Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to en102
Re: Range
said by en102  :I _really_ don't think anyone's using omnidirectional for data communications. Its a waste of spectrum. The main reason for trimming to a few miles vs. ~30miles is capacity. How many users can use WiMAX in any given area can use it, if you're going to spread a 70MHz beam over 30 miles, even in one sector. Backhauling is different direct point-to-point, with a narrow area would obviously give a much longer range. Poor choice of words on my part. The 30 miles is for point-to-point is what I was getting at. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Matt
I _really_ don't think anyone's using omnidirectional for data communications. Its a waste of spectrum.
The main reason for trimming to a few miles vs. ~30miles is capacity. How many users can use WiMAX in any given area can use it, if you're going to spread a 70MHz beam over 30 miles, even in one sector. Backhauling is different direct point-to-point, with a narrow area would obviously give a much longer range.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :I'm a little disappointed in the range of the service from the towers, it's not even close to the 30 miles that was reported. The hype hasn't matched the technology, so far. That's point-to-point using directional antennas.
Omnidirectional service is closer to a few mile radius. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | I'm a little disappointed in the range of the service from the towers, it's not even close to the 30 miles that was reported.
The hype hasn't matched the technology, so far. |
|
