Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking The Almighty Buck IT Hardware Technology

Australia to Become WiMax Testbed 105

Posted by Zonk from the lots-of-space-to-wardrive dept.
shrewd writes "AU News site Whirlpool has news on a huge AUD $37 million investment by Intel in a WiMax project. From the article: 'Australia will become the world's testbed for WiMAX - Intel's wireless broadband technology - with the announcement that the chip giant will invest AUD $37million in the expansion of the Unwired network in Australia ... Unwired CEO David Spence said the investment will make WiMAX an absolutely mainstream technology. 'Unwired will be in the unique position of having access to the majority of the WiMAX-designated 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands in Australia's major metropolitan areas,' Spence said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia to Become WiMax Testbed More

Australia to Become WiMax Testbed

Comments Filter:

  • Crikey! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheOtherAgentM ( 700696 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:26AM (#13398361)
    I see live video streams of the Crocodile Hunter in our future.

    "She's a beautiful critter! Look at the power of her jaws as she's chomping on my laptop!"
    • Despite the fact I'm still stuck on dialup at home (in the US, just outside of Lansing, MI); Australia has been getting screwed for a long time. They have some of the most outragous connection fees and draconian limits on use. Good for them.

      Oh yeah, and here's the obligatory bash quote for the local phone monopoly:

      <FreeFrag> The most secure computer in the world is one not connected to the internet.

      <FreeFrag> Thats why I recommend Telstra ADSL.
      • this tech will make precisely zit difference for everything except connection fees, rates will be relatively the same as Intel will have to pay the same rates as everyone else for the use of the highly limited amount of bandwidth that links us overseas.

      • Optus are #2, that's why they try harder - I suppose that explains the 4 hours outage we had the other night mid WoW instance run.. *sigh*

      • Australia has been getting screwed for a long time. They have some of the most outragous connection fees and draconian limits on use. Good for them.

        In many areas, it's not been so bad since ISPs took things into their own hands and started installing their own DSL equipment at the exchanges - I'm sitting here in South Melbourne on ADSL2 (only 12mbs at the moment), paying about US$70 per month for 80GB downloads, unlimited 1mbs upload - more than I generally need.

        The thing is, i'm moving to San Franci

  • WIMAX (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CSHARP123 ( 904951 )
    Unwired's service will be available to 66% of the population

    Until somebody comes onboard and provides the same kind of service, talk about monopoly.

    • It didnt exist in any capacity before, and they don't have to use the service. So no.

      There's probably only 1 satellite provider in your area. Without them, there would be zero. You can still get DSL.
    • How can it be a monopoly if they are pioneering the technology? It seems to me that they are offering a new possible better alternative to the current services and therefore entering the market as a competitor.
      • Seriously; You can't be blamed for being a monopoly when you are a barely emergent and first supplier to a given market...at least, not reasonably so, methinks.
      • The first provider is always a "monopoly" be definition. Whether you call them a monopoly or not depends on your attitude towards the company.

        Take Standard Oil, for example. Before Rockefeller, no one used petroleum. He got his monopoly because he invented a new industry from scratch. I'm not excusing his later collusion with the government to prevent competition, but he started out as just an ordinary businessman with an idea.

        Monopolies are generally limited to new industries. AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, etc

        • The big question is whether you want to condem a company for being first, or condem a company for sticking around.

          The latter. But specifically, I condemn a company for raising barriers to entry by using "collusion with the government to prevent competition," as you put it in the case of Standard Oil, as a means to stick around. AT&T owned what was by far the largest telephone network, and it chilled innovation in phone hardware and services by requiring that only its own phones be connected to the B

        • Microsoft first marketed software as a product to the home user.

          No, that's historical revisionism. There were dozens if not hundreds of companies selling similar products at the same time to home and business users. The Apple II, Commodore Pet, S100 computers and the software that ran on them come to mind. They all had wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc. M$ just rode on IBM's coat tails initially.

          With the necessity of interroperability leading to an unstable, winner-take-all market; the legitimacy provi

  • Huge? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:27AM (#13398368)
    37 million AUD ($27 million US) would be a huge investment if it came out of my bank account (which would then be very much overdrawn). Coming from a company the size of Intel, it is NOT a huge investment in a new technology.

    • Re:Huge? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nos. ( 179609 )
      True, but Intel has made huge investments in WiMax. They've got the first chips undergoing testing for certification right now. They've dedicated a lot of time and man power to it and this is just a continuation of that investment. In fact, depending on how you look at it, this is almost more marketing than anything else.

  • If it doesn't work well, (Score:3, Funny)

    by Karma_fucker_sucker ( 898393 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:27AM (#13398377)
    then I guess people will get really angry and call it "MadMAX"! - get it Australia...MadMax Movies with Mel Gibson... well...get it?

