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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

WiMax Technology Could Blanket the US? 249

Posted by Zonk from the that's-a-lot-of-aetheric-packets dept.
obiwan2u writes "According to an article on WiMaxTrends, the metropolitan area wireless networking technology (MLAN) called WiMax could reach 90% of the mainland US population if about $3 billion was spent on infrastructure. The 802.16 standard specifies a max range of about 30 miles and a max speed of about 70 Mbits/sec, but typical ranges and speeds will typically be smaller. 802.16/WiMax specifies various licensed (3.5Ghz) and unlicensed (5Ghz) frequency ranges but the unlicensed ranges have Wi-Fi like transmitting power restrictions. More background on this technology can be seen at: WiMax starting to make its move and 802.16: Medium distance wireless networking that could change the world?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WiMax Technology Could Blanket the US? More

WiMax Technology Could Blanket the US?

Comments Filter:

  • vested interest (Score:5, Funny)

    by gingerTabs ( 532664 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#11690332) Homepage
    So a Wimax group says that Wimax is the next great solution to all our wireless data worries. Who'd have thunk it...

  • 70 Mbps... total? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:43PM (#11690346)
    That means with many users, each user could end up with dial-up speeds. Correct?

    • Re:70 Mbps... total? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:00PM (#11690569) Homepage Journal
      I assume that 70Mbps is per channel. Add several sub channels and a web of towers and it could be substantial. As it is, ATSC allows a 20MBps connection over a single television channel, and it looks like WiMax is looking to make otherwise unused television bands easier to licence.

      Also, with internet service, I was told by an ISP guy that oversell ratios are often in the 50:1 ratio and it still nets very acceptable connection rates. You could probably sell 580 6Mbps accounts and still get the advertised speed. Multiply that by the number of channels available and you could serve a pretty substantial customer base.

      • Re:70 Mbps... total? (Score:4, Informative)

        by DevilM ( 191311 ) <devilm@ d e v i lm.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:27PM (#11690865) Homepage
        That is a half-duplex signaling rate. Actual throughput is much less. Plus there aren't a lot of channels to use. 5.8Ghz is unlicensed, so that will be used up quickly. 3.5Ghz isn't available for us in the US. 2.5Ghz is all owned by Sprint/Nextel, Bellsouth, and Clearwire. Of those 3, only 1 is even interested in WiMax and they have the least amount of spectrum.

        WiMax is only a big deal in developing countries currently.

        • Re:70 Mbps... total? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by anagama ( 611277 )
          So what you are saying, is that like any other broadband tech in the US, the big telecoms will thwart it as long as possible, perhaps until someone realizes that peasants in Ecuador can download movies in 15 seconds and everyone in the US is still on AOL dial-up.

          Still bitter I have only one choice for broadband - no competetion makes for a high cost for me.

        • Do you know how many channels are available in the 5.8GHz band? I hope it is more than the three non-overlapping bands in .11b/g. I hear .11a has eight non-overlapping channels, which is an improvement but unfortunately isn't widely used.

    • Re:70 Mbps... total? (Score:3, Informative)

      by N7DR ( 536428 )
      That means with many users, each user could end up with dial-up speeds. Correct?

      On average, yes. But the typical cable modem connection in the US also offers somewhat less than dial-up speed. If every user tried to access the Internet at exactly the same time, they would receive between 40 and 50 kbps service, depending on which cable provider they used. Of course, due to the magic of stat muxing, this never happens, and people are (mostly) very happy with their multi-megabps download speeds. (DSL, of

      • But the typical cable modem connection in the US also offers somewhat less than dial-up speed.

        BS. Cable around 40 KBps (Bytes per second) versus dial-up of 40 Kbps (Bits per second).

        Even if your cable is busy in the evening, it's still much better than dial-up.

        • Re:70 Mbps... total? (Score:3, Informative)

          by wembley ( 81899 )
          Even if your cable is busy in the evening, it's still much better than dial-up.

