xMax: Cheap wireless broadband?

A company called xGTM Technology has developed a new low frequency wireless networking protocol called xMax that can cover a wider area than either WiMax or Flash-OFDM (they claim a maximum range of 22km) and has a signal that's better at penetrating buildings. The best part is that it doesn't need a dedicated swath of spectrum to work, xMax transmits at powers that are low enough not to interfere with other signals, which means it can use radio channels that are already being used for other purposes. The first xMax wireless network is being built out in Miami and Fort Lauderdale right now, and they claim that one base station can deliver wireless broadband to up to a thousand users across a 40 square mile area.

[Jake T @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

spiffy

[Brandon Aaskov @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

We've been waiting long enough for WiMax to hit the public market. Does this mean we'll have to wait even longer for a slightly better technology, if that's even true?

[Brizzle @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

If this is true, then everyone else is out of buisness.

[Question Answerer @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It sounds like xMax is intended for last mile, or last 22km in this case, and it may well be better than 802.11a/b/g for that purpose. 802.11a/b/g will still find a niche in the last 50 meter mobile market since the parabolic dish required for xMax reception over long distance is not a mobile option.

[*A @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

And the FCC has said what, exactly, about this?

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Hey, until something hits NYC, it's all vaporware to me.

[Dusty @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

This little tidbit might make it tough on the old pocketbook to be a "personal provider" (base station)...

"Radio chips for devices should be in the $5-$6 range when built in volume while base stations will be around $350,000 (199,000 pounds). Those prices are competitive considering the range covered."

Of course that price will make it a good option for ISP's. (Would this put cable companies and DSL companies at risk....I think so). At that point any company with $200K and oodles of backbone could compete with the Cable and DSL giants.

[Yerba @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Cool, and that antenna could double as my 'asado' grill in a pinch.

[John Stracke @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

#5: the FCC shouldn't have a problem with it, because it's too low-power to interfere. (That's the theory, of course; I expect you could interfere if you had enough people broadcasting.)

I'm intrigued by the fact that they don't actually mention the bitrate...

[sr @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

How does something that is so low power have a range of 22km?

[hobgoblin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

hrmf, for some reason i only think this will be available in the us as atleast here in norway (and i have a feel its the same for the rest of europe) you cant have a fm broadcaster, no matter how low powerd it is...

[hobgoblin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

gah, talk about typo...

the line should read:
"for some reason i think that it will only..."

[J @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Well now... for it not to violate Shannon's theorm, considering their key angle of "low frequency", their bitrate is very very very low, OR their spectral width is immensly large. That is, of course after they've managed to "hear" below the noise floor. (If they've managed to do that, that's the real accomplishment, and they'll win a Nobel Prize). Aside from those minor details... I smell SCAM!

[J @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Well now... for it not to violate Shannon's theorm, considering their key angle of "low frequency", their bitrate is very very very low, OR their spectral width is immensly large. That is, of course after they've managed to "hear" below the noise floor. (If they've managed to do that, that's the real accomplishment, and they'll win a Nobel Prize). Aside from those minor details... I smell SCAM!

[Gary M @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

"low frequency" as used in the blurb is relative compared to 802.11. From the antenna size, including the radiating element firing back towards the reflector, I guess that this system uses uhf TV and radio frequencies...400 to 800 or so MHz..

[sysco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

well done... we make the WIMax and try to great antenna uda yagi with the optimal & maximum data transfer and for standard 802.11a/b/g its very good...

[TheMan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I went to their website. This sounds extremely suspicious. Putting this one in the potential scam category until proven otherwise.

[David Sullivan, Past Chief Engineer, xG Technology @ Dec 29th 2005 11:46AM]

Your comments about xG are all wrong! Take it from a former xG Chief Engineer (myself).



First, the receiver antenna shown in your article is NOT the one used by xG Technology in its tests. It was a patch antenna about 6" square. It can also be a 1/4-wave whip. (No one knows how that semi-parabolic photo crept into your article about xG.)



Second, xG's technology can be used over ANY distance. In the 18-mile test, for example, only 38 mw were used by the tranmitter to drive a whip.



Third, it suffers no LOS problems as all GHz systems do.



Lastly, many more tests will be demo-ed to the public in upcoming months. One will be streaming video with stereo sound using a BW of a mere 5-6 kHz! That's kHz, NOT MHz!



Contrary to what many think, xG's technology does NOT violate Shannons Law! If I could tell you how it all comes together, you'd immediately see this. Until the Patent people give the go-ahead, only vetted potential partners have been allowed access to the "Hows" of xG.



I invite you to visit their Website for much more info as their isn't time for me to list everything here. It is: www.xgtechnology.com



Also check out all the many articles written by people who witnessed the Nov 11 test.



Sincerely,



M. David Sullivan

408-806-1882

918 N. Rengstorff Ave., No. 300

Mountain View, CA 94943