Comments on: WiFi 802.22 Technology Promises Wireless Data Over 60 Miles: Say Goodbye to Data Plans

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:00 +0000

This service will not be an alternative to traditional Wireless access or even the kind of access you could get already with a cellphone. It is specifically designed to cover a fairly large area but at a much slower speed. 22mbps is pretty slow compared to say verizon 4g LTE, but given the areas that it will most likely be targeted for, will be a drastic improvement over what is currently offered.

By: Craftylittlemonkey

Craftylittlemonkey — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:51:00 +0000

Ugh. What about those of us who are having to move farther and farther out into the country to avoid these signals? They give me Massive migraine headaches if I’m close to a stronger signal for too long. I can’t work or go to school anywhere near them. Soon I will be trapped in a cave in the woods. WTF. Tin foil hat is lookin’ pretty good right about now.

By: John Reeves

John Reeves — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:22:00 +0000

OLD technology and they call it new.

By: Ogdeniowa

Ogdeniowa — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:11:00 +0000

TV signal are very wide. Close to 5 megahertz. Data signals are much smaller….It takes lot’s of power for TV… not for data

By: WirelessGeek

WirelessGeek — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:28:00 +0000

I Don’t Agree with you on this point.
”Imagine it – connect to your HambergerDLX network anywhere inside your town from your smartphone with no data plan costs. Magical freedom!”

Smart Phone do not support such longer connectivity. This have limitations of TX Power so how this going to TX back to 60 Miles distance ?

This is other sort of WiFi connectivity service of 22mbps. This is like you use a mini dish and focus it towards your Area’s TV Booster witch is located at 60 Miles and you get an Internet Connectivity at home or on hill. (This is another killing Cut-The-Wires IEEE 802 Wireless Draft)

Thanks For Sharing This News.

By: Ross Binkley

Ross Binkley — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:12:00 +0000

No, there will not be more. This will not be licensed for home use. It would be licensed and operated by telecom companies and you will pay them to use it. You’re not going to have a 100 kW transmitter in your house (unless you happen to be wealthy enough to afford an FCC license and a very large electric bill.)

By: Ross Binkley

Ross Binkley — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:12:00 +0000

By: Ross Binkley

Ross Binkley — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:08:00 +0000

Not only will it not be in your living room, the frequency is much lower than standard 802.11 wi-fi or even cordless phones or microwave ovens. It will, of course, be much higher power than any of these devices, but significantly lower frequency (which allows it to better travel long distances uninterrupted.)

By: Ross Binkley

Ross Binkley — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:08:00 +0000

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:38:00 +0000

Problem: it isn’t going to open up new broadband markets, just like 4G (LTE or whichever flavor you like) didn’t. It will just be another marketing ploy and a way to sell prohibitively expensive data plans to people (Get the Verizon Ultra-Phone with 802.22 5G technology!).

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:33:00 +0000

Awesome breakthrough! Just don’t let AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile get a hold of it, otherwise it will be locked down so far it may as well not exist. Let the masses have cheap WiFi, internet has been overcharged for way too long.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:39:00 +0000

60 miles on 1/4 watt?? C’mon man! Physics still apply, it takes 100kW up to 1MW and an antenna 1000-2000 ft high for TV stations to carry 60 – 80 miles, no 1/4w WiFi hub is going to carry 60 miles from my house!

By: I Hate Spammers

I Hate Spammers — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:05:00 +0000

Spam!!!!!!

By: Jonathan Oquendo

Jonathan Oquendo — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:45:00 +0000

it sounds like wimax 802.16e, but it seems that itll have a better back haul instead of being set up to go from tower to tower like it does now i could be that each tower would directly go into a server or something, at least thats how i was told wimax works. it’s basically wifi.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:14:00 +0000

for most smartphones, carriers require a data plan in order to get the subsidized price. I assume even with this new technology they won’t change that, meaning if you want a nice phone and no data plan you would have to pay the unlocked price. Now this could save you money over time, you could even avoid any plan at all if more people start to adopt wifi calling and messaging apps like whatsapp but that unsubsidized price may steer many consumers away.

By: AliOmar

AliOmar — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:53:00 +0000

It will be a Wireless World what a new great technology

By: AliOmar

AliOmar — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:53:00 +0000

It will be a Wireless World what a new great technology

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:31:00 +0000

SPAM!

