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
    > large metropolitan areas that early.
    >
    > When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?
    >
    > Intel's WiMAX site:
    > http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/index.htm

    I don't mean to put WiMax down, but don't expect to surf at 70 megs
    soon. Even Wifi has had between 5½ - 7 megs capacity for a long time and
    I don't know of many WISPs that are providing that kind of bandwidth.
    The actual point to multipoint connections in the article you provided
    the link to speaks more of 3 - 5 mile ranges instead of 30. I think
    WiMax may be a major player as time goes by, but right now 802.11b
    equipment is far cheaper and WiMax will have a long way to go to get the
    prices down.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    What you said is probably true, but 70 Mbps at 30 mile range sounds a lot
    sexier!

    Even a 5-mile effective range would provide access to a LOT more people who
    currently cant get wired broadband. Plus, with the 802.16 standard and
    economies of scale, WiMAX seems to promise rapid deployment due to cheap cost
    for the service providers.

    Stay tuned....

    > > Intel's WiMAX site:
    > > http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/index.htm
    >
    > I don't mean to put WiMax down, but don't expect to surf at 70 megs
    > soon. Even Wifi has had between 5½ - 7 megs capacity for a long time and
    > I don't know of many WISPs that are providing that kind of bandwidth.
    > The actual point to multipoint connections in the article you provided
    > the link to speaks more of 3 - 5 mile ranges instead of 30. I think
    > WiMax may be a major player as time goes by, but right now 802.11b
    > equipment is far cheaper and WiMax will have a long way to go to get the
    > prices down.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:21:33 -0400, "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote:

    >I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup
    >internet access, since I am hopelessly out of range for cable & DSL.

    OK, you live in a cave. I don't but I'm familiar with the problem.
    Some clue as to your location would be helpful.

    >I've been
    >exploring the 2-way satellite broadband like StarBand and DIRECWAY, but there
    >seems to be a lot of downsides to it....mainly the high cost and limited
    >download policies.

    OK, so that means ISDN 128Kbit/service is out due to limited bandwidth
    and high price.

    >Fixed wireless 802.11 seems like the only viable and
    >affordable alternative, but no provider in my area has offered this service so
    >far.

    Wireless providers do not just throw up an access point and announce
    "we have bandwidth, who wants it?" They do surveys of towns and act
    upon inquiries which revolve around marketing research. If there's a
    need in the area, and the number of customers served is sufficient,
    you can probably attract the attention of a WISP. I suggest asking in
    the ISP-Wireless mailing list to see if anyone is interested in
    providing service.
    http://isp-wireless.com
    If you live in an RF hole (valley), surrounded by high mountains full
    of RF absorbing trees, I don't think a WISP will work. Prices for
    reasonable bandwidth (1.5Mbits/sec) are also somewhat astronomical for
    wireless.

    What some small towns have done is purchase a T1 with ISP service and
    resell the bandwidth using anything from wireless to barbed wire for
    distribution. The cost of such a T1 in the middle of nowhere will be
    pricy and depend mostly on the number of repeaters requied from the
    neaest telco office. Effectively, you would be building your own ISP.
    My guess(tm) is that this method becomes economical with about 20-30
    paying customers.

    >I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
    >called "WiMAX".

    Every new product is pure hype until the hardware appears. WiMax is
    just a better 802.11b without the inefficiencies and timing problems
    that limit range and performance. The power levels are the same and
    the range/bandwidth equations are identical. Like all business
    ventures, nobody is going to install a WiMax WISP in the middle of
    nowhere without some means of having it pay the bills. It's certainly
    better for WISP service than 802.11b but is not a magic bullet or
    miracle cure. If anything, it will be initially far more expensive
    than 802.11b.

    >It is
    >supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput!

    More like 30 miles or 70Mbits/sec, pick *ONE*.

    The limiting factor is the tradeoff between BER (bit error rate) and
    transmission rate. What all these radios do is reduce the
    transmission rate when the BER climbs above a specified threshold. No
    sense in sending high speed garbage that can't be used. Slow down and
    the error rate decreases. So, at 30 miles, my guess(tm) is that
    you'll get about 0.5Mbits/sec if there's no interference, and zero if
    there's a leaky microwave oven, sodium RF lamp, utility wireless link,
    plastic molding pre-heater, or outdoor event with wireless TV cameras
    somewhere in the path providing the traditional interference. It's
    also line of sight, which means that it won't work in your cave,
    valley, or forest.