    Ok, that was lame. I really need to get some lunch!

  • Is there any doubt in someones mind that WiFi or WiMax is going to eventually permiate the metropolitan areas of the world and offer free access? Recently San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a plan to provide WiFi for San Francisco [sfgov.org].

    Companies like AOL and other dial-up or broadband types should start thinking about alternative methods for bringing in revenue, because their market is quickly diminishing.

    • Re:AOL and others should take heed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:38AM (#13398484)
      Is there any doubt in someones mind that WiFi or WiMax is going to eventually permiate the metropolitan areas of the world and offer free access?

      Yes, there is doubt. In fact, there is 100% certainty that it will not happen. Because it will not, and can not, be free. Someone has to pay for it. If your vision is correct (however badly described), I'd say that entity would be... people and businesses who pay taxes. Or, it will be indirectly so, by showing up as more arcane usage fees on your cell phone and cable bills. There is no "free" wireless service! It's not sunshine. Companies ("like AOL and other dial-up or broadband types") will be the ones providing this service, or companies like them, either directly, or through contracts with municipal or other governments. You say the market is dimishing, I say it's just re-arranging. But what about the millions that live in rural areas, or those that are out of line-of-site for these city-centered services? Traditional ISPs, in one form or another, will be around for a long, long time. Non-traditional ISPs will become the traditional, but someone still has to pay for the hardware, the people, the systems, the security, etc. Not free! Never will be - any more than tap water is, or electricity.

      • Re:AOL and others should take heed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bigwavejas ( 678602 ) * on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:44AM (#13398557) Journal
        /yawn

        I guess Philadelphia intending to offer the following, "Once a citywide wireless network has been deployed, the goal will be to provide some level of free wireless Internet access to everyone living, working or visiting in the city."

        Was just my imagination... or was it? Read Article [phila.gov]

        Maybe diminishing wasn't the correct word, perhaps shifting is more appropriate. ... and yes nothing is entirely free, but the old methodology for charging to use wireless internet is definitely changing.

        • and yes nothing is entirely free, but the old methodology for charging to use wireless internet is definitely changing

          Well, let's see. There are only two ways that sitting out in a public space popping onto a wireless 'net connecciont is (or is going to be) "free" to the end users:

          1. Someone provides that access because they want to (like Panera... "please enjoy net access and we hope you buy a sandwich")

          2. Enough voters vote for people with the authority to use tax dollars to prop up that aspect o
          • At no point will it be "free" as in beer.

            Perhaps not in the US, but over here in Western Australia, we've been building a free-as-in-beer network since the early days of wireless networking. http://www.e3.com.au/ [e3.com.au]
            • Perhaps not in the US, but over here in Western Australia, we've been building a free-as-in-beer network since the early days of wireless networking.

              But... it's not free! Who writes the checks for the people that operate the network (or, in the absence of paid techs, who provides their own technical time)? Who buys (or otherwise provides) the hardware? Who pays for the grid power, the backup generators, and the pipes to the internet? I'm going to guess it's donors, sponsors, or taxpayers... probably even
              • But... it's not free!

                It is free. I can connect to freenet with an AP and that AP becomes a shared node on the network. The cost to me is the AP I'd need to connect to any network. This is one of the times when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
                • So... this network is self-contained? Doesn't actually connecto to the larger internet (meaning, you're not using it right now)? If it IS connected to the net, who provides the bandwidth? At some point, those packets have to be handled by carriers that aren't doing it as a charity, right?
        • It still won't be free. You might not be getting a monthly bill from a business, but you will be paying for it via your taxes. Last time I mentioned this I got screamed at for being a conservative stooge of Bush. But people still keep missing this basic fact of economics.

          Politicians like Gavin Newsome use the word "free" to fool the gullible. What's sad is that there are so many gullible people. "Free" wifi might not be as expensive as "free" roads or "free" education, but it's still "free" with a monetary
          • Interesting... My understanding was Dell and other manufacturers were donating computers and other hardware?

            /shrug. Yes, nothing is entirely "Free", yadi yada. BUT heck I'll take a $29.99 break on my monthly internet bill. Maybe I have to pay a penny more on $100 dollars in groceries, but Fuggit.

            Way I see it, its better than snarfing off your neighbors wireless and risking a quick trip to the pokey. yeouch!

            • My understanding was Dell and other manufacturers were donating computers and other hardware?

              Maybe so. But who is going to maintain all of it? Who is going to be administering the network? It's not going to run itself. And as more and more people get deluded into thinking it's free, the bandwidth requirements go up.

              Or do you really think people will vountarily limit their bandwidth usage for something that's "free"?

              Way I see it, its better than snarfing off your neighbors wireless

              Instead, you'll snarf off o
        • Because it will not, and can not, be free.
        Because technology is getting better, bandwidth and startup costs will always get cheaper and cheaper, so in the end it may as well be free.

