Judd, You are comparing apples to bananas to oranges. I know; I make them all (DSSS, FHSS, OFDM, and 900MHz). 900MHz produces better penetration soley as a matter of frequency, not modulation. And if you had a 900MHz that also did OFDM, you'd learn it would be far more capable than even my own 900MHz FHSS or anyone else's 900MHz DSSS.
You are welcome to think OFDM is "useless." You should know though that every major WLAN company disagrees, as do the engineers in the IEEE. 802.11a is OFDM based. 802.11g is OFDM based. 802.16a is OFDM based. Within 2 years, you'll have a very difficult time finding any DSSS in WLAN world. The consensus is all there that OFDM represents the core of the next generation. Even Aperto, Proxim, Airspan, and others historically resistant to it, have now said OFDM will form their core products. As for UWB, no one with any knowledge would disagree that it is am extremely capable technology and can do all the best of everything. You neglect the reality of the regulatory environment. The FCC barely approved what minimal version they did. It matters not one wit what something can do if the feds do not permit the technology to be implemented to maximum effect. Lastly, you should be candid with this community and admit your visceral hatred of all things Alvarion. Lord knows I have the collection offlist threats and attacks from you over the past 2 years. It is also why no positive Alvarion comments or Alvarion people are allowed on his "uncensored" list. That is also why Judd will always take a position contrary to my position, regardless of its intellectual merit. Comments about our being proprietary are silly to the absurd. In almost every standard to date you'll find us as part of the core team creating it. In wireless broadband, there was no standard to implement. EVERY vendor building specific for wireless broadband had no choice but to implement "proprietary." There was no standard to implement. Now there is with 802.16a and where is Alvarion? We were in 802.16a in the begiunning. We are chiefly the ones responsible for creating harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and the 802.16a (which was a very tough battle our scientists won that is key to industry adoption going global). Oh, and we hold the number 2 and 4 positions (VP and Treasurer) at WIMAX. And we announced with Intel just a few weeks ago that we will be the first to use their standards-based 802.16a silicon. Alvarion, Motorola, Proxim, Trango, Aperto, Airspan, Navin, Beamreach, Cambridge, Netro, Hybrid, Vyyo, P-Com, Western Multiplex, Malibu, Arraycom, Waverider, WiLAN, Redline, and the few others I missed...they all have proprietary products at the moment. Now that is an inconvenient fact isn't it? As for affordability? It is true, you find us too expensive. However, most of the market of legitimate operators disagree. Ours books are public. Examine them for yourself for the proof by comparing our results to any and all of our peers. - Patrick -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:08 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: [BAWUG] 802.11b Long Range non line of sight With DSSS and FHSS, you don't need LOS either. But there are extreme limits on distance and when it comes to getting links on a sectored or omni directional ptmp system, your going to be hit-and-miss. >From what I've heard, the 900Mhz stuff works well, very well, NLOS like we see on our cell phones, where a general wall or building isn't going to kill your signal to an unusable amount. But at 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz, even with OFDM and AP's that cost $2500+ each and $600-1000 CPE, your not going to only battle hit-and-miss coverage, but then you begin the battle price vs widespread acceptance of the technology. UWB might be the next big step, where, instead of a complete loss of a connection, you only lose part of the connection that is blocked and the throughput may fall, but may still be usable at 100Mbit of sustained throughput, even with error rates. Personally, I think that OFDM is useless unless it becomes affordable. Alvarion has never brought equipment down to a generally affordable level, in contrast to other existing equipment solutions. So I don't have much faith in anything that Alvarion claims, even if it is true and does work, cuz we don't want to go broke implementing proprietary solutions that give no consideration to current market demands, including price requirements for acceptance. By widespread acceptance, I mean that at some point, the equipment would become fairly "standard" for the industry. Judd Jeff King wrote: > Thanks Patrick. What I am looking for is the "white paper" that will qualify > your statement: "With OFDM, you DON'T need LOS." in the context of the title > of this thread (or at least the frequency domain). > > -- > Jeff King, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/29/2003 > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:15:04 -0700, Patrick Leary wrote: > >Until I can link to our paper, here are some resources to study > >OFDM. > > > >http://www.palowireless.com/ofdm/tutorials.asp > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
