Wimax Vs Wibro and TV

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hi,

I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.

I am looking for information about the following topics.
1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
the solutions.
2. Business models, like what its potentially used for? I see for
example in Hong Kong and elsewhere the satellite TV provider has
problems getting subscribers as private dishes are not allowed, will
such networks be an alternative? Will we get TV over it into home?
3. What's the coverage limitation? I heard in Korea they have problems
implementing handover at speed with Wibro.

I might not be in the exact forum, its the closest I found, so if there
are better forums for teh topics, I will appreciate the advise.

Roni
6 answers Last reply
More about wimax wibro
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Wimax is not Tv related
    As for Wilbro I have never heard of it.

    "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1126314867.891802.202290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.
    >
    > I am looking for information about the following topics.
    > 1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
    > the solutions.
    > 2. Business models, like what its potentially used for? I see for
    > example in Hong Kong and elsewhere the satellite TV provider has
    > problems getting subscribers as private dishes are not allowed, will
    > such networks be an alternative? Will we get TV over it into home?
    > 3. What's the coverage limitation? I heard in Korea they have problems
    > implementing handover at speed with Wibro.
    >
    > I might not be in the exact forum, its the closest I found, so if there
    > are better forums for teh topics, I will appreciate the advise.
    >
    > Roni
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I know its not TV related, but I assume it will be used to transmit TV
    same as mobile is starting now ti be such media.


    As for Wibro see attached article (one of many)
    http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3569
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    And as you asked I looked for more.

    http://www.wimaxtrends.com/ its about wimax and TV, I do believe the
    technology will be used for delivering any content to the users and TV
    is only one example, and it can be over Internet or dedicated IP network
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 9 Sep 2005 18:14:27 -0700, "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote:

    >I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.

    It wasn't. Most of the traffic in alt.wireless.internet is about home
    and office wireless 802.11a/b/g networking.

    >1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
    >the solutions.

    Wibro is an implementation of what Portable WiMax is suppose to
    eventually deliver when the IEEE gets done hammering out the specs.
    In theory, it will give the users high speed data on their cell phones
    but on different frequencies. As always, available bandwidth is the
    problem with 50Mbits/sec total bandwidth per base station and about
    2Mbits/sec delivered per user maximum.

    I'm not going to compare WiMax and WiBro because both are going to
    change when Intel, LG, and others hammer out a common and compatible
    standard:

    http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4164
    Basically, the modulation schemes are almost identical but the roaming
    protocols are radically different. WiBro is based on 802.16e (draft
    3) and largely delivers what 802.16e roaming and fast handoff are
    suppose to eventually deliver. I guess Korea got tired of waiting.

    >2. Business models, like what its potentially used for?

    The theory is that consumers will pay to watch a tiny TV image on
    their cell phones. Maybe video phones. Interactive games.
    Delivering advertising via location based services. Portable iTunes.
    Whatever features, note that they all are aimed at delivering
    "content" to the consumer at a price. There's a demand for all of
    these, but revenue model must include something for the service
    provider or there's no reason to do it. A good example is what
    Verizon did to the Motorola V710 cell phone. You have to use their
    overpriced BREW service to unload photographs via their network
    instead of just transferring it via the built in Bluetooth. So, the
    crippled the phone and disabled Bluetooth file transfers. Expect more
    of the same with DRM issues and replication.

    >I see for
    >example in Hong Kong and elsewhere the satellite TV provider has
    >problems getting subscribers as private dishes are not allowed, will
    >such networks be an alternative?

    No. The problem with satellite TV is that the local government has no
    control over content. With cellular based TV, the local government
    can easily control content and will surely do so.

    >Will we get TV over it into home?

    Must I do the bandwidth calculations for you? To get lousy and
    over-compressed full screen TV, you need about 300Kbit/sec of
    streaming thruput. Download the latest Winamp and try some of the
    streaming video content. Would you pay to watch that level of
    non-quality while the rest of the planet is moving to HDTV? Why would
    you want it portable, when you can use a DVR to record it and watch it
    later?

    Dig out your local wireless cellular data provider and find out what
    they charge for bandwidth by the byte transferred. Then calculate
    what 300Kbits/sec of a typical 1 hour TV show would cost to deliver
    via cellular.

    >3. What's the coverage limitation? I heard in Korea they have problems
    >implementing handover at speed with Wibro.