By: Daryl

Daryl — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:14:00 +0000

Sounds very promising, and yes I agree that this new standard not see the light of day for the public at the speed and distances mentioned. There are many law enforcement and military applications I can think of, after firewall details and enhancements if needed are addressed.
Daryl DC

By: Junkm000

Junkm000 — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:32:00 +0000

The author clearly does not understand what this technology is about – it has nothing to do with WiFi as we know it today. Its not like every homeowner could just have a hotspot that reaches 60 miles – there is still a limited amount of channel space and as long as one person is using the channel, any other device in earshot has to wait. Soooo… assuming you have many neighbors in a 60 mile diameter of your home the odds of getting usable bandwidth for you and your access point are miniscule. Sorry, its just physics ;)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:53:00 +0000

Sadly the worthless government body called the fcc wont allow that. Heck, it doesn’t allow companies like mcdonalds to host wifi hotspots past 802.11g

By: Kevin Kelley

Kevin Kelley — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:52:00 +0000

Excellent post. This isn’t a LAN technology; as the source mentioned, it will be used for WRANs. Wikipedia explains that the purpose of WRANs is to “bring broadband access to hard-to-reach, low population density areas, typical of rural environments, and is therefore timely and has the potential for a wide applicability worldwide.” So this article missed the point by quite a bit. Still a very cool tech in that it could potentially open up whole new broadband markets. Not really sure how you think this would improve competition though.

By: Kevin Kelley

Kevin Kelley — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:52:00 +0000

By: First Name

First Name — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 00:19:00 +0000

@sdmitch16:disqus
Ah, sorry I misread your post.

By: Steven

Steven — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:35:00 +0000

That’s what I meant because they are all wifi and in the same spectrum.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 03:50:00 +0000

Very insightful…why didn’t that occur to me or anyone else.

By: First Name

First Name — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:36:00 +0000

@facebook-100000722296108:disqus
Well, what’s wrong is that even with 802.11g there’s only 3 non-overlapping channels in the US (1, 5 and 9). When there are any more access points than 3 in a small area they begin to negatively interfere with each other in the form of noise*; each additional access point added will reduce throughput as more robust transmission methods must be used (to overcome the noise) until eventually communication isn’t possible for anyone. “Speak up! I can’t hear you over my neighbor!” Until everyone is shouting.

*Naturally this depends upon how heavily the offending networks are being utilized, so going for the simplest case let’s say that every network is being used at maximum capacity.

By: Herman Guerra

Herman Guerra — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:43:00 +0000

…so? There will be more. Whats wrong with that? We do have an option to hide the signals right now.

By: Herman Guerra

Herman Guerra — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:40:00 +0000

You said Tax…so you will get Teabagged.

By: First Name

First Name — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:34:00 +0000

No, she was talking about how when you do a site survey with an 802.11 device in an average neighborhood you’ll see “Linksys” “Bigbewbs69″ “Netgear” “Cisco” and “BobsWifi”. That’s just for your neighbors. Now picture what you’d see if you could see all the access points in your town.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:10:00 +0000

She meant it would interfere with other Wifi running in the same spectrum.

By: First Name

First Name — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:04:00 +0000

What about CB and amateur radio? 60 miles for a hand-held device is a bit of a stretch for most, but not at all unheard of.

By: First Name

First Name — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:03:00 +0000

The 700 MHz spectrum is lower frequency than 802.11a/b/g/n (2.4GHz and 5GHz), which is why it can go such long distances.

By: First Name

First Name — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:58:00 +0000

It’s not magic. My Dad can talk around the world on 1 watt of power with his amateur radio stuff. Using wireless to bridge the last mile (the notoriously most expensive part of broadband infrastructure) makes perfect sense. But good luck seeing it approved by our we-<3-monopolies FCC.

Here's food for thought: why does the FCC regulate communications that aren't powerful enough to leave a state's boundaries?

By: Gpfgroup

Gpfgroup — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:57:00 +0000

High freq. transmitter right in your living room… wow more ways to get toasted,

By: Steven Holms

Steven Holms — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:41:00 +0000

Didn’t you read the article? It won’t be an interference issue, because it is on the old TV wavelengths. If anything it would interfere with antenna based TV, but it won’t since the FCC would never approve a technology that would do that and besides that, it will be broadcast on the white space created when TV went digital. So no, there won’t be interference with current devices.

By: Amitabh

Amitabh — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:19:00 +0000

Wow.. isnt that going to be an interference nightmare. My building alone has 10 wireless networks running and that’s over a couple of hundred feet. And what about hot-spots ? All those ATT, McDonalds… Why not just put one 100 TB/sec. router on City Hall for each city and charge 50c in your State tax :) And why just Data Plan.. get rid of your mobile plan as well !!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:06:00 +0000

I’m having a hard time believing that something the size of a phone can return transmission over 60 miles.

By: Mike Dye

Mike Dye — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:03:00 +0000

If this happens Internet providers everywhere will jack there prices and we will all end on paying about the same ether way. Though it will be better service than mobile broadband, and wont be subject to congestion.