Shaw launches trial WiFi

[Slava]

This is great. I hope they expand it to cover hospitals/clinics! Not that anyone wants to spend time there, but when you are there it can be for a really long time and it would be nice to have this.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by woob

I'm curious as to what kind of technology/hardware they're using for this? Anyone know what the radius is for the hotspots? Any links to tech pages would be appreciated!

Their expected range is 500 meters, under perfect conditions.

[FlamesPuck12]

I was talking to a buddy who's a computer engineer and he said that this wouldn't compete very well against 3G/LTE network.

Apparently, WiFi doesn't have hand over like the cell network does, which means every time you leave the radius of one access point and enter another, your device disconnects and connects to a new access point.

The range of the access points are a lot shorter than the cell towers which means if you're in a car, bus, ctrain, etc, you'll always be connecting to a new access point that it will barely work while you're moving at high speed.

As for having WiFi access in the dome, he said it would be pretty difficult to implement it since each access point can only handle couple hundred users when using all 3 WiFi channels. They could use lower power in the access points and put more access points but it would be pretty hard to balance it in such a crowded area. He said theoretically, you could put a low power access point below each chair and make it work but that doesn't sound very viable.

So pretty much, what he said was it will just be "hotspots" around the city, nothing like a cell network.

Anyway, I would love to hear some opinion from someone with experience in this field regarding the above points.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

I think Shaw will be implementing "HOTZONES" as apposed to "Hotspots".

I believe that the Cisco access points and routers that Shaw is implementing allow the movement from one access point to another without losing a connection (roaming). I would assume that the subscriber would associate itself to the AP with the strongest RSSI. Apparently, that hand off is approx. 32 milli-seconds.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

I was talking to a buddy who's a computer engineer and he said that this wouldn't compete very well against 3G/LTE network.

Apparently, WiFi doesn't have hand over like the cell network does, which means every time you leave the radius of one access point and enter another, your device disconnects and connects to a new access point.

The range of the access points are a lot shorter than the cell towers which means if you're in a car, bus, ctrain, etc, you'll always be connecting to a new access point that it will barely work while you're moving at high speed.

As for having WiFi access in the dome, he said it would be pretty difficult to implement it since each access point can only handle couple hundred users when using all 3 WiFi channels. They could use lower power in the access points and put more access points but it would be pretty hard to balance it in such a crowded area. He said theoretically, you could put a low power access point below each chair and make it work but that doesn't sound very viable.

So pretty much, what he said was it will just be "hotspots" around the city, nothing like a cell network.

Anyway, I would love to hear some opinion from someone with experience in this field regarding the above points.

Access point hand offs are certainly possible - it depends on the technology. The fact that when I enter a Shaw wifi zone, it automatically authenticates my device, leads me to believe that there is a high likelihood of it being supported.

You are right about total coverage though, it won't be universal except in the highest density areas. That won't impact a vast majority of internet traffic though, which is burst in nature - ie you use it for a short time, then wait while the data is 'consumed' by the user. Even streaming video is possible under conditions like this, assuming the platform you are using has basic buffering. Compare to a cell network, where if you had a dead spot of several seconds, you would surely notice.

Of course if you had 10-20k people at the dome trying to use the WIFI it would become congested - same with the current cell traffic. There are ways to maintain a somewhat reasonable level of service with basic traffic shaping though, if Shaw really cares.

[Azure]

Question is, will all 20k people at the Dome use it? Maybe half are Shaw subscribers. And you're telling me you can't setup multiple access points/repeaters with enough bandwidth to cover those 10k people?

[FurnaceFace]

I suspect everyone who uses wifi at the dome will use it to tweet, update their stupid facebook status, check email and most importantly check their live fantasy league results (). Their bandwidth usages won't be high and should be accommodated. If it takes a few extra seconds to get email updates is that a huge deal?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Access point hand offs are certainly possible - it depends on the technology. The fact that when I enter a Shaw wifi zone, it automatically authenticates my device, leads me to believe that there is a high likelihood of it being supported.

You are right about total coverage though, it won't be universal except in the highest density areas. That won't impact a vast majority of internet traffic though, which is burst in nature - ie you use it for a short time, then wait while the data is 'consumed' by the user. Even streaming video is possible under conditions like this, assuming the platform you are using has basic buffering. Compare to a cell network, where if you had a dead spot of several seconds, you would surely notice.

Of course if you had 10-20k people at the dome trying to use the WIFI it would become congested - same with the current cell traffic. There are ways to maintain a somewhat reasonable level of service with basic traffic shaping though, if Shaw really cares.

Hmm from what I remember, he said there is no hand off in WiFi specs. As for auto authentication, that's not really a hand off since if you're leaving the radius of one access point and entering another, you'll lose your connection while you're re authenticating with the new AP. For example, if you're driving while you're on a call, the cell networks hand off to the next tower so that your call doesn't drop. If you're on a Skype call while going to another access point, your call could drop when you lose Internet access while re authenticating. The cell towers can do hand off since the towers communicate but the APs don't communicate with other APs.

As for streaming, I was talking more like NHL.com game stream. YouTube will work if you temporarily lose connection since they have a buffer but for things like live stream or Skype calls, everytime you're changing APs.

As for the dome scenario, it wasn't a data bandwidth issue. He was talking more about wireless spectrum. His simple explanation was that any access points that overlap should be using different channels so that the access points don't interfere with each other. Each channel can only connect limited users so when they plan out the access points, they have to find a balance between the range and number of APs to minimize the interference.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I suspect everyone who uses wifi at the dome will use it to tweet, update their stupid facebook status, check email and most importantly check their live fantasy league results (). Their bandwidth usages won't be high and should be accommodated. If it takes a few extra seconds to get email updates is that a huge deal?

That's true but how will it be any different than 3G right now? I haven't been to the dome in awhile but last time I was there, I had access to the internet using my phone. I thought the point of having wifi at the dome was so you wouldn't have to use the slow congested 3G network. (I'll probably use it during the intermission to check CP and that's about it)

[FurnaceFace]

My belief is in theory given the same sample size/congestion wifi should allow for faster connection to the cloud. Wifi typically has a lower latency, meaning the time it takes for your browser to connect to CP and start receiving data is longer with 3g than wifi. Wifi speeds are also typically faster than 3g. 3g is typically described as 1 megabit per second (mbps) where wifi these days is much greater than that. I would imagine given the location of the dome it would have the capability for, if not the existing fibre infrastructure to allow for a good high speed connection.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

I think Shaw will be implementing "HOTZONES" as apposed to "Hotspots".

I believe that the Cisco access points and routers that Shaw is implementing allow the movement from one access point to another without losing a connection (roaming). I would assume that the subscriber would associate itself to the AP with the strongest RSSI. Apparently, that hand off is approx. 32 milli-seconds.

Easy way to test this will be to compare your IP address at one location with what you get at the other location - that will be a pretty good indication of how it's going to work.

BVS and Canada Place are kitty corner to each other so I can likely check this out today.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Hmm from what I remember, he said there is no hand off in WiFi specs. As for auto authentication, that's not really a hand off since if you're leaving the radius of one access point and entering another, you'll lose your connection while you're re authenticating with the new AP.

If you can use wifi inter access point handoffs within an organization to support VOIP, and you can, then I am sure that seamless enough handoffs to support basic internet usage would be fairly easy, even over a large geographical area.

Who knows Shaw is planning on supporting it though.

edit: What Scott said.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Hmm from what I remember, he said there is no hand off in WiFi specs....The cell towers can do hand off since the towers communicate but the APs don't communicate with other APs.

Your buddy needs to do a lot of reading.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~waa/pubs/handoff-lat-acm.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireles...ibution_system

To wit, I do this at home all the time - my devices will frequently switch seamlessly from one AP to the other. I run WDS just because I can.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Your buddy needs to do a lot of reading.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~waa/pubs/handoff-lat-acm.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireles...ibution_system

To wit, I do this at home all the time - my devices will frequently switch seamlessly from one AP to the other. I run WDS just because I can.

Never trust a Computer Engineer to do an Electrical Engineer's work.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Easy way to test this will be to compare your IP address at one location with what you get at the other location - that will be a pretty good indication of how it's going to work.

BVS and Canada Place are kitty corner to each other so I can likely check this out today.

I'm curious on how this will work out. But isn't it possible to grab the same ip from a different AP when you switch AP?

[woob]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Your buddy needs to do a lot of reading.

To wit, I do this at home all the time - my devices will frequently switch seamlessly from one AP to the other. I run WDS just because I can.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Cisco "mesh" tech will do this, passing off seamlessly. That why I was curious as to why kind of hardware they are implementing.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

I'm curious on how this will work out. But isn't it possible to grab the same ip from a different AP when you switch AP?

Possibly - they could all be configured identically, and handing out addresses from identically configured DHCP scopes. That would be a big problem though if the AP's overlap each other coverage wise though I think, since you'd potentially associate with a closer AP and suddenly trample someone else's IP address.

Or they could be handing out IP's from different subnets, which would be a dead giveaway that you probably won't be able to handoff between AP's with overlapping coverage.

[CKPThunder]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Possibly - they could all be configured identically, and handing out addresses from identically configured DHCP scopes. That would be a big problem though if the AP's overlap each other coverage wise though I think, since you'd potentially associate with a closer AP and suddenly trample someone else's IP address.

Or they could be handing out IP's from different subnets, which would be a dead giveaway that you probably won't be able to handoff between AP's with overlapping coverage.

I'm pretty sure that Cisco would be using their thin client controller based wifi solution rather than using any sort of solution that relied on AP involvement. The scopes for DHCP would be quite large and the IP address of the user would remain the same as they moved from one AP to another.

My concern is if Shaw is using the 2.4GHz spectrum for their wireless network. If this is the case, there is a good chance that users are going to experience some major interference issues as this project ramps up. I have enough interference at my house on the 2.4 range, I'd hate to think what a downtown block would be experiencing.

The Apple WWDC uses Cisco technology for their wireless and even then they have everyone turn off their phones during the keynote. I like the sounds of this project but I sure don't envy the person who is responsible for designing this network. I wish them well.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CKPThunder

I'm pretty sure that Cisco would be using their thin client controller based wifi solution rather than using any sort of solution that relied on AP involvement. The scopes for DHCP would be quite large and the IP address of the user would remain the same as they moved from one AP to another.

Oh yeah for sure, they aren't going to rely on the AP's alone to implement this. The point being that regardless of the solution they chose, 802.11 handoffs between AP's are easily achievable.

Regardless, I just walked between CP and BVS, and you do keep the same IP address associating with each of the AP's, so it does look to be a more comprehensive solution than just a bunch of AP's stuck up in random locations.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Oh yeah for sure, they aren't going to rely on the AP's alone to implement this. The point being that regardless of the solution they chose, 802.11 handoffs between AP's are easily achievable.

Regardless, I just walked between CP and BVS, and you do keep the same IP address associating with each of the AP's, so it does look to be a more comprehensive solution than just a bunch of AP's stuck up in random locations.

Interesting. Does anyone know Shaw is planning to only have access points in a crowded area like the malls or if they're planning to put them in residential area as well? If latter, did they mention anything about using it on the roads?