Receive new posts as email.
RSS 0.91 | RSS 2.0
RDF | Atom
Podcast only feed (RSS 2.0 format)
Get an RSS reader
Get a Podcast receiver
| Sun | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator or JiWire, Inc.
Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2006 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.
Powered by
Movable Type
« Podcast #18: Matthew Gast, Author, Task Group N Member | Main | Metro Connect Consortium Picked for Wireless Silicon Valley »
InspiAir says they can span kilometers with normal 802.11b in point-to-multi-point formations just via software: Yeah, and I remember Karlnet, too. Back about five years ago, Karlnet sold firmware upgrades for common reference designs, like Apple’s AirPort Base Station, that would allow, wouldja figure, timing changes and other protocol tweaks that allowed 802.11b to span several kilometers in P2MP configuration without failing.
InspiAir seems to be implying that they have mesh technology, too, according to this Techworld account. I don’t think so. One of the investors is quoted talking about the “not-yet-patented technology.” Given prior art, I would guess that might be “never-to-be-patented technology.”
I don’t quite understand why they’ve made a splash. The “100 milliwatt” radio they talk about using would be the unamplified signal coming out from a card. Stick a sectorized antenna on that and work within point-to-multipoint rules and you’re allowed (in the US at least) to push out pretty high effective wattages that can span many miles.
It is, in fact, a violation of the law physics if you were using 100 mW of actual output power measured at the antenna and expecting to reach a few kilometers. Or more than a few thousand feet line of sight in a non-interferring, non-reflective environment.
Such as in a park. In the Techworld article, an operator in New York which provides service in the Hudson River Park is quoted as saying that they were astounded by how two nodes from InspiAir could cover a three-quarter square mile park, where 25 to 50 nodes is often quoted for outdoor deployment for a square mile. Yes, but that’s a square mile of dense usage with obstructions. It’s not a big deal to use high-gain antennas cover 90 degrees of arc at opposite ends of a square to cover that range. That’s only a few hundred feet from either transceiver. When the leaves come back, then we’ll talk about coverage.
Posted by Glennf at September 5, 2006 2:38 PM
Categories: Metro-Scale Networks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://db.isbn.nu/mt3/mt-tb.pl/4000
Wild claims that break the laws of physics, for some reason, sit well with investors, but never end up producing real results (that's a surprise!).
Remember xMax? The technology supposed to send megabits using nanowatts? Seems they are still alive, and taking money from would-be distributors for exclusive territorial deals...this is also a bit of deja-vu. Claims such as being able to run a base station on a watch battery for years rather stink, but for some reason, people throw money at them.
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 1:43 PM
Glenn,
We did some informal testing of the Hudson River Park "Wi-Fi Network". The hotspot, which was supposed to cover a small portion of the park (its a few miles long along manhattan's west shore), but as far as we could tell, there was no actual Wi-Fi coverage.
We tried to find the signal from a number of locations nearby where the AP was supposed to be located (we could see the device on the top of a parking structure), but couldn't see the signal nor could we connect to it.
I think that, barring some serious disclosure about what they are actually doing to generate larger coverage areas, that the InspiAir claims are bogus.
Posted by: Dana Spiegel ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wifinetnews.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 5, 2006 11:25 PM