    Incidentally, the previous holy grail was NLOS (near line of sight)
    which methinks has turned out to be little better than hype.

    Stay tuned for mesh networks, the next big thing in science fiction
    and marketing hype. This also includes self configuring, self
    healing, and advanced routing algorithms.

    >When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

    About the same time as it becomes economical to provide the service.
    Whenever the FCC hears the latest great idea in spectrum grabbing,
    it's always justified by providing rural service. Doesn't matter what
    the service does, it's the rural communities that are suppose to get
    the benifits. For example, the FCC is currently entertaining comments
    on the re-use of UHF TV spectrum for wireless LANs on a
    non-interference basis. It's suggested for rural use where there are
    few TV stations. However, as soon as the technology is endorsed and
    the licenses are issued, the technology always appears in the more
    populous areas simply because it's more profitable. Bluntly, I
    wouldn't hold my breath.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    R?g?r <abuse@your.isp.com> wrote:
    > TJM wrote:

    >> I am stuck living in rural America and that means being stuck with 56K dialup

    Stuck? I am rural by choice, but that's another topic.
    If it's worth enough to you, you can always get service higher than 64K.
    There is a point of diminishing returns, though.

    How rural are you, and how flat is the terrain?
    There are several stories of people putting up their own wireless links to
    share access from some point that does have wired access.

    Cringely is dubious. Some people say it didn't happen.
    Part one
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010628.html
    Part two
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010712.html
    References
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20010712.html

    David Taylor's is a good story and good writeup.
    http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/Equation/equation_broadband.htm

    Craig's is a long link, with good mapping detail.
    http://www.craig-bartell.com/

    ---
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > If it's worth enough to you, you can always get service higher than 64K.
    > There is a point of diminishing returns, though.

    The only viable options for me right now is ISDN or 2-way satellite. Both
    options are too pricey for the mild performance gains. I had ISDN a few years
    back before DSL or DOCSIS even existed, but it was $60/mo. for 128K (usu. 64K)
    speed. I've test-driven StarBand but the high upfront equipment cost and
    monthly fees are hard to justify for 500K service, not to mention it blacks out
    during bad weather.

    > How rural are you, and how flat is the terrain?
    > There are several stories of people putting up their own wireless links to
    > share access from some point that does have wired access.

    I live in a valley of tall oak trees. I thought about contacting one of my
    neighbors who live across the valley about 500 yards where they can get
    broadband from the local cable company, but I assumed the hardware involved
    (directional boosting antennas, wireless bridges, etc) would be
    cost-prohibitive. Maybe I should shop around and see what the total cost would
    be. If I could invest less than $700-800 for all the equipment, then the $30
    monthly cable internet fee for 1.5 Mbps service would be worth it. I might even
    convince my neighbor to split the monthly cost with me. The biggest obstacle is
    the mighty oaks....I would have to run a tower 50' to get above them.....or can
    the antennas transmit through heavy foilage?


    > Cringely is dubious. Some people say it didn't happen.
    > Part one
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010628.html
    > Part two
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010712.html
    > References
    > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20010712.html
    >
    > David Taylor's is a good story and good writeup.
    > http://www.nodomainname.co.uk/Equation/equation_broadband.htm
    >
    > Craig's is a long link, with good mapping detail.
    > http://www.craig-bartell.com/
    >
    > ---
    > Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:34:48 -0400, "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote:

    >I live in a valley of tall oak trees. I thought about contacting one of my
    >neighbors who live across the valley about 500 yards where they can get
    >broadband from the local cable company, but I assumed the hardware involved
    >(directional boosting antennas, wireless bridges, etc) would be
    >cost-prohibitive.

    Not really. I would go for something better than commodity hardware
    and setup a wireless bridge. This would be the right choice, but is
    way out of your budget.
    http://www.ydi.com/products/bridges/bridge-in-a-box.php

    So, cheap will have to do. Your accomplis gets a generic wireless
    access point (DWL-900AP+) for about $60 and install it in a waterproof
    box on his roof. A Pacific Wireless 24dBi barbeque grill is about
    $60. Reverse SMA to N adapter $10. Power over Ethernet boxes can be
    fabricated for zilch or bought for about $50. Assorted hardware,
    mounts, plumbing, cable entry, cable, connectors, etc should be about
    $20. Total for one end is $200.

