Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Forget Airport Extreme, we need this!

I know nothing about that hardware of it all but maybe Apple could make some sort of software update that would allow airport antennas to support that? If it catches on, of course.
 
to bad it costs about 10,000 dollars, i could really use the internet 30 miles away from my house. war driving will take on a whole new name.

iJon
 
WiMax sounds great. In 2-3 years, it might be inexpensive enough that many companies with multiple buildings in a metropolitan area could share their speediest connection and save the cost of re-wiring old buildings, which can be quite expensive in itself.

It might be a while until we see it at home though.
 
well it looks cool, but it has "only 70 mbts"... Imagine if there are lets say 50 people on it, not many, you ll have a dl of about 1.4 mbts.
if there are some 1000 what is much more probable once the netwok works for good, you ll get some 7 Kbytes... that s not that much huh?
 
Originally posted by maradong
well it looks cool, but it has "only 70 mbts"... Imagine if there are lets say 50 people on it, not many, you ll have a dl of about 1.4 mbts.
if there are some 1000 what is much more probable once the netwok works for good, you ll get some 7 Kbytes... that s not that much huh?
Click to expand...
but not everyone would be transferring data at the same time, or at least i doubt it.

iJon
 
Originally posted by iJon
but not everyone would be transferring data at the same time, or at least i doubt it.

iJon
Click to expand...

Also that's per access point. Who's to say you couldn't have a dozen or more access points that would allow you to shift from point to point like Aiport or the cell towers do. You could even use more then one tower at a time.

I saw some recent reviews of 802.11a vs. b and g and it looks like a is the way to go if you don't need a lot of range. For people in a small house, dorm room, or apartment 'a' is the format to have. It offers better security do to it's shorter range and in the recent tests it outpeforms 802.11g by nearly double. Yes, 'g' with optimization should be as fast as 'a' but at the moment it's not.
 
This is all fine and dandy. But there isn't an Internet connection that exists that is anywhere near the speed of it. The only thing that is going to benefit from it is in network point to point file transfer. And frankly that is not what they are promoting.
 
Originally posted by Macpoops
But there isn't an Internet connection that exists that is anywhere near the speed of it.
Click to expand...
from searchNetworking.com
OC-768 is currently the fastest synchronous optical network (SONET) standard rate for data transmission on optical fiber as part of the broadband ISDN (BISDN). OC stands for optical carrier and the number affixed is the multiple of the base rate bandwidth of 51.85 Mbps. OC-768 supports rates of 40 gigabits per second (Gbps) on a fiber optic carrier, a rate that translates to the equivalent of seven CD-ROM's worth of data in one second. Developed to meet ever-growing demands for bandwidth, OC-768 uses dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) to carry multiple channels of data on a single optic fiber. New DWDM systems are now in development to run at at 10 trillion bits per second (10 Tbps) per fiber. This translates into the theoretical capability of one fiber to support, simultaneously, an active Internet connection to every household in the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
first off, a software update would NOT allow for this. otherwise, why would the price be so different? there's a hardware issue here, obviously...

secondly, internet connections, especially wireles s ones, tend to be oversold quite a bit. since all the users on the network will not be online at once, and the ones that ARE won't be accessing data at the same time-- users only peak their download capabilities rarely, if they're on broadband.

pnw
 
users only peak their download capabilities rarely, if they're on broadband.
Click to expand...

I Have my t1 line running flat out 90% of the time, this would suck for me because I am shure that they will put a cap on it. Thank god that earthlink doesnt cap now:)
 
Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
I Have my t1 line running flat out 90% of the time, this would suck for me because I am shure that they will put a cap on it. Thank god that earthlink doesnt cap now:)
Click to expand...

Are you serving? ;)

pnw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back