On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:06:57AM -0700, 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
Tesla had Westinghouse as both a manufacturer and likely the deployer as well. Sidepoint.... Some of the wireless equipment vendors would likely create a superior product faster if they ran a modest sustainable WISP just big enough for real world product testing. Too often we see marketing photos of gear installed outdoors with shiny bare N connectors, indoor unshielded cat5 on the pole, etc... Ford pretty well singlehandedly standardized LHD with the model T. If it's a standard that's not secretive (like many software formats), I think industry is more than capable of singlehandedly creating a useful standard. > 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" <ple...@apertonet.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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 > > <t...@avanzarnetworks.com> <mailto:t...@avanzarnetworks.com> 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org > > [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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 > > <ple...@apertonet.com> <mailto:ple...@apertonet.com> > > 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: 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/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/ */ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