          Probably.

          However, the upload speed on cable is bad, and hurts roundtrip latency.
          So you can download a movie trailer superquick, but sending the clicks out to Amazon to get to the trailer may be kind of poky.

          For example, on World of Warcraft, with my RADSL 1.5/768Mbps, I get a latency of 26ms. People on cable modems of 3+ Mbps often report a latency of 5 times mine.

  • AOL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by strateego ( 598207 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:44PM (#11690349)
    AOL and MSN would fight this tooth and nail.

    Plus, could this handle millions of people connecting?

    • Re:AOL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LewsTherinKinslayer ( 817418 )
      Plus, could this handle millions of people connecting?

      With a theoretical range of 30 miles, this would be great for areas like Kansas. Low population density; gives a chance for people who are out there to still have a decent connection.

      • I doubt that 90% (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rick the Red ( 307103 )
        I really doubt anyone can ever reach 90% of the USA's population with ground-based antennas. TV can't do it. Radio can't do it. Cell phones can't do it. Why should these guys be able to do it?

        I live within 30 miles of a major metropolitan area, but I won't get a signal here. How do I know? Because I'm behind a hill. I don't get broatcast TV signals or cell phone signals here, either, and radio is somewhat of a crapshoot.

    • Re:AOL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) *
      AOL and MSN would fight this tooth and nail.

      Why? Working for AT&T@Home and ATTBI before Comcast took over plenty of people were connecting to AOL over their broadband connections.

      AOL has people thinking that they *need* their custom content. I don't see why they would fight this? They could get rid of some banks of modems and just allow people to use WiMAX to connect.
      • Like my parents. A while back we switched from AOL to a local dial-up ISP. My dad didn't understand the difference between a web browser and an ISP, and at first thought that we had to pay AOL and the ISP.

    • Re:AOL (Score:2, Interesting)

      by madaxe42 ( 690151 )
      This, in spite of the clear pecuniary advantages, would never take off in the UK. The reason? Joe Bloggs - the degree of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome in this country is phenomenal - people object to mobile phone masts 2 miles away, because they're putting out evil rays which make you die - they put wireless companies under more and more pressure until they're forced by court writ to remove the mast, and, guess what, people complain that their phones don't work any more. Fucking idiots.

      Also, what's
    • Phone and Cable companies are now the new Luddites(google it).

      They are obstructionists of new technology.

      They don't want anyone messing around in their guaranteed profits.

      Cable broadband = 200-300k sec downloads ? LOL . What theft ! Broadband should only be mentioned with fiber to the home. FTTH(google)
    • Why would they fight it? They would most likely just make a deal with the provider much as Yahoo does with a DSL provider. While this is all very interesting and cool in major cities you will still get more bandwidth from fiber than from a wireless connection.
      Great for rural areas.

  • mlan? (Score:4, Informative)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:44PM (#11690358)
    I thought mlan was something else [mlancentral.com]...

  • Typical (Score:5, Funny)

    by beekr ( 561659 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:46PM (#11690372)
    but typical ranges and speeds will typically be smaller.

    Sounds typical.

  • sweet! (Score:2, Funny)

    by de1orean ( 851146 )
    now where did i put that $3 billion....

  • First... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#11690387) Homepage Journal
    Metropolitan Area Network is a MAN. "M" is a much greater scope then "L". M and L don't seem to fit together as being considered the same network.

    "metropolitan area wireless networking" could be wireless metropolitan area network, being WMAN.

    I can't think of something off hand to add an "O". Oh well.

  • It will be a welcome change from the jingoism and neo-conservative hate-mongering that is currently blanketing the US.

    • Re:A welcome change (Score:5, Funny)

      by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:05PM (#11690623) Homepage Journal
      It will be a welcome change from the jingoism and neo-conservative hate-mongering that is currently blanketing the US.