    At your end, you get the same thing but instead of an access point,
    you get either a client radio (another DWL-900AP+) and a similar
    arrangement. Another $200.

    Now it gets messy. If you only want to connect one computah to your
    accomplis's access point, literally any client radio will do. A cheap
    USB radio will even work. (I'm tinkering with a DWL-122 USB radio
    mounted in place of the feed on a PacWireless antenna). However, if
    you wanna connect more than one computah on your end, you have the
    choice of:
    1. Add a router behind your client radio and use double NAT.
    2. Setup the two DWL-900AP+ radios as a transparent bridge.
    3. Find a set of radios that will do point to multipoint
    transparent bridging using WDS (wireless distribution something).
    4. Use an overpriced "Game Adapter" which will bridge 30 MAC
    addresses.

    There are plenty of places for economy. Build your own antennas, PoE
    adapter, cables, etc. Pingles cans, etc.

    >The biggest obstacle is
    >the mighty oaks....I would have to run a tower 50' to get above them.....or can
    >the antennas transmit through heavy foilage?

    At 2.4GHz it cannot. Foliage is much like a brick wall. Your oaks
    will probably not be a problem during the winter, when the leaves fall
    off, but spring will be hell. I go through this every year. Buy a
    chain saw and use it.

    900MHz works MUCH better through foliage. The catch is that even the
    fastest 900MHz radios (if you can find them) will only do 3Mbits/sec
    (Canopy). Most of the older stuff that shows up on eBay will do
    1.4Mbits/sec at best. I live in the ultimate dense overgrown redwood
    forest of the Santa Cruz mountains in California. I would need a
    200ft tower to get over the trees.

    5.7Ghz has some possibilities with needles instead of leaves (i.e.
    pine). The wavelength is short enough that it goes nicely between the
    needles. High directional gain is also easier to achieve at 5.7GHz.

    At 1500ft, brute force will work tolerably well though the trees at
    2.4Ghz. Use the most antenna gain you can legally get and I suspect
    you'll be ok. Here's how one person did it over 1100ft in a forest:
    http://trevormarshall.com/lapierre.htm


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > OK, you live in a cave. I don't but I'm familiar with the problem.
    > Some clue as to your location would be helpful.

    I live in a small valley with tall oak trees. I have neighbors across the
    valley about 500 yds. who have access to cable broadband, but in the summer the
    foilage is thick.....can boosting antennas transmit through heavy foilage?

    > OK, so that means ISDN 128Kbit/service is out due to limited bandwidth
    > and high price.

    I had ISDN about 7 yrs. ago.....I was paying $60/mo. for 128K, although it was
    usu. 64K and disconnected frequently. StarBand looks interesting, but I've
    heard a ton of horror stories about it.

    > What some small towns have done is purchase a T1 with ISP service and
    > resell the bandwidth using anything from wireless to barbed wire for
    > distribution. The cost of such a T1 in the middle of nowhere will be
    > pricy and depend mostly on the number of repeaters requied from the
    > neaest telco office. Effectively, you would be building your own ISP.
    > My guess(tm) is that this method becomes economical with about 20-30
    > paying customers.

    I doubt I could get this going in my neighborhood. I live on the border of
    civilization.....big housing complex to the north and mostly farmland to the
    south. If my house was on the other side of the stream only 100 ft. away....I
    would be able to get cable broadband.

    > ventures, nobody is going to install a WiMax WISP in the middle of
    > nowhere without some means of having it pay the bills. It's certainly
    > better for WISP service than 802.11b but is not a magic bullet or
    > miracle cure. If anything, it will be initially far more expensive
    > than 802.11b.

    True, but it sounds like it will serve many uses that 802.11 cant
    handle.....like backhaul traffic for the local cellular providers, "last-mile"
    broadband for business and residential, low-power roaming access, etc.

    > More like 30 miles or 70Mbits/sec, pick *ONE*.

    Those are theoreticals.....I would imagine 5 Mbps at 5 miles would be achievable
    in the initial stages?

    > About the same time as it becomes economical to provide the service.
    > Whenever the FCC hears the latest great idea in spectrum grabbing,
    > it's always justified by providing rural service. Bluntly, I
    > wouldn't hold my breath.

