Hi there,
I was wondering if someone from MT could tell me if there are any plans for WiMax cards/units - I'd really like to see some good priced units out on the market.
That is the reason why we don't support any WiMax hardware yet. There are no good priced products on the market. We will start thinking about it, when this changes.
Wimax usually works in licensed band. Because of this most regions also allow much higher power levels in the base stations as we use in Wifi. We talk Watts now, not milliwatts!That is the reason why we don't support any WiMax hardware yet. There are no good priced products on the market. We will start thinking about it, when this changes.
Dear Normunds..
Just wonder know, how come the Wimax running on 2.3Ghz and ISM on 2.4Ghz.
but Wimax can penetrate more far away than WiFi?
am i miss out some information?
You have to take the station cost into account. With a better coverage you need fewer stationsThe first reason is also why Wimax is much more costly. Although prices for the hardware came down the last year (CPE still twice the cost of good wifi CPE, base tations many times dearer), you still need to pay for the license. So Wimax is almost impossible to compete with WiFi (2,4 + 5Ghz) on economics.
Wifi is very good for short range low density installations. It is missing some strong featuresLast, but not least, the 802.11n protocol + TDMA on the 802.11a/b/g/n platform makes Wifi now also much more capable of the ´last mile´ service delivery and is almost equal (and maybe even better) than Wimax.
We combine wifi and wimax to get the best of both worlds. LTE is targeted to cellphoneWe see a regional Wimax provider changing his network into 5Ghz wifi with TDMA. That is a clear sign!
I think Wimax won't prevail in the future. It will be replaced by LTE where the low end will be Wifi.
Partially true. In congested areas you need many AP's anyway to serve all clients. Wifi gives better options here because it is cheaper and for each WiMax base station you need another license.You have to take the station cost into account. With a better coverage you need fewer stationsThe first reason is also why Wimax is much more costly. Although prices for the hardware came down the last year (CPE still twice the cost of good wifi CPE, base tations many times dearer), you still need to pay for the license. So Wimax is almost impossible to compete with WiFi (2,4 + 5Ghz) on economics.
or reach more customers. This changes the game.
15km cell size for Wifi is no problem. If you need smaller cells that is because too many customers for AP so you fall back into my first remark. If you can work with big or bigger cells than it means you don't have enough customers at close range to make AP become economic. So in this instance price is the big advantage of Wifi.Wifi is very good for short range low density installations. It is missing some strong featuresLast, but not least, the 802.11n protocol + TDMA on the 802.11a/b/g/n platform makes Wifi now also much more capable of the ´last mile´ service delivery and is almost equal (and maybe even better) than Wimax.
to scale.
Cellular networks with G3 are already the biggest competitors for wifi. With LTE this will only become worse for us. In high Internet developed countries like in North Europe Wimax and Wifi are very marginal. If LTE develops big the only way to do some business is Wifi because it is very cheap and there is no need for licenses and it is the only solution for those still living in remote areas where any of the other systems simply won't reach.We combine wifi and wimax to get the best of both worlds. LTE is targeted to cellphoneWe see a regional Wimax provider changing his network into 5Ghz wifi with TDMA. That is a clear sign!
I think Wimax won't prevail in the future. It will be replaced by LTE where the low end will be Wifi.
providers and therefore no option at the moment.
This is not true for Spectrum we are allowed to use with Wifi. 2,4 is unusable here (congested, 100mW EiRP).15km cell size for Wifi is no problem. If you need smaller cells that is because too many customers for AP so you fall back into my first remark. If you can work with big or bigger cells than it means you don't have enough customers at close range to make AP become economic. So in this instance price is the big advantage of Wifi.
This depends on basestation/cpe cost. LTE is in no way more efficient than Wifi or Wimax. It endsWe see a regional Wimax provider changing his network into 5Ghz wifi with TDMA. That is a clear sign!
I think Wimax won't prevail in the future. It will be replaced by LTE where the low end will be Wifi.
I've a collection of USB-Sticks, Wireless Hotspots, CPE which are quite cheap. There are WiMAX miniPCICellular networks with G3 are already the biggest competitors for wifi. With LTE this will only become worse for us. In high Internet developed countries like in North Europe Wimax and Wifi are very marginal. If LTE develops big the only way to do some business is Wifi because it is very cheap and there is no need for licenses and it is the only solution for those still living in remote areas where any of the other systems simply won't reach.
I see many WiMax project in Europe not full filling their promises and main stream providers are leaving it aside. Same mainstream providers are more and more using Wifi for ´last mile´ access and for hotspots in public places.
Wimax never hit the consumer market (Wimax in a laptop or Ipad?). This is going to be their Achilles heel.
The Wimax community is fighting a lost battle.
I mean, I CAN serve any modern laptop in my network at little costs. How about Wimax?
5.5 to 5.7Ghz can be used in Europe with 30dBm (1 Watt) + DST or 27dBm without.This is not true for Spectrum we are allowed to use with Wifi. 2,4 is unusable here (congested, 100mW EiRP).15km cell size for Wifi is no problem. If you need smaller cells that is because too many customers for AP so you fall back into my first remark. If you can work with big or bigger cells than it means you don't have enough customers at close range to make AP become economic. So in this instance price is the big advantage of Wifi.