      Maybe you could use it to transmit data? If you hooked up, say, your average Bush voter to a blood-pressure machine and then had someone several miles away talk about how bad the war in Iraq was, I'm sure you'd see a spike on the graph. By using carefully timed conversations and statistical analysis, you should be able to get at least some bandwidth.

      The problem would be isolating the signal from the noise. A passing planeload of French tourists would produce so much interference that you'd probably have to give up and resend. And if a Michael Moore film was shown in the same state, you'd probably burn out your surge protectors...

  • some thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DevilM ( 191311 ) <devilm@ d e v i lm.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:47PM (#11690394) Homepage
    I believe the 70Mbps is half-duplex, so we are only really talking 35Mbps. Further, if you calculate the square mile coverage for a signal that has a 30 mile radius you will see that 35Mbps shared is really going to suck.

    • Re:some thoughts (Score:4, Informative)

      by kakos ( 610660 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:54PM (#11690490)
      That's true if you're always uploading just as much as you download. The vast majority of people will be mostly downloading, so the half-duplex won't half the speed.

    • Re:some thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      It is true that the claimed wireless bitrates never stack against the real bitrates, I think it is a bit much to assume ISPs will ever allow full rate uploads on consumer internet connections.

      Also, 70Mbps is probably the total for a single channel. Add multiple channels and several towers and you can probably serve a medium to high density city.

    • Re:some thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by homer_ca ( 144738 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:48PM (#11691126)
      That 30 mi range is the max over open terrain. With buildings and hills it'll be a lot less. So a 30 mi radius in a rural area with 35Mbps shared isn't so bad. Also, in a city you could always have more cells with lower power to give more capacity.

  • From the editorial desk... (Score:5, Funny)

    by yossarian dent ( 828672 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:48PM (#11690395) Homepage
    ...typical ranges and speeds will typically be smaller.

    In other news, redundancy and saying the same thing twice will not be tolerated or put up with.

  • So many things COULD happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:49PM (#11690404) Journal
    We have to take this article with a grain of salt. First off, the article is put out by WiMax Trends. Of course they're going to say that. It's like Microsoft saying they rock and the world depends on their software. Second, there are a lot of trends that COULD happen...broadband over powerlines for example. While this is a rather cool wireless application, let's not all be getting all giddy just yet.
    • Indeed, it's certainly not time to get giddy just yet.

      From the "about the author" blurb at the bottom of the article:

      "Caroline Gabriel is Research Director of Rethink Research Associates and Editor of WiMAX Watch, a newsletter providing in-depth analysisof the WiMAX market. She is a featured columnist for Trendsmedia's WiMAX Trends, and is a leading industry analyst on wireless and wireless broadband technologies. She recently authored WiMAX Business Models 2004-2007: How to Make Money in WiMAX, publis

  • WiMax is here already.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by glomph ( 2644 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:50PM (#11690424) Homepage Journal
    Where here [clearwire.com] is Jacksonville FL,
    St Cloud MN,
    Abilene TX,
    Daytona Beach FL....

  • Make it public! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by utexaspunk ( 527541 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:51PM (#11690456)
    Screw Iraq, or a tax cut, or whatever bullshit subsidy the government wants to spend my money on- we should have this. Now! A $3bn investment in a free, public, high-speed wireless internet infrastructure would repay itself by stimulating all sorts of economic growth in a very short amount of time. Naturally, that means it'll never happen... It'll only get built by a large corporation that will charge us out the asses for it and provide spotty service. Woohoo! Maybe the EU'll do it... It'll certainly benefit places that are further behind in their infrastructure by helping them get past the last mile problem...
    • An $X billion dollar investment in a free, public Y would repay itself by stimulating all sorts of economic growth in a very short period of time. See that's all the economic knowledge it takes to be a central planner. I hear the Communist Party is looking for some! Congratulations.

