Vividwireless demos frighteningly fast wireless

by William Maher | Monday 7 February 2011

Still feel like you could be doing more with your iPad, smartphone or laptop when you're on the road? Now we're being promised the opportunity to download an entire movie in under three minutes.

The future of wireless for iPads, phones and netbooks could be much faster than the 3G you're used to, predicts vividwireless.

Jaw dropping peak wireless speeds of 127MBps were demonstrated in Sydney today by the ISP, with claims that users could eventually expect average download speeds of 40-70Mbps. Part of the demonstration showed four HD video streams playing at the same time over a wireless connection.

Today's public demonstration is the result of the first trial in Australia of TD-LTE mobile broadband by vividwireless. LTE (Long Term Evolution) is emerging as a possible successor in the US to current mobile broadband, offering faster downloads and uploads than 3G technology. LTE trials have also been conducted by Telstra and other carriers.

While LTE is still being trialed in Australia, there are two reasons today's demonstration is so interesting. First, vividwireless continues to talk of expanding its broadband network - from a limited coverage area including Perth and small sections of Sydney and Melbourne, to one that covers 90% of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Canberra. Currently, for example, the Sydney coverage is limited to 600,000 people.

It also shows that the technology exists for wireless to keep pace with high speed Internet services like ADSL2+ and fibre, at least initially. As well as predicting average speeds of 40-70Mbps, vividwireless predicts upload speeds of 4-7Mbps, and latency of less than 20 milliseconds.

"We see ourselves as being very complementary to the NBN," said vividwireless CEO Martin Mercer at today's demonstration. "We look at our primary opportunity as being portable internet."

See more about: vividwireless | wireless | lte | td

Readers of this article also read...

