digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Intel gets behind "Wi-Fi on steroids" - Rosedale II chip

news.zdnet.co.uk — Intel was the powerhouse that drove Wi-Fi towards ubiquity. Now it wants to do the same with WiMax, the long-range, high bandwidth technology that has been popularly described as "Wi-Fi on steroids." Momentum around mobile WiMax will receive a much-needed boost from Intel's Rosedale II chip.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 24, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

34 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • walterd93, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I can't wait till there's truly internet everywhere.
  • cosmo7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Great; we'll all get used to it and then it'll get banned because of the steroids.
  • smiley2billion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't understand that comment. If WiMax tech becomes cheap then that'll mean there are more independent ISPs offering the service in rural areas which in turn will mean there is more resistance to the end of net neutrality.
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12great!
  • SpacePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Momentum? Psh, not in the US.
  • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great, but Intel has been pushing WiMAX for years now. Still no product, still no rollout anywhere. Nothing to see here, move along....
  • dignon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yeah, that was the first thought I had when reading that line too. Apple was clearly the first mover with regards to WiFi. The rest of the industry followed Apple's lead after it selected 802.11b (and to a lesser extent "G") and Apple was the first to make WiFi standard on all their computer models - which I think was key to driving the "ubiquity" of WiFi as many PC vendors scrambled to match that functionality. Admittedly though, it was Intel that brought WiFi to millions of users after Apple blazed that trail, so - eh - whatever.
  • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Careful how you use your words... The "Net Neutrality" bill was NOT passed. This means the net isn't "Neutral" now. Corporations don't have to lobby to END Net Neutrality, because net neutrality doesn't exist. Corporations are lobbying to INSTATE a bill to have the government regulate the Internet under the guise of "protecting" it, that they are CALLING "Net Neutrality".
    There is a huge difference... Under the net neutrality bill, the government would have control over how the Internet works.
    Without this bill the people who built the Internet as it exists - the telcos - have control.
    Under our current system the telcos can do ALL sorts of evil things becuase they have a monopoly on the lines... but ALSO under our current system.. NOTHING is stopping competition. So, if a TELCO tries to charge small sites excessive fees... A MARKET will be created for SOME OTHER form of Internet access... be it wireless, or Satellite... or whatever, which people will freely be able to choose, that WOULD NOT charge those fees. If ENOUGH people want internet access that is flat rate for all sites, and switch to that company, then the TELCOs will either go out of business, or be forced to change their ways.
    Under the GOVERNMENT option... One size will have to fit all, and also they will have gotten their foot in the door to WHO KNOWS how many other regulations.
    My thought... LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE. No new legislation is needed... LEAST of all "net neutrality". If the telco's are going to be EVIL... FINE - LET them put themselves out of business... When you think of corporate greed, you have to remember this is a free country.. people go to Walmart for low prices, people go to McDonald's because of cheap tasty fattening food, and people will only use the Telco's in a FREE society if they have something to offer, like SPEED, or price... becuase competition drives a freedom based economy, and competition solves problems.
  • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What concerns me is who controls these WiMAX "towers".
    All this can do is create another Telco unless I can set up a WiMax tower in my living room and create my own network with my neighbor 2-30 mile away.

    The Net Neutrality War is about access to content. If WiMax can offer us a way to make our own PRIVATE network not controlled by telco's or Cable companies, or the government, than I'll buy. If not, it's not really competing with a wifi network I can control.
  • mojotooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You said "*****" and then everything you said after that had nothing to say to refute the original assertion that Intel "drove Wi-Fi towards ubiquity." You described who "gave it a good nudge" and "who set the standards for interoperability." Neither of those things is sufficient for ubiquity, but both are necessary.
  • lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i dont know about you guys.. but ANYTHING that helps bring competition and choice to consumers in the broadband market will do wonders for net-neutrality and just good service in particular.. while low prices are nice... the lower the price = less speed or quality..

    at least it seems that there are some mega corporations doing things in the best interest of their consumers by actually developing/promoting newer and better products :-)
  • puffarthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1kind of like SED and holographic discs and fuel cell batteries. they always say they'll start production sometime "next year"
  • puffarthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seriously. telecom companies are too busy trying to rape their customers on 3G pricing that they don't realize nobody is buying their overpriced 3G *****.
  • kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Intel was the powerhouse that drove Wi-Fi towards ubiquity." Umm...a bit of an overstatement
  • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Of course, these theories don't account for why WiFi is alive and well while firewire has died tragically. Can anyone even name a competing technology to WiFi?"

