+1 On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I sure can't understand why the IEEE is dragging it's feet on a > standard > that covers ALL unlicensed! DUHHHHHHHH > > We've been stuck with WiFi devices for how long now? What we need, > today, > is a good polling system and more noise mitigation techniques. > > It seems to me that someone (the manufacturers, WISPA, whoever) > should start > up their own standards effort and get this ball moving. IEEE is too > big to > be useful anymore. > > Basically ONE guy came up with AC electricity and it's standard. > All it > would take is one manufacturer to cheaply license a good protocol > and we'd > be off and running. Look at the successes that are coming from the > Linux > GNU model. OR all of the iPhone apps. > > Everyone thinks first about the money, second about the consumer. I > can't > wait till all of those Harvard grads from the 70s and 80s are out on > their > tails. Those idiots are killing soooooo many good industries and > companies. > > Before anyone dares say that helping the community isn't useful, > research > how the WISP industry grew from 1999 to 2005 or so. Look into guys > like > Jaime Solarza, Patrick Leary, Alan Masallis, Bob Moldashel, Joe > D'Andrea, > Mike Anderson, Stuart Pierce, John Scrivner, Bob Kirkpatrick and a > handful > of others. A few people telling anyone that would listen how to do > something new. > > Laters, > marlon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Leary" <[email protected]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? > > >> Amen from the peanut gallery Bret. You'd find interesting the, ahem, >> discussion taking place between us and the big guys inside the WiMAX >> Forum board room. I think it is fair to say some are dillusional >> about >> the LTE. Maybe I would be too if I'd bet my entire company on mobile >> WiMAX. And it is not that it is not a good standard -- it is. But >> best >> seldom wins when battling politics and all the vested interests in >> the >> status quo. Carriers never warmed to the idea of on open network; >> they >> want to control all the devices that ride on their networks. >> >> Patrick Leary >> Aperto Networks >> 813.426.4230 mobile >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:wireless- >> [email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Bret Clark >> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:07 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? >> >> >> The 802.16e standard was a gallant effort, but by not be able to >> get the >> cellular carriers on board early on was an ominous sign and I knew >> right >> from the start that they wouldn't jump on board...open standards >> scare >> telephone (AKA cellular) companies because it removes their ability >> to >> control the end-users services and the pricing choke hold they have >> on >> customers; hence the reason why the move to LTE. And before people >> say >> LTE is standard base as well, I think we all agree its a controlled >> standard made specifically for cellular carriers and not the little >> guy >> trying to provide people with true alternatives. >> >> I agree with what you are saying Patrick with fact that the IEEE >> needs >> to focus more on the 802.16d standard as the go forward standard. >> That's >> not to say that the 802.16e standard can't play a role, but maybe >> it's >> focus should change more from a mobile solution to a semi-mobile >> solution. And what I mean by that it's a solution that provides >> temporarily connections on the fly (hence the semi-mobile idea). For >> example a business might be hosting a seminar at a conference >> center and >> needs to bring in temporarily data connectivity for the day or a >> companies main office has shut down due to some unforeseen event and >> needs to open a remote office ASAP with instant data connectivity. >> >> In any case, having been someone who was involved with the IEEE >> 802.11 >> standard (man I'm dating myself) if there was one thing I learn >> with my >> involvement with the IEEE is that the best standards are the ones >> that >> focus on doing one thing and do it well. >> >> Bret >> >> >> Matt Liotta wrote: >> >> E is only really useful for mobile and mobile is not supportable >> with the >> current 3650 rules. >> -Matt >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Sylvester >> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I would like to see more vendors support 802.16e at >> 3.65GHz. Also I would >> like to see 802.16e at 3.65GHz supported in a netbook >> and a USB dongle. >> Does >> anyone know if the Intel WiMAX chips support 3.65GHz? >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Matt Liotta >> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:34 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Which WiMAX Are You? >> >> I look forward to seeing everyone at 4G World >> next week. >> Personally, I don't care for D or E in a fixed >> deployment, but if you >> nailed >> me down I would go with D. WiMAX tries to be too >> many things for too >> many >> people. WiMAX-based proprietary systems are far >> more useful for fixed >> deployments. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Leary >> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