    They just installed the system. They're short on towers and have
    large gaps in the coverage. Expecting reliable handoff at this time
    is unrealistic. When they have sufficient overlapping coverage
    between sites, then we can talk seamless handoff. If you're expecting
    streaming content while moving down the highway without interruption
    and with seamless handoffs, methinks you're expecting far too much at
    this time.

    >I might not be in the exact forum, its the closest I found, so if there
    >are better forums for teh topics, I will appreciate the advise.

    Use Goggle. I'm sure there are WiMax and WiBro specific forums.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I appreciate your input but look at the attached link, Wimax & TV

    http://www.wimaxtrends.com/

    September 5, 2005 - Satellite operators continue to take a strong
    interest in WiMAX as a way to enhance their triple play plans with
    two-way communications. According to Reuters, Alvarion is negotiating
    with US satellite television giant DirecTV Group to supply WiMAX
    equipment, and the UK's SkyTV, another Rupert Murdoch company, is
    also investigating the technology as it comes under increasing
    competitive pressure from DSL and cable-based offerings.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 11 Sep 2005 03:50:19 -0700, "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I appreciate your input but look at the attached link, Wimax & TV
    >
    >http://www.wimaxtrends.com/
    >
    > September 5, 2005 - Satellite operators continue to take a strong
    >interest in WiMAX as a way to enhance their triple play plans with
    >two-way communications. According to Reuters, Alvarion is negotiating
    >with US satellite television giant DirecTV Group to supply WiMAX
    >equipment, and the UK's SkyTV, another Rupert Murdoch company, is
    >also investigating the technology as it comes under increasing
    >competitive pressure from DSL and cable-based offerings.

    Keep reading
    | http://www.wimaxtrends.com/articles/feature/f090505b.htm
    in the same article. They go on talking about balloon borne repeaters
    for delivering HDTV. The article is written by an employee of a
    research group, which derives its revenue from selling science fiction
    reports on such exotic technologies. In my never humble opinion, it
    won't fly and will have most of the problems and costs associated with
    satellites. It's interesting to note that there have been no pilot
    installations of such repeaters located on mountain tops, where the
    technology and reliability can be more easily tested.

    In late 1998, I threw together a web page of alternatives to DSL and
    cable for the San Francisco Bay area. I included some of the science
    fiction schemes for delivering internet. I left it in place for
    historical interest. Most of the companies mentioned in the Sci-Fi
    section are gone. However, the ideas keep arising from the dead.
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/nooze/wireless.htm
    At the time, Skystation was pushing tethered balloons. Angel
    Technologies was doing airplanes flying donuts at high altitude.
    Since then, other companies and consortia have offered similar ideas.
    Few have offered anything substantial or economical. Deja Vu.

    Whenever you read about some radical new technology adopted by a high
    profile company or consortium, always ask yourself "What problem are
    they trying to solve?" It's often not obvious. In the case of the
    satellite DBS TV vendors, the problem is how to get a piece of the
    internet action. DirectWay is fairly close to being saturated, offers
    comparatively mediocre performance compared to DSL and cable, and
    costs far too much for commodity service. In other words, it works,
    but doesn't scale well and is at a competitive disadvantage. So, the
    DBS vendors are looking for alternatives and WiMax seems to be a
    likely candidate.

    In the USA, note that the same DBS vendors have tried to resell DSL,
    muscle into sharing CATV bandwidth, re-use their downlink frequencies
    for terrestrial internet, and sponsored some rather radical
    technologies. In other words, they're desperate.

    They're also very conservative bordering on reactionary. Few of these
    are sold as technologies to deliver internet access. They're into
    delivering "content" which is a reflection of their original revenue
    base in the form of advertising. For CATV, it's not internet access
    but rather "interactive TV". Delivering the same advertising to cell
    phones via WiMax seems to interest everyone except the consumers.

    Also remember that all this RF based technology is limited by spectrum
    and the various highly political regulatory disorganizations. If some
    company suddenly delivered the ultimate bandwidth saving delivery
    mechanism, with obvious benefits, and immediate popularity, it would
    still take years and more years to politic the FCC, ITU, and WRC into
    supplying the frequencies. Years after it was obvious the WiMax was
    viable and needed spectrum, the FCC managed to release a non-fabulous
    50MHz of spectrum at 3.6GHz, which cannot be used in most populous
    areas near both coasts due to sharing with satellite downlink users.
    It was also a very bad trade for "deregulating" DSL, where WiMax is
    allegedly the direction the displaced ILEC's are suppose to drift.

    Without frequencies and politics, nothing in RF-land ever happens.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Ask a new question

Read More

Wimax Wireless Networking