Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Communications Hardware

Idaho Companies Tout New Wireless Record 146

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the can-i-get-a-witness dept.
pavelvp writes "A small wireless Internet service provider in Idaho and a wireless equipment start-up claim to have set a new record for transmitting data across a wireless link this week. Microserv Computer Technologies, based in Idaho Falls, and Trango Broadband Wireless, a fixed-wireless broadband equipment maker, announced that they transmitted data over unlicensed wireless spectrum 137.2 miles." This unverified record would beat the previous record holders from the DefCon WiFi Shootout covered earlier on Slashdot.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Idaho Companies Tout New Wireless Record More

Idaho Companies Tout New Wireless Record

Comments Filter:
  • Did the equipment include any Idaho Potato Batteries (tm) [miniscience.com]?
    • Not sure, but I do believe they ran the tests on Spud Servers. [totl.net]
    • I have to say having experienced Microservs broadband links I'm not impressed. The mileage of the connection is impressive however their service routinely sucks. Dropped coonnections, low uptime, high prices for slow speeds.They have good latency when it actually works properly though :). Qwest DSL or CableOne has Microserv beat all hollow. Even the local Teton Wireless internet kicks their ass. But Teton wireless does have some pretty impressive speeds for a long range wireless link (I've seen it get as

  • Been there. Done that. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moonwick ( 6444 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:52PM (#13342042) Homepage
    Uhh, I'm pretty sure voyager 1 has the record for data transmission across a wireless link.

    • Re:Been there. Done that. (Score:2, Informative)

      by nxtr ( 813179 )
      That's on a liscenced frequency, you insensitive clod!
    • You title a post "Been there. Done that." then you talk about Voyager? You really are well travelled.

      Aside from that... what spectrum did Voyager use, was it unlicensed?

      ...announced that they transmitted data over unlicensed wireless spectrum 137.2 miles

      • Re:Been there. Done that. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by NorbMan ( 829255 ) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:03PM (#13342153) Journal

        It could be argued that there is no current body with the authority to license spectrum outside of Earth.

        Unless the FCC claims the whole of our solar system in it's domain.

      • Re:Been there. Done that. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grozzie2 ( 698656 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:23PM (#13342319)
        Licensing is just a silly artifact of local regulatory requirements. Yes, voyager was unlicensed, nobody on earth has the jurasdiction to claim ownership of the spectrum out where it is. On the recieving end, no license is required to recieve the signal, and even if it was, there's plenty of places on this planet where nobody has jurasdiction to regulate such things. It's trivial to put an hf link on a couple of boats, set em half way around the world from each other, in the open ocean, and claim 'unlicensed', and actually get reliable communications. Since they are on the high seas, there is no regulatory body with jurasdiction, and they can use whatever spectrum they want, however they want.

        This whole business of 'records' for wireless transmissions is just so silly, a game of 'mine is bigger than yours'. Until these folks are actually communicating with stuff that's farther from this planet than geostationary orbit, then, there's already plenty of folks communicating without wires, over distances far greater than 137 miles, as part of normal everyday operations, so common in fact, nobody thinks twice about it. For one off custom setups, well, there's a couple of little robots traversing around mars that do it daily. For highly specialized 'record breaking' stuff, look out to cassini and beyond.

        • Since they are on the high seas, there is no regulatory body with jurasdiction, and they can use whatever spectrum they want, however they want.
          This is true. However, there is also no regulatory body to protect them. The 200 mile international limit includes the provision that ships can exercise flag state jurisdiction in cases of piracy or slavery outside their waters; one could pay a country with a navy to protect oneself.
          • Well, maybe you need to feel 'protected'. When I go sailing, I kind of enjoy the freedom of being 500 miles offshore, and slave to nobody's rules. There's also a significant number of islands one can sail up to, which have similar circumstances. You can toss the anchor, row the dingy ashore, and experience what real 'freedom' is all about.

            Then again, you could choose to live your life scared to death that 'pirates' may take over your little boat world, and go hide under uncle sam's skirt to prevent it.

