Hi Marlon, Shouldn't you be planting wheat or something right about now or otherwise doing donuts with that combine of yours? :)
Actually, I do not know of any group specifically doing that at the Forum. That said, there is a regulatory working group (led by Intel's Margaret LaBrecque) at the Forum. I do interface with them from time to time as you may suspect. Also, and we have discussed this quite a bit, the Commission did not intend to mandate specifically a contention-based protocol. They used the "contention" word because it best described what they were trying to get at, which is essentially some type of mechanism that enabled equipment to, without human intervention, get along in the contentious environment of UL. I know this as a matter of fact because I sat in the room with the folks that wrote the rules shortly after they published them and asked them the question point blank. By way of support of my insight, you might note that they Order also discusses WiMAX as something they supported (though not and never exclusively). In other words, the FCC tried to be accepting and neutral as it relates to either 802.11 or 802.16 or anything else. As you know, technical neutrality is something they are fond of these days. In general, people at the Commission will tell you that they were frustrated and felt left hanging as it relates to 3650MHz. They believe that the market did not give them enough guidance and they were taken aback by the storm of controversy that ensued from the published R&O. In fact, they did not know that they were asking for things that were 180 degrees out of phase with each other (e.g. supporting some contention-like mechanism while also encouraging WiMAX). And today we have a new Commission under Chairman Martin. Much has changed. While Julie and Lauren are still there, guys like Muleta, Pepper, and Marcus have gone. I had Bryan Tramont, former FCC Chief of Staff under Powell, present to a group of folks recently (Scriv was there) and he said that the FCC is no closer now than last year in terms of resolving 3650MHz. In short, don't look for resolution anytime this year, except maybe...maybe...the end of the year at best. I also realize that many WISPs and others have been getting 24-month STAs. But folks need to know that those carry some risks in the sense that the "testing" done cannot be revenue generating services and nothing prevents the investment from being fully wasted if the FCC rules in some way the makes certain geographies licensed or certain parts of the allocation licensed. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -----Original Message----- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update GREAT post Patrick! Thank you so very much for it. This is one of the reasons why I'm so proud of WISPA. We're attracting the cream of the WISP crop. As operators and distributors and manufacturers. I really hope we continue to grow in these well thought out, honest directions. Having said that, it looks to me like you are saying that there's a WiMAX group that's taking on the contention based issue put forth by the FCC in the 3650 report and order. Please tell me I DO get to have my cake and eat it too! (Contention based requirements SHOULD give us quite a bit of interference protection vs. current rule sets AND the cost basis of unlicensed bands.) Enquiring minds want to know! Great to have you aboard.... Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update > Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your > question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. > > First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally > see > lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line > first, > so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as > other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I > would.UL > > Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around > it: > > 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz: > Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled > BWA > deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power > allowances, > and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is > 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that > profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most > likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz > WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support > 3650MHz. > > 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only: > The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That > is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who > wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs > to be broadened. > > 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed: > The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed > LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was > amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same > MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly > efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only > interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot > comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. > In > the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler > results > in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air. > > The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9 > months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to > come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems > using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of > technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16 > device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this > TG. > It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint > TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse > to > joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick > technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in > the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be. > > Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release > UL > WiMAX as it exists today. > > 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile > access: > Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the > channelization > options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize > that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current > efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per > megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes > delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last > mile > centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You > quickly > begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things > like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging. > > What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build > residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would > expect > at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we > are not talking about sub-$200 devices. > > 5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE: > Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to > support > a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the > same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world. > > 6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of > 802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005: > While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of > the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight > to > 802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about > mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic > and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big > R&D money is at now and vendors planning to participate in the main WiMAX > market (the 802.16e-2005 world) have to invest to stay ahead. This makes > 802.16-2004, and all the profiles that go along with it, including the UL > profiles, a lesser priority, at least relative to 802.16e-2005. > > > So the net result of all these issues is that the suppliers are cautious > and > not certain about the market size for UL WiMAX, or even who will be the > big > buyers. Is there a large enough market to drive down prices? Who knows, > currently the main growth in the UL BWA market is happening at the Wi-Fi > muniwireless level and there is a sense that this needs to play out, even > while WiMAX may make a good PMP backhaul solution for those projects. > > I continue to hear that some vendors out there continue to say something > like, "we have UL WiMAX just around the corner!" the fact is that as of > the > last WiMAX Forum meeting (in Paris last month), not a single vendor had > yet > submitted UL WiMAX product for certification testing. And keep in mind > that > it takes three to submit before any testing can even begin. > > I do not hear enough suppliers being blunt to WISPs and others about all > these issues revolving around UL WiMAX and the WiMAX Forum itself needs to > be more clear about the different types of WiMAX. > > Also, as operators you really have to ask yourself, what do I want out of > UL > WiMAX? Can you get that with other or current gear? Finally, when UL WiMAX > product first hits the market, if it comes from a new entrant with no > current customers to piss off, approach it with healthy skepticism and see > if it addresses the issues put forth above. Heck, do that even if it comes > from respectable long term players like us. > > Lastly, I'd advise that while you keep an eye out for progress on the UL > WIMAX front, you continue to deploy and put your faith in current > technology. From our end, solutions like BreezeACCESS VL are developed > specifically for the UL world and they are mature (over 300,000 installed > units) and ever improving. We will continue to invest in VL for the > foreseeable future, including making sure it supports ALL the 5GHz ranges > so > operators have choice and can scale. And to lend weight to the "continue > to > invest" claim, we have a firmware version entering beta right now that > will > blow the doors off you. We have basically stripped it down and rebuilt it. > Not only is it enabling a massive packet per second increase, but we have > added a prioritization feature that allows an operator to prioritize > certain > types of traffic network wide. For example, it can be configured to let > all > voice (or video) traffic from all CPEs be transmitted first, with less > time > sensitive traffic like basic data released second. This is true no matter > the users' placement geographically in the network -- on the edge or near > the base station. At the same time, we have a starvation prevention > algorithm to make sure other apps are not starved out. This all happens > dynamically. We have tentative (lab) data showing this improves concurrent > voice sessions per sector from 40'ish to over 250. We'll see how this > plays > out in our voice and video betas. > > In addition, we have added QinQ VPN ability, so individual clients can > create secure VPN tunnel within an operators own VPNs. And there are a > host > of other new features. > > Obviously, this is the one example I can speak about with authority, but I > am sure the other vendors will continue to invest and support their own > current UL technologies for a long time to come. > > Regards, > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > -----Original Message----- > From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:52 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick note of hello > > Welcome back Patrick > > How is Alvarion doing concerning UL WIMAX? > > George > > > Patrick Leary wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I just wanted to drop you guys a note that I have re-subscribed after >> being off the list for maybe two years. Hope all is well. >> >> >> >> Patrick Leary >> >> AVP Marketing >> >> Alvarion, Inc. >> >> o: 650.314.2628 >> >> c: 760.580.0080 >> >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >> Skype: pleary >> >> >> >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
