XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to tmc8080
Re: No WIFI replacement.
said by tmc8080  :Wimax won't replace WIFI because primarily ISP wireless broadband carriers (primarily cellular) are commercializing the technology. This limits the use to paid service providers. This will not replace the local connectivity applications that WIFI abgn fills. So, who cares if the ITU finally gets off their ass and does something marginally useful as approving a transmission standard in a walled garden. WiMAX is intended as a last mile solution not to replace Wifi. So you would be able to get DSL, Cable or WiMAX. Speed claims of 70mbps over short 3-12KM but really 10 Mbps at 10 km would probably be what you end up with.
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Well... that's the theory.
70Mbps over 3-12km... while it is possible, I don't think it will be deployed with 70Mbps for some time. 3km is probably a realistic range for any urban/suburban deployment though. I'd suspect 4-10Mbps at 3-5km. I don't see anyone deploying +10Mbps wireless in the U.S. for a while. Even if it has a +10Mbps connection, downloads will most likely be capped initially.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
@bellsouth.net
| I think the posts here are bluring the lines between fixed and mobile WiMax. The panel approved the mobile technology. I do agree that's a nice hurdle to have jumped over. Aren't some of these speed quotes and other reference more in line with it's fixed cousin ? |
|
aaaaaaaaaaaaa
@bellsouth.net | XOHM
BTW FWIW The mobile version of WiMAX is already being deployed in US by Sprint as XOHM. Some places should see this availabe early to middle 2008. »www.xohm.com/ |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| reply to XBL2009
Re: No WIFI replacement.
said by XBL2009 :said by tmc8080 :Wimax won't replace WIFI because primarily ISP wireless broadband carriers (primarily cellular) are commercializing the technology. This limits the use to paid service providers. This will not replace the local connectivity applications that WIFI abgn fills. So, who cares if the ITU finally gets off their ass and does something marginally useful as approving a transmission standard in a walled garden. WiMAX is intended as a last mile solution not to replace Wifi. So you would be able to get DSL, Cable or WiMAX. Speed claims of 70mbps over short 3-12KM but really 10 Mbps at 10 km would probably be what you end up with. If you read between the lines.. WIMAX wasn't supposed to be a standard until LATE 2009 or beyond. Getting the stars to align properly is apparently in the interest if BIG WIRELESS carriers.. Sprint is one that comes to mind. Although, now that Sprint has almost bet the farm on wimax.. undoubtedly if they make even a moderate success of it, Verizon will be on the heels of it's own wimax eventually.
There have been many business class wireless cellular commercial grade standards getting nods; cdma, gsm, gprs, edge, dect, ditial amps, and lovely iden. In rather quick succession. Compare this with wifi's standards. Closer to the ITU's long delays of the 14.4-56k modem days.
Originally, WIMAX was billed as a competing home wireless network standard with better specifications than 802.11n could ever hope for. That simply died due to the implications of having cellular carriers with no technology upgrade path(this is where my disappointment comes from). Apparently inventing their own has all but petered out. We can also learn from the iphone controversy that consumers WANT CHOICE AND INTEROPERABILITY. There is also the issue of open wireless networks competing with a paid-for subscription (free vs. pay).
The way the cellular industry plays, few, if any *SMALL* carriers will get into the business. (seeing as 700mhz went to AT&T) Expect no competition. The small fries got fried.
... and the consumer got screwed as fewer technology and communications companies OWN the landscape which we live and breathe on (this is a world-wide phenomenon, at least the US knows how to lead in the corporate greed in this area). |
|
wombough
join:2001-08-30
Beaufort, SC | verizon is not going anywhere near wimax. Vodfone made sure it gets in line with them in Europe and will deploy LTE! |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Re: XOHM
Don't forget that is a Sprint-Clearwire deal. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to tmc8080
Re: No WIFI replacement.
If Wimax was for the home than why the word metropolitan in the standard. Wimax was never for the home, it was to allow for the outdoor use of wireless as a broadband technology because at the time Wifi equipment lacked the potential to achieve this.
WIMAX was only billed as a "competing" technology by those who only understood that wifi and wimax delivered networkin g via a wireless technology.
It's taken so long for a wimax standard and equipment that in the meantime wifi has evolved to allow for what wimax was originally going to do. |
|
wombough
join:2001-08-30
Beaufort, SC | there are two wimax options fixed and wireless. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to wombough
The LTE for Verizon was not officially announced. It was mentioned by one person in one sentence at a conference. It threw Verizon off-guard. However it is very possible Verizon will use LTE, but it is hardly a final decision. They'll wait to make a decision after the 700mhz auction. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to cmaenginsb
WiMAX is mostly intended for Net mobility on any kind of consumer device. But it may compete with landline broadband in some cases, just not it's primary target.
There will be dual WiMAX/WiFi chipsets. They will complement each other. WiMAX was never intended to replace WiFi, but to complement it.
In fact, WiFi Muni providers are excited about using WiMAX as a backhaul for WiFi sites. |
|
