Thought I should add, the wimax protocol is independent from the frequency band used. 3.65ghz is commonly used for wimax by WISPs in this country due to the light licensing, but equipment is available to run wimax in 5.8, 3.65, 3.5, 2.3/2.5, 900, 700 that I'm aware of. There is also non-wimax equipment that will operate in all of those bands as well.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Chris Fabien <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote: > 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 <w...@csilogan.com> 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 >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