          • You're talking rubbish. If your boat is US registered they certainly can and do regulate your use of spectrum in International Waters.

            http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/io/ma ritime.html [arrl.org]
      • At least the ground stations. Of all the spectrum out there the space communications bands are heavily gaurded - you don't want your new billion-dollar sat sent crashing to earth because of some yahoo's CB.

        From: http://pds-rings.seti.org/voyager/datasets/rss/vg1 sinst.html [seti.org]

        The spacecraft radio system was constructed around a redundant
        pair of transponders. Each transponder was equipped with an

  • Doesn't it have to be 802.11x? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by utopianfiat ( 774016 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:53PM (#13342049) Journal
    I was under the impression that the record reflected everything on the 802.11x band, not any wireless transmission.
    In this case, technically NASA would win by sending wireless info from sattelites. :/
    Maybe I'm just not RingTFA correctly.
    • Screw satellites, try the Voyager or Pioneer spacecraft. They did, and in the case of Voyager 1 and 2, still are transmitting from beyond Pluto.

      Glanced over the article, sounds like this new startup is basically trying to sell their product.

      • Glanced over the article, sounds like this new startup is basically trying to sell their product.

        Indeed, and it sounds like slashdot editors aren't doing their job.
        Guess who's setting ScuttleMonkey to foe and setting a -5 penalty...

        ScuttleMonkey (55) is all alone in the world. I wonder why.
    • It's transmission within the 2.4ghz range which makes it impressive, not just that it's a "wireless transmission".
      • I don't get it... what is impressive about transmitting in the 2.4 GHz range?
        This may have been a feat 4 decades ago, but today the parts to construct a transmitter operating in that range are commodity. Shown by the fact that anyone can buy a digital wireless transmission system for under 200 dollars.

        • I don't get it... what is impressive about transmitting in the 2.4 GHz range?

          People have talked with people all the way across the world with 5 watts of power. But that's on the HF bands -- 2.4 GHz is strictly line of sight, so it's difficult to make really long connections.

          Also, the power is limited to something like 0.250 watts, though it's certainly possible to talk with somebody many thousands of miles away with only 0.250 watts -- but again, on the HF bads.

          • You forget that they used 2ft dish antennas. An antenna like this would have about 20dB of gain. That amplifies the 0.25 watts to 25 watts!
            And, it also amplifies the received signal by the same amount.
            When compared with an HF bands signal transmitted by a typical dipole antenna, you would have the equivalent of about 1000 watts of power, assuming a setup like shown in the picture is used at both ends.
            Of course you need line-of-sight, but the station apparently sits on a hilltop.

            When comparing HF to SHF, p

            • about 20dB of gain. That amplifies the 0.25 watts to 25 watts!

              Not exactly.

              What it does is aim the signal very precisely, but the same amount of signal is still transmitted. A few miles away, if the antenna is pointed right at you, the signal is as strong as if there was a 25 watt transmitter with an isotropic antenna, but ultimately there's still only 0.25 watts.

              Let me make that more clear ... high gain antennas do not amplify the signal one bit. They just aim it all very precisely in one dire

              • You are just nitpicking.
                In your original post you are showing ignorance about effective radiated power by talking about "just 0.25 watts", making me try to explain that issue to the layman, and then you suddenly creep out under the cover and claim you are an extra class amateur radio operator. In that case you should have known that communication over thousands of kilometers have been made on 2.4 GHz and your claim about the power being too low is totally irrelevant.

                Before turning down my calculation you s

                • "just 0.25 watts"

                  I never said "just 0.25 watts". If you're going to quote me, quote me. Don't just put stuff into quotes and pretend I said it.

                  making me try to explain that issue to the layman

                  Making you muddy the water further for the layman, you mean. Your post said the antenna amplified the signal which is flat out wrong. Simplifying things is fine, but you went too far. You may call it nitpicking, I call it being accurate.

                  your claim about the power being too low is totally irrelevant.