    • Re:Make it public! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by greenegg77 ( 718749 )

      Don't worry - if the government runs it, you'll still get charged out the ass for it, only they'll charge everybody out the ass, not just those who use it.

      Since I live out in the country, and probably fall into the 10% who won't receive coverage, I'll get to pay out the ass for a service that I use, but I'll also get taxed out the ass for a service that I don't use! What a bargain! C'mon, I really don't want to fund yet another program that I won't get to receive benefits from, like Social Security.

    • "A $3bn investment in a free, public, high-speed wireless internet infrastructure..."

      Way to contradict your own argument in one sentence.

    • Yeah, this will wind up getting done by one of those huge, money grubbing corporations. Then they'll rip us off and provide shitty service. It will be the complete opposite of the streamlined, well-oiled machine the government would produce. . . puhleeze. The government needs to stay out of the ISP business , and stick to providing basic necessities.

    • Re:Make it public! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BigZaphod ( 12942 )
      Hang on... If you give something like this away, does that really promote economic growth? I mean... you'd effectively kill almost all the other wireless providers out there who create jobs and tax income for the government and replace it with a system that just costs the government (and by extension, us people) money. That doesn't seem like it'd help, really. If a private company did this, then you'd have that company paying taxes and hiring people along with all the other competing companies. That's

      • Re:Make it public! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by utexaspunk ( 527541 )
        It's hard to say if it would be a net good or bad thing, really- on the one hand, those employed by present ISPs will be out of jobs, but then the government would need people to build and operate their network.

        A corporation is going to always charge as much as the market will bear. Once the infrastructure is built, it would only be necessary to maintain it, which would mean that the amount of our taxes going to wireless internet infrastructure mantenance should be less than what we would be paying a for-p
      • The main point of infrastructure isn't the jobs created by building the infrastructure, it's all the new business enabled by the functionality of the infrastructure.

        If we decided to let our freeways fall into disrepair, sure, a few freeway construction workers would lose their jobs, but the real crippling effect on the economy would be the skyrocketing cost of transporting things, which would hit every industry hard.

  • 30 mile range! (Score:4, Funny)

    by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:53PM (#11690478)
    I should get this for my apartment. My 802.11g doesn't work 40 feet. (I'm serious, I tried to log on this morning and I had no signal. I can see the laptop from here, right next to the router.)
    • I should get this for my apartment. My 802.11g doesn't work 40 feet. (I'm serious, I tried to log on this morning and I had no signal. I can see the laptop from here, right next to the router.)

      You have an apt. with a 40 ft. long living room?

      Is this in North Dakota or something?

  • 802.xx variants (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chris Kamel ( 813292 )
    Haven't we seen enough already of 802.xx hoopla? Isn't it about time someone sits down and make just one good, usable, and extensible standard?

  • Wishfull thinking? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bartok ( 111886 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @12:55PM (#11690511)
    If this technology becomes affordable enough, it's gonna be the death of mobile phone telcos. Everybody and their mother (with a little capital) would be able to deliver cell phone services in a metropolitan area. The cell phone line could become the new broadband modem at the fraqction of the cost of any type of landline technology. The possibilities are endless.
    • Don't count on it. Phone services are expensive because they are heavily regulated and heavily taxed. When the gov't starts losing tons of tax revenue because people are switching off of regular phones, they'll just heavily tax and regulate whatever comes along to replace those phones.
      • Yeah but voip isn't. What's your point?
    • Sounds like you haven't seen a WiMax radio, which is much larger than a cell phone. (People are talking about mobile WiMax, but it's vaporware.)

  • One problem (Score:2, Redundant)

    by geneing ( 756949 )
    You'll be sharing those 70 Mbits/sec with the people in the 30 mile radius.

  • Who published? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:02PM (#11690591) Homepage
    You know, whenever I see a study that makes some very broad sweeping claims about how successful something will be, I always look at who the source is. In this case, here's the copy/pasted "About the Author" from the bottom of the article. Bold emphasis is mine.