Expect "hundreds" of Thunderbolt devices, says Intel

Sputnik 7 February 2011	Shame Vivid also block torrent downloads so you're unlikely to be able download a movie in Australia except from a few limited sources. Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Vividwireless demos frighteningly fast wireless? Still feel like you could be doing more with your iPad, smartphone or laptop when you're on the road? Now we're being promised the opportunity to download an entire movie in under three minutes. What do you think? Join the discussion.
DJ... 8 February 2011	How is that "average speed" calculated? Was it averaged over a time period of 24 hours or average speed for users during off-peak times? Wireless is a shared resource and there can be extremely widely varying speeds depending upon demand. You may get 70Mb/s at 2:00am when you are the only one using the system but get less than 1Mb/s at 5:00pm when everyone wants to check the 'net for where to have dinner. Average speed is an almost meaningless concept in such extremes.
julesgr 8 February 2011	This is music to my ears. Considering we can't get any Copper based broadband of any kind 20kms from the Perth CBD and will never be able to, this news is terrific. We are struggling with download speeds of 50Kbps using HSPDA and WCDMA 3.5G technologies! The bandwidth is supposed to be 7.2Mbps but given that voice traffic takes presidence over data we get download speeds that are just rubbish. As for bit torrents they should be banned and the sites closed down to stop the stealing of intellectual property and the spreading of very malicious malware.
rubaiyat 8 February 2011	Microosft/Windows should be banned and closed down to stop the stealing of intellectual property and the spreading of very malicious malware. Torrents are just a method of distributing files, legitimate or otherwise.
Macropodmum 8 February 2011	For users in the bush stuck on wireless (and Telstra wireless because of coverage issues)10GB is the max we can get(with Telstra) at any kind of speed (then dial up speeds)for a whopping $120 a month (if you have other services with them and sign up for 2 year minimum. So increased speed is pretty irrelevant for us, give us non throttled services at decent prices instead, maybe then we can download movies.
gone4good 8 February 2011	@rubaiyat... Is it necessary to troll with every post? Perhaps take up a hobby instead?
rubaiyat 8 February 2011	Not trolling, just stating facts.. Microsoft has just had to pay up big to Uniloc for stealing the very software that it uses to try and prevent Microsoft User's taking the same approach to Ms's IPR that Microsoft takes to everyone else's IPR. Let's not forget that Microsoft has engineered the greatest vector for Malware by a huge margin: Windows.
gone4good 8 February 2011	It's a troll when a post attempts to derail a thread by baiting an off-topic argument. Grow up a a little bit and try to stick to the topic at hand. There's already numerous Mac vs Windows threads. Why not just troll there instead of trying to hijack every other topic?
rubaiyat 8 February 2011	My comment was to another poster who suggested certain software should be banned, and nobody asked you to butt in. Other than the name calling, you've not added a jot to the discussion.
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 8 February 2011	Perhaps your choice of example was ill-considered. Your posts tend to be pro-Mac/anti-MS, so it's not surprising that people are getting sick of having it regurgitated in every thread.
petergaskin 8 February 2011	My daughter would love a decent wireless speed with a decent downlaod limit. After initial enquiries suggested that she could get an ADSL plan in Minnipa, only to be told at the last moment that she would not have access to ADSL. Instead she has to pay extra for a lower download limit and a much slower speed. but of course, at the moment, this will only be available in Capital Cities. Why not give something to our country people? And telstra is the only provider thatprovides any coverage in the area. Choice - what choice?
rubaiyat 9 February 2011	.:Cyb3rGlitch:. My choice of example was spot on. Which would be a shrewd guess as to why you don't like it. The truth of IPR, piracy, theft etc is not that we live in a world where justice rules, but we live in a world where the rich and strong generally decide property rights. As they always have. I'm not condoning it, just not ignoring it. It has its upside however. The landed gentry in England stole what little all the poor possessed with the Fence Act and were duly rewarded with even more money and privilege than they already had. The resulting dispossessed stole handkerchiefs and were rewarded with a free trip Down Under. Today corporations discovered you could steal virtually everything else, not just land, just by claiming it and setting gangs of lawyers to watch over it. The dispossessed have reacted as they always have.
gone4good 9 February 2011	@rubaiyat... The point is this thread isn't about evil corporations, evil Microsoft, etc, etc. It's about wireless internet. No one is ignoring what you're saying, they just don't want it said in every thread. As I pointed out there are several threads dedicated to that exact topic. I don't know what the mods think, however that's where you should be posting such comments. Before this thread gets derailed any further, I'm going back to the topic (I hope you do as well).... With the growth and demand in portable devices (such as the iPad, iPhone, etc), should the Govt be spending a larger portion of the NBN on wireless communication technologies?
rubaiyat 9 February 2011	gone4good wrote: @rubaiyat... The point is this thread isn't about evil corporations, evil Microsoft, etc, etc. It's about wireless internet. No one is ignoring what you're saying, they just don't want it said in every thread. As I pointed out there are several threads dedicated to that exact topic. I don't know what the mods think, however that's where you should be posting such comments. I thought the point was all about evil Bittorrents? Quote: With the growth and demand in portable devices (such as the iPad, iPhone, etc), should the Govt be spending a larger portion of the NBN on wireless communication technologies? No, because the wireless technology itself depends on a faster and better NBN. It is currently being held together with the old copper network. Both the copper cables and the wireless towers are very vulnerable to disasters. Tony "Shit Happens" Abbott, and the knee-jerk troglodytes who repeat everything he says, don't get that we spend every year more on communications than the NBN will cost. As NBN is largely disaster resistant, unlike the old Telstra copper network, the argument to put back the problem the way it was and avoid an obvious upgrade is just typically small and shortsighted thinking. Edited by rubaiyat: 9/2/2011 09:25:45 AM
gone4good 9 February 2011	I understand the importance of optical fibre as a backhaul for communications between various nodes, however with the proliferation of portable devices, would having a solid wireless network be essential? I just can't see the point of wiring every house (business is different of course) with optical fibre if more and more people are either: 1. relying on mobile devices for the communication; or 2. not intending to data cable their house to take advantage of the service. I have whole scores of friends who do not have a connected phone line at home. Their internet/phone is through a wireless provider on their mobile devices. They would not have a need to pay a monthly fee on top of what they already use. Surely better wireless services would best suit them while having the provision to connect to a fibre network should they need to in the future? There is also a large section of internet users (such as myself) who have not data cabled their house for one reason or another. Instead use some form of 802.11x as their home network. As they are limited by the internal network speed, having 100mbit fibre seems pointless if their router can't handle that level of traffic. Yes, this maybe short sighted as I'm thinking of now rather than 10 years from now, however I would expect that in 10 years there would be far more internet traffic via portable devices than fixed computers. I understand the concept of one cable for all entertainment and communications in the home (I lived in the US for a number of years), however connecting everyone to it whether they will use it or not where money could be spent improving wireless technologies seems rather pointless. The point is, if Vivid Wireless can roll out a network which provides nearly 100mbit via wireless, why can't our Govt do the same using our tax dollars?
rubaiyat 9 February 2011	The optical cabling will have to span from business to business anyway, why not cover what is between. It was not stated but all the wireless networking I have seen is relatively short range and rapidly fades off, especially if taxed with heavy traffic. Where is the extra bandwidth to come from to meet exponential growth? Are we going to put up with the forest of towers necessary? What happens to the towers when the bushfires/floods/cyclones strike and we need the communications urgently? What will the enormous number of ugly towers cost? Or is this another example of only exaggerating the cost of technology you don't like and ignoring the intangible costs of tower blight and possible side effects of swamping us all in microwaves?
911TS 12 February 2011	So they got 128Mbps on a test network all bandwidth avialable to one user. Experience tell us that when carriers claim wireless speeds of X, the reality is X/2 or even X/4. In the real world, LTE will be 20Mbps or less when the network is congested.