                  • You don't understand antenna gain and EIRP.
                    Discussion closed.

                    • You don't understand antenna gain and EIRP. Discussion closed.

                      I feel that I understand it fine. I even feel that I've explained it reasonably well, more accurately than you have anyways. I'd accept that maybe I didn't simplify antenna gain enough for the layperson, but that I don't understand the general gist of it? No.

                      If you really want the discussion to be `closed', then you'll need to point out exactly where I'm wrong in a convincing manner. Citations from subject matter experts are often ver

  • Proprietary != Better (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NorbMan ( 829255 ) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:53PM (#13342050) Journal
    From TFA:
    "What sets apart the 125-mile record set at the Defcon Wifi Shootout Contest is that it was subject to a strict verification and certification process administered by four independent judges."

    That, and the fact that the Defcon record was set using standard 802.11b radios rather than proprietary technology, and that the proprietary technology only beat Wi-Fi by 12.2 miles.


    • And the only reason the Defcon guys didn't get 145 miles was that they couldn't reach the proper position to set up their equipment. The road ended two miles too soon and they didn't get the altitude they needed.

      This story is a marketing stunt, nothing more.
    • My understanding was that, for stunts like distance records and endurance, Guinness required a 10% improvement before the record was officially considered broken. If that's the case, then these people were just a little bit short of officially breaking the record.

      (( oh, yeah, the DefCon records, besides strict verification, also have strict time limits. If the DefCon team didn't have time limits, they might have been able to tramp their way up the mountain to get the 144Mi record. If these guys want to b

  • And nothing gets put in this book (i probably spelled it wrong) unless it is verified by one of their reps. Since I really don't care for the guiness book of records, I would settle for an independent third-party verification.

    If they did do this - way to go. Hopefully it is a stable signal and not a flaky one.
    • Hoaxing a world record in wireless transfer to get free publicity on slashdot?

      Brilliant!
    • It's spelled like the beer, cause those are the people that started it. They did it to try and curb bar fights over useless statistics.
      • From what I recall, it seemed to work in the local taverns. Of course, it really doesn't matter who wins an argument as long as a round of Guinness is to be shared. Long live ireland (and it's wonderful beers)

  • The Defcon records... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis@@@ubasics...com> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:54PM (#13342061) Homepage Journal
    Note that Defcon has records for unamplified long distance links.

    -Adam
    • Note that Defcon has records for unamplified long distance links on the 802.11x band.

      Apparently this seems to be the general first post consensus: This isn't news, this is a fucking publicity stunt.
    • OK, FCC still regulates the amount of power that can be transmitted within the 2.4 and 5.8GHz region. Therefore, even using a proprietary protocol, they can only transmit at the same power level as say the 802.11x protocol can.

      Add this to the fact that they only used 2-foot dishes whereas the DefCon people used 12-foot satellite dishes... sure, the DefCon wins the coolness factor of homemade surplus parts, but the MicroServ people should be given credit where it is due.

  • I for one welcome our new wireless overlords... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LuciferBlack ( 905438 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:55PM (#13342077)
    Okay it's unverified, but that's a good distance if it is indeed true. :) But it begs the question - "How are we going to secure a wireless area that large if there's issues with smaller coverages?" What is the benefit of an area that large if they select who has access to the network? Any ideas on how they'd regulate people just hopping on the signal?

  • Competition for cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thc69 ( 98798 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:55PM (#13342078) Homepage Journal
    Maybe this sort of thing can compete with cable for rural broadband...DSL doesn't go to my house.

    Too bad somebody beat me to the potato battery joke.
    • Fear not! This is /. and this article will be duped no less than three times giving you ample oppurtunity to post a battery tater joke!
    • Hell, I'd like to see it used for urban broadband. It would be nice to have an alternative to the cable monopoly and/or the phone monopoly. Not to mention, it would probably be faster. It's hard to get too excited about long-range wireless internet until some company actually starts selling service.
    • This sort of thing does work for rural broadband. Right now, a couple hundred dollars in equipment gets customers hooked up to the company I work for. 512-768K up and down for $39.95 per month. Not as cheap as DSL, but as cheap as cable and definately better than satellite. Plus, people can actually use it for VPN.

