How Reliable is 900Mhz Wireless Internet? 67
amrust asks: "I live in an area that currently is not being served by broadband in any way. Local ISP's are discussing bringing Wireless Internet into our area, and for some of the more difficult to reach places, they have mentioned 900Mhz being used. I was wondering how reliable/secure the 900Mhz spectrum is for Wireless Internet, and if anybody has some comments on experiences with 900Mhz wireless internet that they can pass on?"
It's so reliable (Score:4, Funny)
Oops (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oops (Score:1)
Frequencies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frequencies (Score:1)
For the newer users, we have an example of an unsafe protocol [impawards.com].
Phone Frequency (Score:5, Informative)
However, you are in a rural area, so maybe the congestion on that band will be somewhat less (We live in a major metro area).
Re:Phone Frequency (Score:1, Insightful)
The world looks quite different when you're not quite so fresh out of diapers, so please go back to your Nintendo and leave the computers to the grown ups.
Re:Phone Frequency (Score:1)
We'd like to invite you to come try out for our forthcoming game show, Cordless Phone Jeopardy.
By any chance can you arrange transportation to Go-Fuck-Yourself, Indiana for tryouts on July 26th?
Re:Phone Frequency (Score:2)
Re:Phone Frequency (Score:2)
I would assume... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I would assume... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not 2400 million waves/sec it's 2400 million peaks per second on a single wave.
The major differnce is the depth to which the signals will penetrate, and their loss over distance.
Re:I would assume... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I would assume... (Score:3, Informative)
Instead, you are allowed to vary around 900 MHz. I think the standard 900 MHz is really 900 MHz to 914 MHz.
So 14 MHz is the WIDTH OF THE BAND, otherwise known as BANDWIDTH.
At any particular center frequency you can set a wide or narrow range around it.
I'm not even a ham or anything, come on guys I learned this by osmois somehow. You
Re:I would assume... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I would assume... (Score:3, Informative)
What?
<SARCASM>Wow! I can do morse code at only about 8wpm (which equates to about 40 baud) on 80M. Does that mean that I can do 856wpm on 70cm?
Sorry, but that's such an offensively ignorant statement from a member of a very technically-savvy group that I have to go off on it a bit. Frequency occupie
Re:I would assume... (Score:1)
Re:I would assume... (Score:2, Funny)
How do you spell ass u me? (Score:1)
frequency != bandwidth (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, as has been pointed out, frequency is not bandwidth.
Actually, it is possible to approach [google.com] the Shannon channel capacity the way you calculated it, but impossible in practice to achieve it. Technical possibility is not the same as theoretical maximum throughput.
Mod down for being misleading (Score:2)
Anway, the phones don
Re:I would assume... (Score:1)
Re:I would assume... (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason they are probably using 900 is for connection distance. The same equiptment will cover more users with probably less bandwidth, but that is a price to pay.
As someone else noted, security of the connection has nothing to do with the frequency, so just discuss that with the provider. As it is, still 80% of the wireless networks that I run into are even setup with WEP(mine is not, but I have other ways) and most are default settings, so if the provider even tries to put in some security, no one will bother with them unless they have a reason.
Enjoy!
Re:I would assume... (Score:4, Informative)
I believe this is due to the fact that to pass a signal through a medium, the particles in the medium must be excited to the same frequency as the signal, and it takes significantly less energy to excite a material at a lower frequency than it does at a higher one. Higher frequencies give higher fidelity, but are less resistant to signal loss.
Re:I would assume... (Score:1)
Re:I would assume... (Score:1)
It's perfectly secure (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:1, Informative)
But I'll bite.
First of all, its the 2.4Ghz range.
Second, security through obscruity is complete rubbish, 'no one other than you and the intended recipient will be able to read the message' is a load of, quite frankly, bollocks.
Mod this down.. no need to give trolls karma.
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:1)
To really ensure security, you should always assume that your neighbors, your local bank robbers, and the NSA are all snooping on you, and simply encrypt anything important.
No, to really ensure security, you should always assume that your neighbors, your local bank robbers, and the NSA are all snooping on you and they have your encryption key.
If it's that important, you shouldn't be transferring it over the internet at all.
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:1)
Right, but that kinda defeats the purpose of the question. ;-)
But yes, I do agree that crypto is nowhere near a bulletproof suggestion (literally, if you're talking DoS attacks). For it to be of any use, you still need basic smart computing practices: don't give out your passphrase, don't install a Trojan horse, keep your computer in a secure physical location, etc. But the fact of the matter is that just using SSL for
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:2)
Re:It's perfectly secure (Score:2)
What worries me more is that anyone with a pringles can and a wifi card can sniff the connection!
Try Google groups (Score:5, Informative)
900 mhz is just as good (Score:4, Informative)
Most WISP's use 900mhz where there is a substantial amount of tree cover. 900mhz can penetrate the tree canopy much easier than 2.4ghz because of the wavelength.
2.4ghz has a problem with dense water, and in tree leaves their is significant amount to cause multipath reflection. Multipath reflection is caused when the wavelength of any given radio signal is short enough to be relected by the water molecules.
At 900mhz the wavelength is much greater than 2.4ghz so it doesn't have as much difficulty.
