Yonkers, NY -- Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Dying to Surf the Web for Free
Once again, I'm on the train, using my Blackberry as a broadband modem to get online via my laptop. I've already been disconnected four times in two hours, and though this is certainly much better than nothing, I'd kill for something more reliable.A month or so ago, I was discussing Jonathan Tasini's plan for low-cost wireless broadband internet access for everyone in the U.S., and wrote: "Sounds right, but I'd really like to hear about the rural plan." One of my most frequent (and most only) posters, Combjelly, was extrememly skeptical.
Ed Schafer, the former governor of North Dakota, may have a plan which could help inexpensively blanket sparse states with cellular service:
Why put up costly cell phone towers in thinly populated areas, when a few balloons would do? In North Dakota, former Gov. Ed Schafer is backing a plan to loft wireless network repeaters on balloons high above the state to fill gaps in cellular coverage.
.
.
.
A trial balloon will be launched in the next few weeks to test the idea, said Schafer, who left office in 2000 after eight years as governor.
"To cover every square mile of North Dakota, it would take 1,100 cell towers," Schafer said. "We can do the whole state with three balloons."
If successful, the hydrogen-filled balloons could be drifting across the stratosphere above North Dakota this summer, providing cellular coverage at a tiny fraction of the cost of building cellular towers.
Can we bring cheap high-speed internet access to rural areas through balloons? It's the best idea I've heard so far. Perhaps in combination with Microsoft's idea of bringing access through cell phones connected to keyboards and monitors...
posted by jbrzoska @ 10:15 AM Trackback Link
1 Comments:
For cell phone, this makes good sense. Cell phone range is enough to make it feasible, and it certainly solves the tree problem in rural areas.
For WiFi, they'd have to fly pretty low. Present clear air range is about 150 meters, and that only if the cards are pushing their max. of 100mw, many available cards are down at 30 or less. So cut that range in half. In comparison, a cell phone can push 3 watts. It would be fairly easy to fix, just get Congress to allow WiFi to use a higher wattage, either on the same band or a new one. Using the same band would mean that only a new amplifier, say from a cell phone, is needed and that keeps costs down. To reduce interference, make a rooftop box with a directional antenna and simplified tracking. That way multiple balloons with multiple access points can be used to keep the congestion down. Do a mass buy and sell at or near cost, and that would mean people could get free access for an upfront cost of under $100. For those who can't afford that, encourage groups to sponsor access.
The key is being able to transmit a lot more power, or a little more power with a directional antenna and tracking. Preferably both.
Edit: it occurs to me that 802.11a might be better than 802.11b/g. 802.11a operates on the 5GHz band instead of the 2.4GHz band like 802.11b/g, cell phones, portable phones, microwaves...
802.11a has some drawbacks, wall penetration is worse and, relatedly, it reflects more so multipath distortion(signals reflecting from various surfaces, adding to noise) is a greater problem. But with a roof mounted system that basically points up, this is less of a problem. And it allows for higher bandwidth at greater distances with lower power. More than 100mw would still be needed, but not as much. The reason why I, and others, obsesses over the transmitted power is that the more power, the greater distance that it interferes with other uses. Which is why I toy with the idea of directional antennas. They restrict the directions the radio waves go in and reduces the power required to cover certain distances.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home