  • Apples & Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gclef ( 96311 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:55PM (#13342079)
    DefCon: unamplified 802.11b; 11Mbps link; judges present & claim verified.

    These guys: closed, proprietary protocol; 2.3Mbps link; no one around to verify facts.

    As far as I'm concerned, the DefCon claim holds.

  • Another record (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @03:58PM (#13342102) Homepage Journal
    They now also hold the record for the biggest and most obnoxious ad at the top of their webpage.

  • Hometown (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kallx ( 908376 )
    At least one good thing came out of my hometown. Now if they can just make wireless recivers less than $600 dollars they may have something.
  • as it is a free advertisement/coming out party for some product they are testing and hoping to bring to market. Nothing to see here, move along.

  • Laser WiFi? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:07PM (#13342188) Homepage Journal
    All these long-distance radio records are being set with antennas attenuating all the signal into a (directional) narrow cylinder, rather than an (omnidirectional) sphere. What kind of performance could we get if we used a "radio laser", of coherent light in the 2.4GHz band, collimated into a long needle? Could we get transcontinental beams? Is it especially hard to make lasers in that band, and to modulate them for the WiFi signal? Is there a lot of latency, as the light bounces around in its resonant cavity before emerging coherent and pumped up to useable power? Couldn't we just modulate the "raw" laser as it was leaving the cavity?

    • Re:Laser WiFi? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Could we get transcontinental beams?

      The earth is not flat.

    • Re:Laser WiFi? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In short: No.

      Light would be scattered and attenuated even faster than the radio signal by everything from dust to water vapor. and things like Earth tides would throw off your alignment continously. the amount of power and focusing needed would be astronomical to carry a signal that far.

      lasers work great when you can waveguide them in a controlled medium (ie fiber optics) but then we're back to being wired.

    • Re:Laser WiFi? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by forand ( 530402 )
      Who is moding this interesting? Come on people, as someone in replied already THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT. You can go about 12 miles before the curvature of the earth stops you from having line of sight. "Lasers", as you say, using radio frequencies are traditionally called Masers but operate at higher frequencies than radio(Microwave), it is very difficult if not impossible to create a radio frequency coherent source since the size of the emitting region needs to be rather large and completly uniform on a very
      • People have been making masers [wikipedia.org] since the early 1950s, even before lasers. WiFi is in the 2.4GHz and 5GHz subbands of the microwave band. So your criticism, while slightly interesting, is false.

        It is true that the earth is curved. So what? So we bounce a WiFi laser off a satellite, and back down to the ground. 2.4GHz is also absorbed by atmospheric water, but we can choose other bands. So what? Isn't that an interesting problem? What passes for interesting to you? You always reply to uninteresting posts?
    • Could we get transcontinental beams?


      In 1491, we totally could. But that f'n Columbus guy went and messed everything up.
    • First of all: the term you are looking for is MASER - Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Masers were actually developed before lasers.

      Second of all - the difference between a high gain (and thus very directional) antenna and a maser is nil - in both cases you have a narrow beam with a small beam spread (angle of divergence). No laser, no maser, no signal source of any type has an angle of divergence of zero - they ALL spread. This "long needle" of RF from a maser is no different th
      • That's pretty interesting detail. If the hard part is modulating the maser frequency, why bother at the maser? Why not have the maser merely shine steadily on a deflector (like a rotating MEMS mirror)which can modulate its beam into off/on states in the direction of the target? And how efficient does it have to be? We're using semiconductor lasers on little DC batteries to run CD players and all sorts of other equipment, as well as fairly low voltage semiconductor lasers lighting fiberoptics hundreds and th
        • I never said that LASERS were not useful. MASERS - i.e. devices operating at microwave frequencies - were what I was talking about.

          And I never even said that masers were never useful - just not useful for what you are talking about.

          And I never said that modulating a maser was not possible - I said that *tuning* a maser - i.e. changing the frequency, say from 802.11 channel 1 to 802.11 channel 10 - was difficult.

          And a laser diode, like the .5 milliwatt laser in your CD player, is a far cry, in terms of beam
          • I'm not saying you said those things you've now denied. I merely am trying to understand some of the distinctions you've implied, but haven't made clear - like why masers have such differences in power efficiency.

            As for power, I didn't confuse it with voltage. I merely referred to the low-voltage fiber/comm lasers in contrast both to the high voltage (therefore high power at the same current) available to them in their wired chassis, and the (low voltage, low power) battery lasers. The point being that we'r
            • OK, let's be clear what we are talking about.

              A LASER is a device operating in either the infrared band, or the visible band - say wavelengths shorter than 11 um.

              A MASER is a device operating at microwave frequencies - roughly 1GHz to 1 THz.

              First of all - for ANY EM radiation - RF, light, X-rays, you name it - the shorter the wavelength, the smaller a focusing setup you will need for a give divergence angle. That is why you can focus light with a very small (to us) lens and get a good collimation, but it tak

  • Wait a minute (Score:4, Funny)

    by JHromadka ( 88188 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:12PM (#13342222) Homepage
    I thought it was a well-known fact that Idaho does not exist [uidaho.edu].

  • Not sure what's more impressive... (Score:3, Funny)

    by PhatboySlim ( 862704 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:14PM (#13342242)
    I don't know whether to be more impressed by the fact they broke the wireless record...

    ... or by the fact there is a technology company in Idaho.

  • Forgive my ignorance, but when I drive up from Southern California to Northern California, there is still nothing to do in the car. Have any of these wireless networks been implemented for anything other than records? I would love to see huge areas blanketed with wireless.
  • AFAIK if you want (in Germany at least) to use one of the several freely available radio frequency bands,you'll have to stay in tight barriers when it comes to a)output power b) signal "precisity" (do not spread into other bands AND DO NOT INTERFERE with electronic equipment) and c) antenna gain.
    so - 200dB antenna just would be illegal. There's nothing with license-free since you in fact would violate laws and void your permission to use the bands.
    Maybe that's unimportant since all that record has in com
    • The US has similar laws.

      Ham radio operators can use high gain antennas, but then you're using a licensed band (though the licensed 2.4 GHz band does overlap with the unlicended band.)

      Really, if these people used the unlicensed band, and did not go under the ham radio rules, they probably violated the law. I don't know how upset the FCC would be about a 0.250 watt transmission that doesn't actually interfere with anything (I assume that's how much power they used) even if the ERP was much higher, bu

      • As for a 200 dB antenna, well, I'd like to see that. I suspect it would be larger than the size of the Earth for the 2.4 GHz band :)

        You're right!

        A google search says the formula for theoretical dish gain is 20*log(7.4*FreqInGhz*DiameterInMeters). That matches some more google searching that says Arecibo (305 meters diameter) in Puerto Rico does about 70dB at those frequencies.

        Solving for diameter in meters results in 563000000 meters, which is roughly the size of the moon's orbit.

  • I wonder what the limit might be for an omni-directional to a directional antennae setup. Or, between two omnis....
    • well, over a distance of about 140 miles, a antenna with a directional opening more than 4 wouldn't make any sense.
      therefore, if you imagine the radiated field in 2d, if you open your spot 1, you'll radiate at tan(1) * 140 miles more space. so you'll lose a fourth of intensity- as you can see, theres a proportionality between intensity and opening anchor. so, with 360, you'd only get 1/90th of the power you could have. Not a good idea.
      variable multi-antenna-sets are the way to go, anyways. A stack of diff

  • It's all a function of altitude. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Far greater distances are possible, it is only a matter of getting the antennas high enough. This latest shot is done form a 9,000+ mountain to a 8,000+ mountain.

