Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
From what I can tell, it's not foot-dragging, but knockdown dragout politics
between major players with vested interests. And that's politics as usual,
same as it ever was. BTW, the FCC has nothing to do with the creation or
implementation of standards, except to limit how frequency bands can be
used. And nobody is "given the job" of working it all out. The task is taken
on voluntarily by the various companies that have the capital and manpower
to accomplish the task. Anyone who can do a better job will take their
business away.
The problem is that no-one knows what "WIMAX" means. If it has a definition,
it is the one given by the WiMAX vendor consortium, which insists that it
intends to foster the spread of 802.16. These would probably be your
"foot-draggers" who have the job of working it out. But they are currently
powerless (see below).
"802.16" is no more meaningful than "802.11". There are already two approved
standards - 802.16 and 802.16a - but these are for fixed ptp and ptmp.
802.16e, which adds support for mobile users, is less than 6 months old. If
you want the messy details, see:
http://www.ieee802.org/16/tge/
Within IEEE, 802.20 ("mobile-fi") competes to some extent with 802.16e. I'm
not clear on all the details. but it apparently overlaps 802.16e enough to
be considered a competitor. I know some companies have announced they plan
to support both standards. Will they? We'll see. Companies like NTT see
802.20 as possible competition with 3G cell technology, so they support
802.16e as the lesser of two evils. And of course there are existing
non-standard cell solutions like IPWireless.
In the end, the WiMAX consortium is only useful to the degree that it has a
large constituency with a consensus on a standard. The telcos demand a
standards-based solution - which standard will win? How long will the
non-standard solutions live after a standard is settled on? Will vendors
have to support multiple standards (remember dual-band trimode 802.11)?
There's no way to settle these questions until the fat lady actually hits
high C. Meanwhile, WiMAX can do nothing but issue press releases about who
joined the consortium lately. If 802.20 wins, I imagine WiMAX will restate
its definition of "WIMAX".
BTW, 802.16e is licensed spectrum only. 802.16a includes unlicensed
spectrum, but i'ts LOS fixed-station. Look how fast unlicensed spectrum is
becoming polluted in the 802.11 world! Ptp LOS MANs under 802.16a are
probably directional enough to to avoid major conflict, but do you really
want to support non-LOS mobile users in unlicensed spectrum? How reliable
can we make that? I don't know the answer, but it's worth thinking about.
"charlie3" <charlie@cdsdetroit.com> wrote in message
news:947d5aea.0405191750.4b0289a2@posting.google.com...
> I have read dozens of articles about WIMAX hoping to learn something
> with no success. The people supposedly promoting this standard are
> dragging their feet and they aren't making representations about
> performance. These omissions have me suspecting that WIMAX is a fraud
> in the making and the wrong people have been given the job of working
> it out.
>
> There is already wireless broadband available in many, mostly rural
> places. I know people living in the countryside who have it and it
> works well--IF the customer can locate his antenna with a direct line
> of site to the transmitti9ng tower. If WIMAX doesn't reduce the line
> of site requirement substantially then it is superfluous.
>
> Supposedly some of the bandwidth will be license free, similar to
> WIFI. If that is true then may be some small scale long range
> wireless stuff will be available for the little guys, like me. I bet
> that is giving the big players fits. The FCC is letting the foxes run
> the chicken farm and they will stall until they can figure out how to
> steal the chickens or put the farm out of business.
>
> If I'm wrong about the above then let's see some articles that aren't
> meaningless puffery written by people who care enough to ask the right
> questions.
>
> Charlie
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram