Prev: Webcam recommendations...
Next: MacPro: remote power on ?
From: thepixelfreak on 22 Feb 2010 16:35
On 2010-02-22 12:19:04 -0800, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
<gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> said:

>
> There is a new technology called WiMax which claims ranges of 2 to 10 miles,
> but no one knows what will happen in a city with hundreds or thousands of
> signals all competing in the distance.

Seems to be working just fine (or so says a friend of mine that uses
it). Seattle area is covered pretty well.

http://www.clearwirelessinternet.com

--

thepixelfreak

From: Jolly Roger on 22 Feb 2010 18:05
In article <2010022213350216807-not(a)dotcom>,
thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-22 12:19:04 -0800, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
> <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> said:
>
> >
> > There is a new technology called WiMax which claims ranges of 2 to 10 miles,
> > but no one knows what will happen in a city with hundreds or thousands of
> > signals all competing in the distance.
>
> Seems to be working just fine (or so says a friend of mine that uses
> it). Seattle area is covered pretty well.
>
> http://www.clearwirelessinternet.com

It reportedly works great here in Austin, Texas too.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR
From: Tom Harrington on 22 Feb 2010 19:29
In article <jollyroger-DD3B27.17050322022010(a)news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <2010022213350216807-not(a)dotcom>,
> thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2010-02-22 12:19:04 -0800, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
> > <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> said:
> >
> > >
> > > There is a new technology called WiMax which claims ranges of 2 to 10
> > > miles,
> > > but no one knows what will happen in a city with hundreds or thousands of
> > > signals all competing in the distance.
> >
> > Seems to be working just fine (or so says a friend of mine that uses
> > it). Seattle area is covered pretty well.
> >
> > http://www.clearwirelessinternet.com
>
> It reportedly works great here in Austin, Texas too.

They seem evasive about how fast it is. Supposedly my city is on their
expansion list somewhere, and I could really use an improvement on the
1.5Mbps that Qwest offers here.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/
From: Jolly Roger on 22 Feb 2010 19:41
In article <tph-1117D4.17292322022010(a)localhost>,
Tom Harrington <tph(a)pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-DD3B27.17050322022010(a)news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <2010022213350216807-not(a)dotcom>,
> > thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2010-02-22 12:19:04 -0800, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
> > > <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> said:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is a new technology called WiMax which claims ranges of 2 to 10
> > > > miles,
> > > > but no one knows what will happen in a city with hundreds or thousands
> > > > of
> > > > signals all competing in the distance.
> > >
> > > Seems to be working just fine (or so says a friend of mine that uses
> > > it). Seattle area is covered pretty well.
> > >
> > > http://www.clearwirelessinternet.com
> >
> > It reportedly works great here in Austin, Texas too.
>
> They seem evasive about how fast it is. Supposedly my city is on their
> expansion list somewhere, and I could really use an improvement on the
> 1.5Mbps that Qwest offers here.

I imagine speed is one of the things that will fluctuate as they roll
out the service and improve coverage areas.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR
From: dorayme on 22 Feb 2010 20:04
In article <fosk8tm49y.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul Magnussen <magiconinc(a)earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > My wife has a PowerBook G4 17" with an Airport card, which at the
> > moment connects to the Airport express in my home office.
> >
> > Now she would like to be able to take the PowerBook around with her
> > and connect to the Internet (say) on the bus.
> >
> > Where do we start? I can't seem to find any info, I guess I must be
> > searching for the wrong keywords...
>
> The basic problem is that this Airport Express in your home office is
> not going to have a strong enough signal to make it to the bus.
>
> So if your wife wants the Airport card to work on the bus, there has
> to be a Wifi base station on the bus itself (not very likely). Or,
> one nearby where the bus is parked (more likely, but not helpful if
> the bus is moving).
>
> There are cards that use the _cell phone_ network to allow you to
> connect your laptop to the internet while moving on a bus or in a
> car. Of course you also have to pay the appropriate cellular service
> provider for that connection.

In Australia, I enquired recently, you can get a USB dongle from
Telstra that will give you good coverage in cities and many
towns. And often with faster speeds than the average ADLS2 or 2+
in Sydney. Not exactly cheap. You buy the dongle for about $150
Aust. and you get a plan, $80 a month gets you the speed and a
few gigs (3 or 5?).

--
dorayme
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Webcam recommendations...
Next: MacPro: remote power on ?