Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp
type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed,
but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you
wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a
PTP r
The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered
bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but
sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the
shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I
don't see
Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in
900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary
users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have
the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
S
Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in ter
You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
Certification is a multi stage process. The first set of certs is purely
political, you are right. Wave 1 is merely an equipment level handshake. It
is not until Wave 2 testing that the critical features needed by operators
will be tested. Our solution is already beyond that (we have over 50 full
c
Hi All,
If anyone is interested in attending Globalcomm (Chicago, June 4th-7th), here is
a discount coupon good for a free floor pass(es) or $150 off of a complete
registration:
http://www.imagestream.com/Globalcomm2006.PDF
Hope to see you there!
Jeff
Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager
ImageStre
Yes -- but WHAT are you deploying in 5.8?
The most commonly used 5.8 systems out there are EXTREMELY BASIC as compared
to what stuff out there can do -- but that is required, since interference
robustness / reliability is the #1 consideration in license-exempt band
operation
There are systems out
Charles Wu wrote:
What do you think is going to happen?
Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the
non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum,
it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz.
-Matt
--
WISPA W
A shared license (w/ zero barriers to entry, etc) w/out a very strict
coordination scheme (which will never be implemented by the FCC due to the
fact that it's A LOT of work to build, maintain and administer) is still
basically an unlicensed system
Say there are 10 operators in a market
You deplo
Hi Patrick,
But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch & dinner =(
-Charles
-
To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX
is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal...
Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is
it required for base certification today?
Hehe
-Charles
P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types
But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared
license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend
with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop.
-Matt
Charles Wu wrote:
W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad*
You really ne
W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad*
You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability
in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment
-Charles
---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com
-Original Me
http://www.wispcentric.com/content/view/4404/87/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/osceola/orl-wifi2006may20,0,4256542.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-osceola
May 20, 2006
*St. Cloud, Florida, is probably unfairly receiving close scrutiny on
its free, city-wide network paid with municipa
We are looking for a fixed wireless operator in the Dallas metro area
that primarily serves business customers that would be interested in a
partner or an acquisition. Contact me offlist if you are interested.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists
16 matches
Mail list logo
