|
Post Time: 02/06/2008 13:51:19 |
Mikko
Total Forum Posts: 17 |
Hi Folks
Here in Finland carriers are allowed to dig up telephone cables in the countryside.
So, ordinary people are forced to give up their landline and good (A)DSL connection. Thereafter these poor people complain about slow data transfer rate in GSM.
And ... carrier A responds by installing hundreds of WiMAX masts. And carrier B responds by installing hundreds of 3G / @450 masts. Oh no :-(
QUESTION 1: How risky is it to live close to a WiMAX mast? What is a typical radiation power density values let's say 100 meters from the mast/antenna?
I honestly do not know. All I have read is news from Taiwan:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/113032.htm
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/11/06/129715/1500-cellphone.htm
QUESTION 2: How risky it is to use a laptop with a WiMAX card? How would you compare it to WiFi or 3G connection? What are the power density values in uW/m2?
Thanks in advance.
Take care
Mikko
P.S. My blog tells something about this "development". http://beyondcreativity.blogs.com |
|
Post Time: 03/06/2008 21:41:12 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Hi Mikko; Sorry but I can't really answer this one, but I hope this helps.
(i) because very few WiMAX systems are in use yet, we don't really know how they will affect sensitive people, and
(ii) it depends on what Finland license the operators for. WiMAX base stations are currently available with EIRPs of 3400 watts (3.4 kW) of RF energy. That is more than is permitted for most mobile phone masts and the WIMAX range is 3 to 10 km distance from every full-size basestation. Now, a WiMAX network can also be implemented with larger number of lower power basestations. So the exposure will almost entirely depend on the design of the Finnish WiMAX systems and what is being licensed and rolled out in your country.
(ii) WiMAX uses more power than WiFi and therfore has stronger signals. It also is much faster (wider bandwidth). It is similar to a 3G conection, but here in the UK, 3G/UMTS connections seem quite poor in practice and actual data rate is usually well below the official max possible data rate.
(iii) Wired ADSL2 is very good - faster than ADSL and over longer distances.
(iv) Best, if you really HAVE to have a wireless connection, is to put a good directional dish on the top of your roof pointing at the basestation and then wire this down to a fixed wireless to wired router in your house and plug your computer network cables into this. That works well and results in minimal RF inside your house.
|
