By the way, it will also be interesting to see what the price points on this will be. I can get you a 3-sector 60 mbps net capacity cell (at full QoS load) for $20k, complete with local sync (no separate sync module needed for local cell sync) and NMS with enterprise CPE (around 20 mb/s) for $300-$400ish. And that is with the WiMAX plus features based on over a dozen QoS and link optimization patents. It is a really good system, especially for people doing things like multi-line voice. You won't get any interoperability with other vendors with that, but you don't get that with Canopy either.
Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? Patrick, Motorola has an 802.16e variant product coming out early next year. Supposed to be a fixed implementation of the 802.16e standard. I'm sure we would all like to hear your thoughts on it Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Patrick Leary >Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:59 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? > >And you know that is fine. Just tired of the goofy drum beat for E. >Even though we are building E too, my opinion is that E is a standard >looking for a home now that LTE is clearly eating E's lunch for mobile >operators. So those guys who have gone all-or-nothing with E are >desparately trying to find places to sell it. > >The right tool for the job. > >I also think Motorola made a poor decision not to field a 3.65 product. >They might have been able to run the table, but the fact is that your >business and that of all your peers in not interesting enough to >Motorola corporately to even modestly invest in new and evolving >products. For us, guys like you are our business. > > >Patrick Leary >Aperto Networks >813.426.4230 mobile > >-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Gino Villarini >Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:49 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? > >Im 802.16c, C as in Canopy > >Ducking....!!! > >Hello Patrick! > > >Gino A. Villarini >g...@aeronetpr.com >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Patrick Leary >Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:28 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? > >The subject question is one Aperto thinks should be asked and now is >the time to ask it. The WiMAX Forum has been beating the 802.16e drum >in a manner trying to chump 802.16d. The fact is, there are two WiMAX >standards, not one. By the Forum's own words from a 2005 paper it put >out in November 2005, penned by Monica Paoli of Seza Fila: > >"The WiMAX Forum is committed to providing optimized solutions for >fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile broadband wireless access. Two >versions of WiMAX address the demand for these different types of >access: >* 802.16-2004 WiMAX. This is based on the 802.16-2004 version of the >IEEE 802.16 standard and on ETSI HiperMAN. It uses Orthogonal Frequency >Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and supports fixed and nomadic access in >Line of Sight >(LOS) and Non Line of Sight (NLOS) environments. >* 802.16e WiMAX. Optimized for dynamic mobile radio channels, this >version is based on the 802.16e amendment and provides support for >handoffs and roaming." > >It is time the Forum own up to their own words, so Aperto is going to >asking the question at 4G World coming up in Chicago next week. The >fact is, the fixed standard is stable and ideal for what it was >designed to >do: deliver fixed (and limited nomadicity) wireless broadband. This >version of the standard is better, yes better, than the mobile version >for doing metroscale fixed. It provides 13% more capacity per MHz and >35% or so less latency. It can also be configured for symmetric or even >higher ratio upstream vs. downstream, which is critical for networks >doing high capacity upstream like video surveillance. > >For too long, vendors that now only do the mobile standard have been >trying to squeeze the round peg of the mobile standard into the square >hole of fixed networks. This has been confusing many, and leading some >to overpay for their networks. Why pay for millions in R&D for features >that you can never use, especially in a 3.65 GHz network where mobile >can't happen? We have seen "consultants" spec'ing in E for 3.65 GHz, >thinking they will get interoperability and even PC cards for their >networks. They also think they can get self-install -- something this >community knows is not possible in 3.65 GHz due to the power >restrictions placed on indoor modems. Operators and other would-be >WiMAX deployers are being hoodwinked. > >The E standard does enable use of diversity, but it comes at a high >cost and is of limited benefit for rural operators. The truth is that >diversity is designed to increase link budgets to support self-install. > >Basically, each standard has its place, E is for people in 2.5 GHz >doing self-install, like Clearwire, and we all know the low service >(especially low upstream) packages offered in Clearwire's service. D is >better and cheaper for rural fixed operators, and especially for public >safety video type networks and definitely for voice-centric users. D is >better for enterprise, where many users sit behind the CPE. E is better >for roaming individual users with modest expectations. > >We'd like to hear your opinions, and if you like to discuss this with >us while at 4G World, please drop me a note. > >Regards, > >Patrick Leary >Aperto Networks > > >Patrick Leary >Aperto Networks >813.426.4230 mobile > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >-------- >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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 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/