    Bluetooth. Bluetooth is a competeing technology to WiFi, but much slower and more generalized.

    Fire wire IS NOT a wireless technology, so your point it irrelevent, and while USB2.0 has become more popular in home use, I still prefer Firewire to it. Firewire is far from dead. Althogh Firewire 800 never really caught on.
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3'Roid rage explains many people I've run across on the Internet.
  • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll wait for AMD's offering.

    /sarcasm
  • TheExtendedName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Until Intel produces a USB dongle or PC card for my computer the whole thing is PR smoke and mirrors. WiMAX supposedly has a range of up to 30 miles with a typical cell radius of 4–6 miles. Clear-wire (basically WiMAX) is very weak they can only push an unreliable signal 2 miles. They wont even send you a modem unless you live under a mile from a tower.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Considering that they're the one's who are paying for the whole Wi-Max thing, I'd consider it valid.

    http://techdirt.com/articles/20060705/1852225.shtml
    Intel Gives Clearwire $600 Million To Avoid Making WiMax Look Bad
    from the how-it-all-works dept

  • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Intel was the powerhouse that drove Wi-Fi towards ubiquity."

    I would think that if Apple hadn't come out with the Airport and made it either included or an option in every single one of their computers that a different wireless standard may have come out on top. Intel merely took what was popular and made it more popular.
  • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@danrien: Yes,for preffered access... which means that those sites will run slower if you are on a telco line. However, if you jump onto BrandX WiMax (or whatever new tech we have yet to imagine) and BrandX WiMax isn't treired, then maybe all your favorite sites will run faster.. maybe you are the type of guy who likes to watch the independent movies channels.. etc. Therefore, BrandX would be more efficient for you.. and that's what you'd choose. Yes, I understand what you are saying, the telco's want to charge comanies.... If Net Neutrality were enacted.. Who do you think they'll want to charge THEN?
    @smileybillion: Yes, which is why incentive will exist for totally NON-TELCO solutions. Therefore if a telco is trying to financially RAPE a company like.. say... Google, it would behoove them to create their entire OWN network and then connect to users wirelessly , and directly. (oh, didn't google purchase a HUGE amount of dark fibre and is experimenting with free wifi... HRMMMMMMMMMMMMM)

  • Pluckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2With the help of Google plus this super WiFi, that might be possible soon
  • joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1with any luck this could also help end the whole 'net neutrality' issue and future issues.

    don't like the way the "internet" is being managed... build your own. learn how to setup DNS, get a decent userbase and it's all downhill from there.

    hopefully ISPs will be a thing of the past.
  • NerdyNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What ever happened to 802.11n? I thought MIMO was the next step?
  • tomaburque, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Intel was the powerhouse that drove Wi-Fi towards ubiquity."

    *****. Apple gave it a good nudge with the first Airport but the real reason for the success of Wifi is the Wifi Alliance http://www.wi-fi.org/ who set the standards for interoperability. Intel's success is purely marketing by branding someone else's invention with their own name - Centrino.

  • smiley2billion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That argument would work... expect when your nice little independent packet makes its way across a telco owned line.
  • danrien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0u realize that the telcos don't want to charge us for more use of their lines to popular sites, but rather charge the popular sites themselves, thus the worry that we will be forced to go to the telco's own "preferred" sites, right?
  • trollick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wi-Fi is not internet. Where are the tubes?!
  • dvader99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Its always nice to have additional options, but Intel has taken so long to get this to market... it'll be interesting if they can fight the momentum of 3G....
  • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3If it's on steroids, maybe Major League Baseball will be an early adopter of it to wirelessly transmit their statistical data around...
  • Tricky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This sounds really cool. I WANT MY WIFI!
  • epu2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1should be more like I WANT MY STEROIDS!!!
  • jldugger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Of course, these theories don't account for why WiFi is alive and well while firewire has died tragically. Can anyone even name a competing technology to WiFi?
  • kampfy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Which will give corporations all the more reason to lobby for the end of net neutrality. I can't wait, either!

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.