5,4 we're limited to 0,5W EiRP If you spread power over dual pol or/and 40MHz you loose distance.
For 5,8 (36dB) there is no cheap gear which is legal. So ETSI power regulations reduce usable cell size
to 5km. So we need to license some spectrum to go further. As this takes money we've to use it efficient
and therefore we've to spend more money for Equipment which does at least GPS-Sync.
The problem is not so much if we (I mean, the relative small operators with limited budgets) can afford LTE or whatever. We are always on the short end compared to the mainstream multi million dollar stock exchange registered operators. They will deploy the latest technology when it comes available no matter the costs. In the end they are ´eating´ more and more of the available pie. We, small ´end´ operators can only exist because the pie is still growing and lots of crumbs are falling beyond the plate of the ´big boys´. To keep going we always have to look for smart and cheap solutions and it is proving more and more that that is wifi above Wimax. Economics, simplicity and end user availability are the key words here.This depends on basestation/cpe cost. LTE is in no way more efficient than Wifi or Wimax. It endsWe see a regional Wimax provider changing his network into 5Ghz wifi with TDMA. That is a clear sign!
I think Wimax won't prevail in the future. It will be replaced by LTE where the low end will be Wifi.
at 64QAM which maxes at 50MBit/s aggregated at a 10MHz Channel. I can buy a WiMAX Basestation now, but
I cant afford a LTE Basestation.
Yes, they are available. But the bulk of customers don't want usb sticks or PC-cards in their laptop, mobile phone or Ipad. They just want to buy a device that can go online the moment they walk out of the shop without having the need to buy add-ons to go on a rare Wimax network. I think Wimax really missed the boat here.I've a collection of USB-Sticks, Wireless Hotspots, CPE which are quite cheap. There are WiMAX miniPCICellular networks with G3 are already the biggest competitors for wifi. With LTE this will only become worse for us. In high Internet developed countries like in North Europe Wimax and Wifi are very marginal. If LTE develops big the only way to do some business is Wifi because it is very cheap and there is no need for licenses and it is the only solution for those still living in remote areas where any of the other systems simply won't reach.
I see many WiMax project in Europe not full filling their promises and main stream providers are leaving it aside. Same mainstream providers are more and more using Wifi for ´last mile´ access and for hotspots in public places.
Wimax never hit the consumer market (Wimax in a laptop or Ipad?). This is going to be their Achilles heel.
The Wimax community is fighting a lost battle.
I mean, I CAN serve any modern laptop in my network at little costs. How about Wimax?
cards combining Wifi and WiMAX which would fit into the sockets of a routerboard.
Well, 802.11 was designed for pure indoor use. Who could have imagined 10-15 years ago that reasonable large WISP's based on outdoor use of 802.11 would be existing?To bring it to a point. 802.16e/m is designed for the purpose to build a Wisp. It was hyped like LTE is
hyped now. It had to fail as expections were to big and implementations are complicated. But it gives
better coverage than wifi as it has some features like PUSC (You do not only Time Division you can
do Frequency devision at the same time).
Think of a 10 CPEs communicating at a 10MHz Channel. Let them send one after the other at 10MHz
or parallel with 1MHz Channels. Concentrating their power to 1MHz Channel size gives them
10times the power on this Channel. You cant do this kind of stuff with a Wifi Chipset. So small CPEs
with less power have a chance to get a connection where a wifi cpe with the same power cant
connect.
There is no cheap wifi stuff which follows the rules for 30db. So 27dBm is what we get5.5 to 5.7Ghz can be used in Europe with 30dBm (1 Watt) + DST or 27dBm without.
But with 8km you loose some benefits of the wifi stuff. For 8km you need to use 10 or 20MhzMy cell range might have been a bit on the optimistic side, I use cells that go to 8km.
If you omit to follow the rules this might work. These Airmax gear does not even try seriousBut the competition serves clients with 5Ghz Airmax upto 14km! With standard Wifi stuff.
So he might have bad gear or is oversubscribed. I can reach locations using WiMAX I do not even considerActually, the Wimax provider in the area has more problems with sustaining good connections to clients than the wifi ones at the same range. So cell size is open for more discussion but Wifi can meet what Wimax can do. And Wifi does do it for less money!
I dont blame Wifi for what it is. It is great in most cases but has it's limitations. Some of this limitations come fromWell, 802.11 was designed for pure indoor use. Who could have imagined 10-15 years ago that reasonable large WISP's based on outdoor use of 802.11 would be existing?
Technically Wimax might have some pro's against Wifi, but the best system is not always the one that will prevail. Other aspects come in play, like I already mentioned. You must agree that Wifi will has better cards in most of these.
P.S.
Look what Ruckus (http://www.ruckuswireless.com/) is capable of doing with Wifi! Ok, that is not cheap anymore, but most of the other Wifi advantages are still valid and it outperforms Wimax big time.
Well, that's something for the IEEE to decide on... we, nor MT are in a position to change any in that.....Why not adopting WiMAX on the ISM bands like A******n is doing? It could bring benefits of WiMAX protocols and low costs due to no licensing... and it's not only matter of modulation and bandwidth. WiMAX supports MIMO Matrix A and B, subchanneling, beamforming, maps... everything helps in improoving link quality...