        Think of cost as in 1/n, where n progresses towards infinity :)
      • It depends on your definition of free. If one pays $100 on insulating ones house and it save $200 in heating and air conditioning cost than I would say the insulation was more than free as it was a money maker. This will be the case with broadband as it will save more money in other expenses than it will cost.
        • But you know that what we're really talking about here would be (to extend your analogy), "The old paradigm is fading away, and soon the city will come and insulate your house for free."

          Which, even if they did, would not be "free," in the sense that people have to actually show up with materials and do it. And manage those people. And insure them. And pay for the dental insurance. Etc.

          Yes, it's possible for an investment to return more than what it cost (um, otherwise it's a "loss"). But the investmen
          • Yes, it's possible for an investment to return more than what it cost (um, otherwise it's a "loss"). But the investment requires, well, an investment. It's not "free" either. Even when more dollars eventually turn around to the investors, they had that captial (or time, or bloood and sweat - whatever was invested) tied up and unavailable to do other things. Still not free.

            You've lost me. Are you talking "free" to the city? To the consumers? To the companies that are installing it?

            Sure, there is an opp
    • Definately- but don't just think laptops/pcs on the web. Think of portable voip instead of cells, broadband radio in the car instead of XM etc etc etc. Wireless broadband is really going to change things- all the sudden we will have even more access to info everywhere....
    • Whenever you read about free wireless access, think free "basic" wireless access, which is likely to be slower than 1 Mbps. I don't expect people to be giving up their 5 Mbps cable modems any time soon. Low-end ISPs will certainly be impacted, though.

  • Been expecting this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:31AM (#13398417)
    This is kind of old news, Unwired have talked about this for a while. I'm an Unwired user in Sydney and I get awesome results, i've been able to use it across the span of 30km's.

    I heard about this a while ago I can't recite the source, but when I spoke to the Unwired consultants they said they were looking into this for sometime next year.

    The only benefit this will provide me as an existing customer of Unwired is hopefully better pricing, coverage in trouble spots and I would be able to use the service while roaming as opposed to having to log in everytime I change to a different suburb.

    That said we also have http://www.iburst.com.au/ [iburst.com.au] (iburst) who provide true roaming, but their plans are ridiculously expensive.

    What's more interesting news for me is the announcement Unwired recently made of a partnership with an Australian company called Engin http://www.engin.com.au/ [engin.com.au] who are an awesome VoIP provider (I also use).

    That does remind me, the only place I had trouble with reception using Unwired was in an apartment block 30+ floors up.

    -Sj53
    • The problem is 30K's dosn't go very far at all in country Australia, normall its 100k's between town's ( 1 fuel station + 1 pub = town) even further as you move west. So whats the use in testing it in major metropolitan areas were people already have DSL access. Most people in the bush are lucky to get 33.3K Dail-up on a good day, worse when it is raining :( Shouldn't they test it in the bush.....o thats right they wouldn't make as much money do that will they.

  • Do Pass Go and Collect $$$ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:32AM (#13398433)
    Unwired CEO David Spence said the investment will make WiMAX an absolutely mainstream technology. 'Unwired will be in the unique position of having access to the majority of the WiMAX-designated 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands in Australia's major metropolitan areas,' Spence said.'"

    Most monopolies do make whatever they touch a mainstream technology. Looks like competition will be scarce here however.

    • WiMAX is such cool technology but that is exactly the problem. If the license falls in to the hands of greedy assholes who charge you through the nose to access it ... like ... oh ... I don't know .... American cell phone companies ... its going to end up sucking. At that point the only thing in its favor is the infrastructure costs are fairly low which means either prices might be a bit lower or the greedy asshole's profit margins will be higher.

      WiMax is screaming out for cities to license it for their a
  • Does it frighten anyone else to know that Intel may be publicizing themselves as the brainchild of WiMAX?
    • Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Heinlein

      Nice Sig... reminds me of the quote:

      "Necessity is the mother of all invention. Laziness is the father."

  • In Australia or... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wetdirtmud ( 890895 )
    When the roll-out is complete, Unwired's service will be available to 66% of the population, Wallace said.

    I like how easily accessible Internet is becoming. I still know people that either can not afford it, or have it so slow that they don't use it.

    WiMax is a nice idea, but hopefully it won't be replaced or hacked right away. What about p2p over these networks? Will the speeds be evenly distributed between clients? You know people are going to try and leech/abuse their privalege
  • If these things cause cancer.
    Wait 5 years and see what happens to the Australian population.
    I mean Australia got like 20 million people, with 66% of the population covered that's over 13 million test subjects ;)
  • Hmm.. This sounds ideal for pen testing the laptop security of 66% of the AU population.