    If you could place a Wifi satelite in orbit, you'ld be able to run an even longer link. It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of Line of Sight(LoS) and the freznel zone. If the shot was straight up, the distance would be incredible.

  • What Kind Of Record Is Involved Here? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @04:35PM (#13342417) Homepage
    "The equipment used was not based on standard 802.11 wireless technology, but instead was based on proprietary radio technology from Trango."

    This would seem to be irrelevant to the Defcon record which was unamplified standard 802.11.

    It's comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

    I suppose you can say it's a new "wireless" record, but then what about the Navy's ULF submarine communication methods? Aren't they "wireless"? And they go a lot further than 100 miles.

    This seems like an advertising stunt to me.
  • they could get my wireless broadband to work over a 1/4 mile distance with a couple of trees in the way.
    • Connect a decent antenna. Bundling of the radio energy is the key to covering very long distances with very small transmitted power. And it also works on the receiving end, so you can start doing this at one end and see if it helps.
      A moderately directive antenna will amplify the signal by 50 times at this frequency, and is commercially available for $100 or so.
  • Wow, Idaho made it to /., too bad it's Microserv. Their signal strength will grind to halt wildly, clear or cloudy. I service two hotels networks in the area. I kept getting calls the network ground to a halt, every time its confirmed the problem is on their end. Wireless ISP's are for those who cannot get DSL or cable, and definitely not for critical operations. Most DSL companies can get the higher 3-6 megabit cable to centralized areas. Whatever Microserv is claiming they can deliver is like the ear
  • I work with the wireless industry (as part of a job in networking software), and I have to point out an error in the summary. Trango is not a "start-up". They have been around selling nice radios for years.

  • Best world record in 2,3 Ghz band (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The best record in 2,3 Ghz is 1560 km
    or 16475 km if use the moon

    http://www.ham.se/vhf/dxrecord/dxrec.htm#F [www.ham.se]

    You only need more erp, bigger disk, more power, or slower speed to improbe S/N

  • Those Idahoans! Always bragging about how "mine is longer than yours".

    Mike
    Hayden Lake, Idaho
  • Note that the only difference between pavelvp's article summary and the first two paragraphs of the actual article are that he removed the words "on Tuesday" from the the last sentence. Basically, if you read the summary, then you've been tricked into reading 1/3 of the article itself. That's a cruel prank to play on the Slashdot crowd.

    I guess it's small potatoes in the scheme of things, though.

  • Idaho has 53 nuclear reactors that have been operating before you were in diapers! http://www.inl.gov/ [inl.gov] Several projects are still classified. If you're curious, check out the advanced test reactor, one of three at the Reactor Testing Complex.

  • If there was ONE cliche story I'd like permanently removed from slashdot, it'd be these "XXX beats previous wireless record by X meters" stories that seem to pop up every 2 minutes.

    Nobody fucking cares. It's a total waste of my fucking time and this shit only belongs in the crappy blog of whatever unoriginal loser just beat the "record".

    Clear?

  • For the 99% of the population that doesn't want to transmit data between two mountains, this is useless. You need those two mountains to get past the distance limitations imposed by the curvature of the earth.

    • Different power levels: They are obviously using more power than the unamplified WiFi gear, otherwise they'd need bigger recieve dishes
    • They aren't using 802.11, so it's apples vs oranges
    • They didn't have to have one end at (near?) DefCon in Las Vegas, so they have far different terrain.

    Maybe I'm just cynical, but what's the big deal? If you want to talk distance records, my personal opinion is that the record to beat is about 250,000 miles, with full NTSC video. It was set way back in 1969, with a very

  • Who cares about using point to point wireless in the unlicensed bands? Licenses for moderate power for point to point data links are easy to get and the equipment is cheap.

    Now a record I'd like to see - use your access point to establish a record for the most number of stations distributed over a wide area. That's useful.

    Sprint used to have a service in the SF Bay Area back before DSL caught on. It was $50/mo, 10Mb, licensed spectrum in the S-band, used a pizza box sized antenna on a tripod on your root, an

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close