It's not as different or complicated as you think. Basically it's a standard protocol that was designed for ptmp broadband access. It's a standard, so in theory different operators equipment will talk to each other unlike most of the popular WISP products that have drifted toward proprietary protocols. The protocol is rather sophisticated and has some "tricks" that help it have better success in nLOS situations than a wifi-based protocol or canopy. The main downside from a performance standpoint is higher latency due to how the scheduling works.
Your statement about adding another AP to get around obstructions is not quite right, what you might be looking at is a base station that uses antenna diversity to increase signal gain for nlos situations. Basically multiple receive antennas on the same base station giving it ability to hear the CPE better. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > Today we had a company come to us pushing wimax. Admittedly I've never > used wimax, nor do I know a lot about it. From what I can see looking at > Google images of the technology and how it's deployed, it looks no > different than the PtP and PtMP that we all use with 900 MHz, or 2.4 and > 5.x GHz. > > Is the only advantage to wimax the presumably clearer and less-used > frequencies upon which they operate? I had (evidently mistakenly) > thought that perhaps wimax was a code word for some sort of mesh, and > that's how it achieved NLOS service. However in looking at the network > layouts on Google, it doesn't look like that at all. Rather, it looks > like that add another AP to get around the obstruction(s), and simply > backhaul it to an intermediary AP/tower to get it back to the PoP. > > Thanks > Sam > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