  • Clearwire (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Cowabunga ( 738559 )
    A nationwide wimax effort by Craig McCaw, and is being beta tested across the US at the moment. Starts at $30 a month, and completely portable (bring the modem with you). http://www.clearwire.com/ [clearwire.com]

  • Truly Machiavelian (Score:3, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:58AM (#13398695)
    Austrailia is where most of the smart Hong Kong money went when the British gave it up. Intel is essentially buying the top tier of the Asian market for chump change.

    Centrinos for everyone!!!

  • safer this way (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peter La Casse ( 3992 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @11:59AM (#13398702)
    Australia will become the world's testbed for WiMAX

    This is good news. If WiMAX turns people into zombies, the problem will be confined to Australia.

  • Aside from giving a bunch of lucky Australians access (and who knows how man 'roos :-) ) Why did Intel pick Australia? Was it something to do with the 3.5 GHz and 2.3 GHz licensed bands being availble there now and not in the US, or something else entirely?

    • Re:Why Australia? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ksheff ( 2406 )
      It's the flatest continent, so there shouldn't be a lot of line of sight issues and the remote cattle stations certainly would be users that would benefit from long distance wireless internet.

      • Re:Why Australia? (Score:3, Informative)

        by ColaMan ( 37550 )
        It's the flatest continent
        Except for the Great Dividing Range along the eastern coast, which is where about 3/4 of Australia's population lives. There's plenty of hills big enough to block line of sight anywhere in Australia - and the places where there isn't any hills, well, line of sight isn't far enough to get to the next outpost.

        the remote cattle stations certainly would be users that would benefit from long distance wireless internet.

        Except that this is *still* not long-distance enough. 100km is the d

    • Re:Why Australia? (Score:3, Informative)

      by imroy ( 755 )
      We're a big continent with relatively few people (just passed 20 million recently). So most wired technologies aren't economically feasable outside of the metropolitan centres. The only reason that the bush has any telephone service at all is because Telstra started as a government-owned company (Telecom Australia). Almost half of it has already been sold off (so it's still government controlled) and now it looks certain that the rest will be sold as well. There's been all sorts of promises about maintainin
      • A minor point, but Telstra started out life as a part of a government department (the department of the Post Master General). It was then split off in to it's own entity (Telecom Australia) which was renamed (Telstra), then partly sold off. I remember the old manhole covers with PMG on them.

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by Paides ( 597300 )
    They could have invested their money into wisconsin, which would be a much wiser investment, as wisconsin residents have almost no options for broadband, except for SBC... which doesnt even reach most people, and our stupid cable company (where I live), comcast, has been promising broadband for over 3 years now, with an actual deployment nowhere in sight, and will cost upwards of $55/month... yay.
    • You live in Manitowoc, no? I admit the broadband situation could be better around here. But comcast is offering fast 3mbs service now, and sbc is getting really cheap. On top of that, mercury.net's wireless service reaches most of the city, with 1.5 mbs for around $30...

      But yeah, LSOL sucks.
  • My experience with WiMAX is it doesn't work if you don't have LOS or NLOS. Our office is in the heart of a major city on the west coast where a popular DSL-provider is headquartered. Our WiMAX service had to be cancelled because of dropped frames at our location due to the "canyon effect" created by a street full of tall office towers. Apparently, that robs their other WiMAX customers of available bandwidth as their access point attempts to retransmit.

    If this is true I can't see WiMAX hitting critical ma
  • The tech could be delicate in a rugged geographic environment, otherwise they would have used the Worlds test-bed: New Zealand.

  • Canberra (Score:2, Funny)

    by Diablo1399 ( 859422 )
    Does Canberra count as a major metropolitan area? Oh please please please please please. . .
  • I would wonder why Intel are using Oz as a test. It wouldn't be in any way connected with their attempts to break Australia's CSIRO patents on WiFi technology [theinquirer.net] would it? Why test it in the US when they can muscle right in at the source of their legal case.

  • Got to love marketing. (Score:3, Informative)

    by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Thursday August 25, 2005 @07:15PM (#13402898)
    Down here in New Zealand i have been running on a generally available WiMax system for about 2 months now, and it have been available well before that.
    Guess I must have dreamed that.
    Nice strong 1Mbit/512Kbit (down/up) link at around 4Km from the transmitter on 3.5GHz.
    Only about 30% more expensive than wired ADSL broadband, which is not available here as we have fibre bearers out here in the country (go figure, Telecom wont install local DSLAMS).

    There are tons of these system rolled out over here, have been for quite some time.
  • Yet another service for places that already have multiple (or even one) affordable connectivity options. I wish they'd work on extending the range of DSL instead so that the rest of us aren't stuck with expensive ISDN.

Slashdot Top Deals

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Close