Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20478100 en Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:16:53 EDT Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:16:53 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20484685 tc1uscg : They do.. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20484685 Wed, 14 May 2008 23:18:50 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478766 Test99 :
said by tc1uscg See Profile :

So, what's the stop these "conventional" switches from installing new IP based switches like the Nortel Session switches?
Nothing at all. I imagine Sprint will choose something like that.

The people who say Sprint has underestimated the cost of the new network are arguing that it will cost more because it cost more to install the original cellular networks. But that is an apples-and-oranges comparison, because IP switches are less expensive.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478766 Tue, 13 May 2008 23:15:08 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478530 tc1uscg :
said by Test99 See Profile :

One place in a WiMax network where there should be some savings is back at the central office. WiMax is a packet-oriented protocol, in contrast to the connection-oriented protocols used in conventional switches. According to reports, a conventional switch can easily cost a million dollars. The routers for WiMax should cost substantially less.
So, what's the stop these "conventional" switches from installing new IP based switches like the Nortel Session switches? Knowing some contractors who work in these CO's, these "conventional" switches are already being offloaded to the newer systems. Give the telco's a little credit. They have been handling IP traffic for a few years now with most of it from VoIP providers who didn't have that connectivity to the rest of the world. :o]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478530 Tue, 13 May 2008 22:33:51 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478157 anon : 140 population coverage, not point of presence.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478157 Tue, 13 May 2008 22:08:42 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478100 Gog123 : 4-5 mile Non line of sight range or 10 Mile line of sight range for Wimax. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20478100 Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:29 EDT Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477930 anon : How can it take 140 Million POPs to cover the US? Did Clearwire state earlier (or someone else did) on BroadbandReports that it only took 4 towers to cover the entire NYC area? That means may 2 towers per average city (sorry I'm small time 100,000 population, maybe I'm mis-directed). Are there even that many cell towers out there for 700 million population (in the us roughly I think)? Or am I mis-interpreting the article?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477930 Tue, 13 May 2008 20:50:31 EDT Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477308 Test99 : One place in a WiMax network where there should be some savings is back at the central office. WiMax is a packet-oriented protocol, in contrast to the connection-oriented protocols used in conventional switches. According to reports, a conventional switch can easily cost a million dollars. The routers for WiMax should cost substantially less.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477308 Tue, 13 May 2008 18:51:27 EDT