Anecdotal (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway
If you only have one choice (or if you consider a normal dialup line a choice maybe 2) then that is definitely not a bad one. I think I would actually prefer my 2.4GHz ISP to offer 900MHz as an option. Instead they're switching to 5GHz for high-end use
Many types of "900mhz wireless" (Score:3, Informative)
I would recommend digging a little deeper to see what standards are being considered, then visiting this very informative page at IBM.com [ibm.com] pertaining to current and emerging wireless standards. Once you know the exact standard the ISP's are considering, you should be able to have your questions concerning security and reliability answered on the IBM link provided.
Totally different approach. (Score:4, Informative)
So, I've been looking at using 900MHz for some low bandwidth stuff. Primarily because 2.4GHz can be a PITA to deploy - near line of sight (over distance), trees, rain etc.
Anyway, it appears that the products available round 900MHz have taken a completely different, and much more "agricultural" approach to the problem. Basically they're 900MHz FM radios with a modem bolted on. No clever multipath resolution, no time division, no orthogonal frequency division (outside that which the modem does). Consequently the amount of bandwith available is about seven eigths of fuck all - a claimed 115Kbit (being the limit of the RS232 connectors they use) - with something rather worse being the practicality of situation.
Security is kinda interesting though. Quite a lot frequency hop across a range of channels within the spectrum. It appears that you need to get both radios, from the same manufacturer, and put them on the same hopping scheme before they'll talk.
Dave
Re:Totally different approach. (Score:2)
good and cheap (Score:4, Informative)
Urban environments have a fair amount of 900mhz interference, in a rural setting you are probably much better off. Heck, w/ all the 2.4ghz phones being sold I wonder if 900mhz is clearing up some.
There's a whole lot of cheap equipment around. I got 3 900mhz DEC Roamabout pcmcia nics for $12 (inc shipping). They are 2mbit and the linux driver worked perfectly.
Many houses have old directional antennas for UHF TV that aren't used anymore because of cable / satellite. I've found a fair amount of these range up to 900mhz. So maybe you've already got an installed antenna and cable run in your house. If not you probably know someone who has one they aren't using or can pick one up for cheap.
Re:good and cheap (Score:1)
-Jonathan
Re:good and cheap (Score:2)
Re:good and cheap (Score:2)
I'll be honest, I never worked with the Ricochet stuff. Right now, though, my company [mvn.net] (small local ISP, we also do wireless) does have some of the Waverider [waverider.com] 900MHz hardware deployed. We have FOUR customers using it, as opposed to several hundred using the 2.4GHz stuff. Heck, I'm about half a mile away from one of the Waverider CCUs (basically, their equivalent of an access point), and I have to deal with the competition [charter.com] for my broadband becau
Re:good and cheap (Score:1)
That's what Metricom/Ricochet used.. (Score:2, Interesting)
TechTV article about Metricom modems [techtv.com]
next
ISM (Score:4, Interesting)
The end result is that you should keep your expectations low. If it works, great, if not, try something else.
Re:ISM (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen to that, brother! As a part 47 user of 902-928 MHz, I have to deal with part 15 users noise. My local power company, Dominion Resources [dom.com] (aka VA Power) just installed some Schlumberger C1SR meters [goslb.com] in my area. They're the kind that transmit usage data on 910-920 MHz as a part 15C device. As far as I can tell, they broadcast their info every min or 5 min instead of being polled - aargh! My whole neighborhood now has lots of meters blasting away for 99 44/100% of the month when there's no meter reader truck around to hear them. I could be a nasty boy and demand their removal if they interfere with my part 47 use - we'll see how bad it really is after I get a chance to quantify the interference.
Of course, searching for manufacturer code F9C, product ID C1R-1 on the FCC Product ID Search page [fcc.gov] returns little useful info regarding the exact freqs and modulation techniques in use. They asked for and received confidential status on the most interesting bits. Ugh.
PS - The FCC product ID search page can return all sorts of useful info on any product with an FCC ID. For instance, the info on the electronic key for my car returns schematics, data format info, etc. Sweet!
I use my house to University! Restrict use, maybe? (Score:2, Interesting)
In China, we have ways of making sure wireless space becomes not over crowded. Crowded could be a big problem because of the population, billions of people! Only top academic, scientist and politican can use wirless networking in my city, because otherwise it'd be overcro
Re:I use my house to University! Restrict use, may (Score:1)
Thank you (Score:2)
I live in a broadband-less rural part of Canada lots of hills, forest, rabbits, etc. and 2.4 GHz probably would not stand a chance.
I'm currently with a 5.2 GHz WISP (Score:3, Interesting)
So while I can't comment on the 900 MHz band specifically, I can say that a WISP in general can be a good choice.
Don't need no steenkin' subject (Score:1)
People have addressed the differences of 900 Mhz fairly well, but I thought I'd chime on my experience with 2.4 Ghz
First, you will have to determine what you have in your house that is at 900 Mhz. I know all 4 of my cordless phones are 900 Mhz. I know this because I was having interference on my connection (40 percent packet loss) until I found the culprit. (the culprit was my X10 camera. We moved it to the new baby's room - we use it to check on the baby without opening the door - and the new nursery
My Experiance (Score:1)
My cordless phone does stop my net but all i had to do was press 1 button on the phone to change the channel... no big deal.
My latency is just as good as on cable.