    " About the Author: Caroline Gabriel is Research Director of Rethink Research Associates and Editor of WiMAX Watch, a newsletter providing in-depth analysis of the WiMAX market. She is a featured columnist for Trendsmedia's WiMAX Trends, and is a leading industry analyst on wireless and wireless broadband technologies. She recently authored WiMAX Business Models 2004-2007: How to Make Money in WiMAX, published in the US/Canada by Trendsmedia. For further information, email info@trendsmedia.com"

    • Good point. If she wrote a book about it, she must know a lot about what she's written here.

      What's wierd is that it almost seemed like you were trying to be critical...
      • I'm not trying to shoot her down, I just want people to be educated about these things. I'm in advertising/marketing and these kinds of things happen to stick out to me a LOT. I pick up on them very easily, but I know that not everybody does.

        Being able to spot that kind of stuff and factoring that into your decision making process when you're trying to decide if a source is credible is an invaluable skill for life, especially in the business world.

        I'm not doubting that she knows what she's talking about.

  • 70 Mbps, not more? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uss_valiant ( 760602 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:03PM (#11690593) Homepage
    I didn't read up all the 802.16?.? stuff, working groups etc., but why are they considering a high data rate standard with just 70 Mbps max?
    I mean, we built a 216 Mbps (480 Mbps raw data rate) MIMO-OFDM SoC (+/-802.11a compliant) at the university. 216 Mbps is nothing special for next generation, > x Gbps have been achieved. But our System on a Chip (SoC) seemed to be a low cost solution.
    Did anyone read all the workin group notes? Are multiple antennas only considered at the basestation?

  • Mark C. Stephens, aka, Robert X. Cringely, had an interesting article [pbs.org] about this topic a few months ago.

  • What about 3G? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OlivierB ( 709839 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:04PM (#11690618)
    Guess the cell phone operators who spent all the billions just 3 years ago must be about to enter headless chicken mode.

    They spent more than just for the *LICENSE* than what is required for deployment. Check this out for yourself http://www.cellular-news.com/3G/
    Licenses are typically upwards of $4 billion dollars.
    Carriers have to spend EXTRA for the deployment.

    Ok, I know some of you will say that 3G is not exactly the same as Wi-Max (especially with regards to handing-overs). But a wi0fi voip will work just enough for me to use especially if the calls are unlimited and free.

    Heads should start rolling just about now...

    • Re:What about 3G? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jilles ( 20976 )
      I doubt it, unlike the IEEE wireless standards, 3G networks are actually designed to scale up to country wide coverage while providing access to hundreds/thousands of users per node rather than a few dozen at most.

    • No, the WiMax companies will simply be bought by Verizon and T-Mobile, and true broadband (you know, like with symmetrical speeds in excess of 1Mbps, no server restrictions and static IPs?) will continue to be coming "real soon now."

    • Re:What about 3G? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nchip ( 28683 )
      They spent more than just for the *LICENSE* than what is required for deployment.

      Well, wimax requires a *LICENSE* as well, unless you plan to run it on unlicensed band with all wavelan users and limited transmission powers... It is however likely, that operators will not initiate as insane frequency bidding competitions a second time. However, that has nothing to do with the superiority or suckiness of either tech.

      But a wi0fi voip will work just enough for me to use especially if the calls are unlimited
  • I for one do not welcome our new microwave overloads!
    In my town, nobody wanted cell towers. Quest sued us just to put up one tower and the south end of town still has crappy coverage for cell phones. Yes, our town is quite rural, a hold-out against developers who want to pack the hills with developments. WE F***ING WANT IT THAT WAY! I think TFA is addressed to urban folk and technology-steeped youngsters who wouldn't even understand that they are crambing down our throats something that is a solution t

  • Great...if you have no trees (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:06PM (#11690639)
    LMDS and MMDS never managed to solve the propagation problem. Tree leaves are amazingly good at stopping high frequency RF signals--they hold a lot of water during the spring and summer months. WiMAX for all its great technology does not have an answer for this. In fact it is likely to face MORE propagation problems than earlier fixed wireless attempts because it operates at much higher frequencies.

