Wireless ISP for home

[BB]

Anyone here currently use a wireless ISP for Internet access at home? I used to think these systems were substandard, but just yestderday I got one installed at my house since neither DSL or cable modem is available in my neighborhood.

The performance is excellent. I'm seeing around file transfer rates of 95 KB/sec on even big files and no noticable drop outs or slow downs due to wind or rain. Latency is very low too. And unlike my friends with AT&T cable modem service, I get this performance in BOTH directions, not just for downloads only.

The ISP appears to be using WaveRider's wireless equipment which operates at 900MHz. http://www.waverider.com/

Anyway, I was wondering if any others have used these systems and if their exerpiences have been as positive as mine thus far.

 

[NSX-00054]

Does this system work anywhere or cities where the system is actually set up?

What is the cost as compared to DSL?

Thanks,
Newton

 

[BB]

Each basestation has a range of around 3 miles, non-line-of-sight. It's indended as a "last mile" solution for neighborhoods, allowing smaller companies to compete against the monopolists who control the wires in the ground. Or in the case of my neighborhood, it allows us the chance to have a reasonably priced high speed service at all.

Many small local ISP's who are continuing to loose customers to cable and DSL are increasingly starting to deploy this technology, since it's the only chance they have to compete against the baby bells and cable companies.

So yeah, it has to be avaiable in your neighborhood or area of town and is not a nation wide service. Do some searches on google for "wireless internet" and "wireless ISP" and the city where you are. I bet you'll find a few companies offering this type of service.

I'm currently paying $62/month which is a little higher than friends nearby that have cable/DSL, but considering the ISP here has no real competition yet, the price ain't bad.

 

[Jimbo]

Wireless is great!

I've been using it for years. Apple was one of the first to introduce this technology to the masses with their Airport device. However, I do have a cable modem that it connects to. So, it's not exactly "pure" wireless ISP access.

Both my wife and I use our laptops all over our property and it's incredibly cool not to be tethered. Of course, we use our batteries more than ever.

Speeds are very quick too. For anyone that has a cable modem and laptops, I can't imagine any reason to stay cabled via Ethernet to the cable modem.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
1976 Honda Accord 5 spd, 3 door Blue/Blue
1977 Honda Accord - Custom - Under Construction
2003 MINI Cooper S - On Order - All Black
1986 Chevy Suburban
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 16 March 2003).]

 

[sabashioyaki]

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Wireless is great!

I've been using it for years. Apple was one of the first to introduce this technology to the masses with their Airport device. However, I do have a cable modem that it connects to. So, it's not exactly "pure" wireless ISP access.

Yes wireless broadband around the house is great, but it isn't the same as wi-fi.

It looks like wi-fi is going to be the broadband future. It bypasses the cost of the last mile and thus it is pretty cheap to implement. I can't wait until it's available in Sacramento. Broadband access anywhere I go will be heaven.

 

[BB]

Originally posted by Jimbo:

Speeds are very quick too. For anyone that has a cable modem and laptops, I can't imagine any reason to stay cabled via Ethernet to the cable modem.

Security is a good reason to use cabled ethernet rather than 802.11b WiFi. WiFi's encryption scheme is easily cracked, potentially allowing neighbors or someone on the street to gain access to your home network.

Search for a program called WEPcrack. It allows even an amateur to break into most WiFi networks.

 

[BB]

Originally posted by sabashioyaki:
It looks like wi-fi is going to be the broadband future. It bypasses the cost of the last mile and thus it is pretty cheap to implement. I can't wait until it's available in Sacramento. Broadband access anywhere I go will be heaven.

I am a big supporter of WiFi myself, however I believe it is not a very good "last mile" solution for neighborhoods. Being at 2.4GHz it basically requires line-of-sight in order to achieve reasonable range.

The 900MHz systems like my ISP is using are able to go for several miles even through trees or other obstacles. This allows a single base station to cover an entire neighborhood, something WiFi is generally not capable of.

That's why you see WiFi providers using terms like WiFi "hotspots"-- because the range of their base stations is quite limited for most applications. One "hotspot" will cover a coffee shop, another will cover a small section of street or part of a park. But never will these hotspots cover miles of area.


[This message has been edited by BB (edited 16 March 2003).]

 

[NeoNSX]

Hey BB,

This is seriously interesting stuff; we haven't got this in Australia yet (wish we did). The cost savings of installation and setting up the ISP would be huge; i surprised it hasn't been done... especially with the benefits of 900MHz giving further distance.

Can i ask if the ISP is newly established? 95KB in BOTH directions seems crazy (my cable is 1024KBytes down/16KBytes up). If it's new, you might find the service degrade as more and more users take up the service.

WiFi has certainly increased in speeds recently, but I think i'd stick with cable coz i like the excessively-fast downloads.... hehehe...


You should try out the CONNECTION SPEED test in this post... i'd be interested in knowing how well it fairs.
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/001830.html

 

[nsxxtreme]

Originally posted by BB:
I am a big supporter of WiFi myself, however I believe it is not a very good "last mile" solution for neighborhoods. Being at 2.4GHz it basically requires line-of-sight in order to achieve reasonable range.

The 900MHz systems like my ISP is using are able to go for several miles even through trees or other obstacles. This allows a single base station to cover an entire neighborhood, something WiFi is generally not capable of.

That's why you see WiFi providers using terms like WiFi "hotspots"-- because the range of their base stations is quite limited for most applications. One "hotspot" will cover a coffee shop, another will cover a small section of street or part of a park. But never will these hotspots cover miles of area.


[This message has been edited by BB (edited 16 March 2003).]

I believe the distance problem is by design. I imagine if they wanted to they could produce a transmitter that would go further.

On a side note I just recently purchased the Linksys G router. The range is kind of crappy. The plus is that the Linksys B signal booster will work with the G router and give you significantly more range.

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

Originally posted by BB:
Security is a good reason to use cabled ethernet rather than 802.11b WiFi. WiFi's encryption scheme is easily cracked, potentially allowing neighbors or someone on the street to gain access to your home network.

Search for a program called WEPcrack. It allows even an amateur to break into most WiFi networks.

I haven't searched the net for WEPcrack, yet. But will this sucker crack D-Link's 256-bit WEP system?

 

[Kinan]

Originally posted by BB:

That's why you see WiFi providers using terms like WiFi "hotspots"-- because the range of their base stations is quite limited for most applications. One "hotspot" will cover a coffee shop, another will cover a small section of street or part of a park. But never will these hotspots cover miles of area.


[This message has been edited by BB (edited 16 March 2003).]

That phenomenon is true for any wireless setup. The farther you get from the tranmitter/receiver, the slower the transfer rates are going to be. They could make a transmitter to cover 100 miles But you'd need something comparable at Your end for the uplink speeds to be the same. At some point it becomes impractical or more complicated to acheive. In 2 way wireless, the limiting factor is always the end user's transmitter. Same for wireless phones, hard for the user's little tranmitter antenna surrounded by someone's hand a metal car to compete with an optimized directional gain antenna at a cellular base station.