Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4?
The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird > Here is the quick answer: > 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite > well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly > available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher > latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other > proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 > GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where > no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this > technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable > performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless > broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other > broadband platform (wireless or wired). > > 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 > GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done > to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to > deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct > competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an > exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for > you at this time. > > For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for > paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step > instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for > locations. > Scriv > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird <m...@tc3net.com> wrote: > >> I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone >> have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of >> Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of >> technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? >> >> Regards >> Michael Baird >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