    I dont think 100% nationwide wireless coverage is going to happen for many
    years, but even a single tower that can handle non-line-of-sight wireless at 5
    Mbps in a 5-mile cell radius would really expand broadband access in America.
    With that kind of capability, the DSL & cable internet providers wouldnt stand a
    chance, esp. since we are moving toward a totally wireless world where people
    are going to want to take their laptop, tablet, PDA, etc. out of their house and
    enjoy reliable broadband as they drive around town and to Grandma's house for
    Sunday dinner.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    TJM <tjm@nospam> wrote:
    > I live in a valley of tall oak trees. I thought about contacting one of my
    > neighbors who live across the valley about 500 yards where they can get
    > broadband from the local cable company, but I assumed the hardware involved
    > (directional boosting antennas, wireless bridges, etc) would be

    500 yards away, and they get cable? You can't get cable, or don't want it?
    You could run your own DSL if you could run some cable from them.

    How far can cable go? Maybe your neighbor could sign up for a second cable
    modem, and you could run the cable over to your house? I have no idea if
    500 yards is too far for that.

    Tall Oak trees... I used to have some of those.
    http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/Oak.jpg
    But it wouldn't prevent line of sight somewhere on the property to another
    parcel. 500 yards should work, if there's line of sight.

    Don't overlook the Equation solution that I cited earlier. That involves a
    third location. "A" provides the backbone, "B" has line of sight to "A",
    and line of sight to "C", the intended recipient.

    --
    ---
    Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    > 500 yards away, and they get cable? You can't get cable, or don't want it?
    > You could run your own DSL if you could run some cable from them.
    >
    > How far can cable go? Maybe your neighbor could sign up for a second cable
    > modem, and you could run the cable over to your house? I have no idea if
    > 500 yards is too far for that.

    A long cable run would work......but I would have to bury coax through another
    person's yard, across a county bridge, and then pray no utility truck ever
    severs it when they are laying drainage pipes. Too risky. Then again, I could
    always string it alongside the power lines overhead :)

    > http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/Oak.jpg

    Hey nice oaks!

    > But it wouldn't prevent line of sight somewhere on the property to another
    > parcel. 500 yards should work, if there's line of sight.

    So heavy foilage is gonna kill the whole wireless idea? Damn those trees......
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:02:25 -0400, "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote:

    >A long cable run would work......but I would have to bury coax through another
    >person's yard, across a county bridge, and then pray no utility truck ever
    >severs it when they are laying drainage pipes. Too risky. Then again, I could
    >always string it alongside the power lines overhead :)

    I once posted instructions in this newsgroup on how to use RG-6/u CATV
    coax (buriable) for running 10base2 (cheapernet) between houses.
    Digging:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5uotd0hfdeqsdmmgih4got8i9ook1lde3m%404ax.com

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hhlud01cfqah3p1kea6f12ee260sftmf52%404ax.com

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=q53of0dnsb0jkjjskhgqo0iqd17vcr2bte%404ax.com
    1500ft might be too long for RG-6/U. I know 950ft works. I have
    several rolls of quad shielded here that I can test but it will take
    me too long to setup. Maybe later.

    If you're gonna do an aerial run, be sure to get RG-6/u with a
    messenger wire.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <R9udnbSiM8ganZrcRVn-uw@comcast.com>, TJM <tjm@nospam> wrote:
    >
    >I been hearing a lot about the new 802.16 solution coming down the pipeline
    >called "WiMAX". It appears this may be the "holy grail" of nationwide wireless
    >broadband we'd all been dreaming of.....or is it just a pipe dream?

    It's neither, but it is pretty cool.

    > It is
    >supposed to offer 30-mile range of service with 70Mbps throughput!

    Potentially... .

    > This is
    >pretty amazing, but maybe it's just marketing hype. Indoor wireless base
    >stations should be available in mid-2005, but service will probably only be in
    >large metropolitan areas that early.
    >
    >When do you think the rural areas will be getting 70Mbps WiMAX service?

    Note, don't expect people to sell WiMax service direct to home users. The
    expectation is that WiMax will be used by broadband providers to connect
    a central hub to WiFi local stations. With overprovisioning, a provider
    might be able to support something like several dozen to several hundred
    "personal" 802.11 leaf nodes per WiMax distribution node.