    Yes, WiMAX has OFDM, which is great for urban environments because it handles multipath (bounces) well. But trees don't bounce; they absorb.

    WiMAX will certainly find success in many environments. Urban is one. Desert is another (American southwest). Far north is another. Many of the currently profitable fixed wireless installations are in the desert or far north, where there is little tall vegetation to eat the signal.

    But in places like rural or suburban Mid-Atlantic, southeast, and New England--places with a lot of deciduous trees--expect the ranges and speeds to be far below predicted, with service "shadows" depending on your exact location.
  • WiFi is still an evolving technology. Over time new standards are being developed, and speeds are increasing.

    Wired ethernet is also still improving, but it has hit a point where the existing standard is fairly solid.

    Given this, and the very real possibility of security/interference/etc issues with WiFi, I think that building a large infastructure around it is a bit premature. Internet isn't a necesary service, and offices can generally afford to pay for their own. Having the gov't etc pay out billions f
  • Now they're going to start poisoning the 5ghz bands. Nothing like pissing on your neighbor's lawn.

  • Awesome! (Score:2, Funny)

    by crunk ( 844923 )
    This technology, in addition to radio, television, cellular, CB, satellite, and microwaves, we should be able to drastically reduce the cancer rate in this country.
  • the article fails to specify how well WiMax penetrates building in a density populated urban setting. If it's poor, carriers will have to spend much much more to get indoor or underground reception. 3 billion is an ideological figure.
  • Let's see, $3 billion is about 5% of Microsoft's bank account. Hey, we can afford that, it's a drop in the bucket. Doesn't look good to have all that cash sitting there doing nothing anyway. So for that we'll get 90% of the population covered. Now, we'll make it free for a couple of years until all the regular ISP's die of starvation... Yeah, three years should do it...

    Damn those antitrust laws... There has to be a loophole, this is just too good... hehehe... Get daddy on the phone!

  • That's like saying that one cell-tower can cover a whole downtown area. While technically true, potential concurrent users in any major metro area would demand significant and overlapping and redundant coverage. To cover 90% of the US population you are talking about only urban areas, magnifying the problem.

    This figure also doesn't include spectrum licensing. Any telecom could swing 3 Bil if that were the true costs.

  • Metro WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:00PM (#11692061) Journal
    Teligent spent $1.3bn in a year building its network but only signed up 35,500 customers by the time it filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

    One of the biggest problems I have with government subsidized wireless access is the misconception that it can be done with minimal cost to taxpayers.

    If it hasn't been done by the market yet, then it most likely cannot be done till you have the right market. Trying to push "free" wireless on people who will be paying the tax for it, and may or may not have access, is a pain. Especially if the people paying for it get tired of latency issues or cannot access it and have to keep paying for their already overpriced cable/dsl.

    I also find it VERY interesting that this individual claims it will only cost $3 billion to cover 90% of the US. I'm assuming she means population, and I'd like to figure she gets to that number at $100,000 per zipcode (approximately 9,000+ zipcodes). That's $900 million for just the equipment. Half assets, 450 million, is for energy to keep them going. Double assets, $1.8 billion, is for employment to upkeep, handle network issues, etc. This estimate does not consider upgrades, maintenance, raises, or energy conservation. It's likely to need continual re-evaluation.

    3 billion dollars paid for by 130 million taxpayers? (IRS estimates 130 million income taxes were filed in 2003) That's $23.07 per taxpayer, per year, regardless of whether you end up getting service or not. And regardless of the uptime or latency of said service. Sounds great, right? Ask the French about their "videophones".

    I can see something like this working in Korea, but not the US.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close