[MLB-WIRELESS] WiMax / Content

[Dan Flett]

Dean Collins wrote:

> I totally agree. This discussion would have been interesting 3-4 years ago
but now it
> just a moot point.

> There are very fat, very fast, very cheap wireless pipes on their way to
Australia and
> whilst I'm sure mlb-wireless will move to a wimax model in the next 12
months (how come
> no one is talking about that yet??) there is little that you can do to
compete against
> these fat fast cheap commercial services.

Here's what I know about WiMax - please correct any errors:
- It allows high-bandwidth data transfer over long distances between a base
station and a customer.
- The base stations are expensive when compared to a WiFi access point - not
really affordable by an individual hobbyist.
- Because of the frequencies and power at which they operate, you will
probably need a licence to operate a base station.
- The customer equipment (laptop radio card) will only be able to talk to a
base station.  There will be no "adhoc" mode to allow customer laptops to
talk to each other directly.

If this turns out to be correct, it will mean that WiMax might be useful to
form a wireless backbone, if we can afford the equipment and overcome
regulatory issues.  But there will be no opportunity to use it form a
grassroots, direct, free, user-to-user network.  So I believe WiFi will
continue to be useful for our purposes even after the widespread
introduction of cheap WiMax.  WiMax, with it's high price-tag, will force
whoever uses it to pay money for the privelege.  WiFi is cheap, easy, and
now has a massive installed user base, who can all potentially connect to
each other directly, for free.  I see Melbourne Wireless as a group whose
purpose is to enable and encourage people to connect each other.  The more
people who think that this is a good idea, the more stupid the government
regulations regarding Internet sharing will seem.

> None of the 'reasons' quoted "obvious ones i guess are Gaming, Video
Conference, VOIP,
> Instant Messenger......."  have any advantage being delivered over
wireless than being
> delivered out of a hosted rack available to everyone on the internet.

That's true.  The network, such as it is, isn't really successful as an
"Internet alternative", because the Internet does everything the wireless
network can do, and it's a lot less hassle and a lot more reliable than
setting up a wireless node.  The current enthusiasts on the network are
basically building nodes because they can, and because building a node is an
educational experience.  But for a non-enthusiast, spending upwards of $600
on complicated wireless equipment that has only a small chance of being
really useful is not very attractive at all.

> I'm not wanting to rain on anyones parade but I think best to stick to a
hobby without
> 'free internet' because although access the to the net for free from 'out
of home'
> locations is a good thing, and therefore mlb wireless should be acting as
a user group
> to encourage this there is little other value trying to compete with
commercial entities.

>From what I've seen, the deck is currently stacked against the feasability
of any sort of non-profit, community ISP, and quite deliberately so it
seems.  If you want to set up any sort of infrastructure-based network you
need to comply with all sorts of regulations, have licences, have
insurances, have access to prime real-estate and above all, have money.
Which is why my interest is now leaning towards adhoc, direct user-to-user
networks that have relatively minor or no infrastructure requirements, and
that are cheap and easy to set up.