    Think of WiMax as wireless fiber to your neighborhood and WiFi as the
    wire from your neighborhood SLI to your house.

    Also, note that given the frequencies at which WiMax typically operates,
    it's much *more* susceptible to interference from things like trees than
    WiFi, which is more susceptible than digital mobile phone service. WiMax
    really needs unobstructed line of sight.

    --
    Nick Christenson
    npc@gangofone.com
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/pdf/wireless/intel/80216_wimax.pdf

    > Note, don't expect people to sell WiMax service direct to home users. The
    > expectation is that WiMax will be used by broadband providers to connect
    > a central hub to WiFi local stations. With overprovisioning, a provider
    > might be able to support something like several dozen to several hundred
    > "personal" 802.11 leaf nodes per WiMax distribution node.
    "The most common 802.16a configuration consists of a base station mounted on a
    building or tower that communicates on a point to multi-point basis with
    subscriber stations located in businesses and homes. 802.16a has up to 30 miles
    of range with a typical cell radius of 4 – 6 miles."

    "For operators and service providers, systems built upon the 802.16 standard
    represent an easily deployable "third pipe" capable of delivering flexible and
    affordable last-mile broadband access for millions of subscribers in homes and
    businesses throughout the world."

    > Also, note that given the frequencies at which WiMax typically operates,
    > it's much *more* susceptible to interference from things like trees than
    > WiFi, which is more susceptible than digital mobile phone service. WiMax
    > really needs unobstructed line of sight.

    "In January 2003, the IEEE approved the 802.16a standard which covers frequency
    bands between 2 GHz and 11 GHz. These sub-11 GHz frequency ranges enable non
    line-of-sight performance, making the IEEE 802.16a standard the appropriate
    technology for last-mile applications where obstacles like trees and buildings
    are often present and where base stations may need to be unobtrusively mounted
    on the roofs of homes or buildings rather than towers on mountains."
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Wireless with a good pair of antennas might work or....

    If his phone line and yours is fed from the same bundle along the road,
    there might be an open 'dry pair' (no dial tone) that might could be rented
    from ma bell for <cough> an "alarm circuit". There are ethernet extender
    boxes that work over a dry pair (DSL bridge)... Might be limited according
    to wire guage to 256k or 384k but beats dial up...
    Just a thought....

    Ed

    > A long cable run would work......but I would have to bury coax through
    another
    > person's yard, across a county bridge, and then pray no utility truck ever
    > severs it when they are laying drainage pipes. Too risky. Then again, I
    could
    > always string it alongside the power lines overhead :)
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Would you get line of site to the neighbours from the top of one of the
    oaks? If so, then consider an aerial on a mast then lift the mast in place
    up one of the oaks strapping it to the apical meristem (if an oak has one)
    IE the main vertical of the trunk. I would check the PSU requirements for
    the WIFI part - run it off say 12DC so it is safe in wet weather and just
    run cat5 + 12 DC into the house.

    You'd need to check the strapping every year depending on growth as it will
    cut in quite quickly or might snap.

    Neighbours are often very very keen for this kind of thing, particularly if
    they think they are going to get fast internet for a really good price.
    (Mine is - he has line of site to a customer's that has cable connection).

    Either that, or just run cat 5 to your neighbours and blow the legality - ok
    it would work down under....

    HTH
    - Tim


    "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote in message
    news:dp-dnVN61qLRmpXcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
    >> 500 yards away, and they get cable? You can't get cable, or don't want
    >> it?
    >> You could run your own DSL if you could run some cable from them.
    >>
    >> How far can cable go? Maybe your neighbor could sign up for a second
    >> cable
    >> modem, and you could run the cable over to your house? I have no idea if
    >> 500 yards is too far for that.
    >
    > A long cable run would work......but I would have to bury coax through
    > another
    > person's yard, across a county bridge, and then pray no utility truck ever
    > severs it when they are laying drainage pipes. Too risky. Then again, I
    > could
    > always string it alongside the power lines overhead :)
    >
    >> http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/Oak.jpg
    >
    > Hey nice oaks!
    >
    >> But it wouldn't prevent line of sight somewhere on the property to
    >> another
    >> parcel. 500 yards should work, if there's line of sight.
    >
    > So heavy foilage is gonna kill the whole wireless idea? Damn those
    > trees......
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Broadband Wireless Wimax Wireless Networking