Damned telephone. Ok, I understand WiFi's backhaul capabilities within local settings, such as neighborhood networks, cafes and cityscale municipal clouds, where the backhauling of networked traffic is to a single or multiple donor sites (whether legitimate or renegade, it doesn't matter). Or it could be a part of a mesh topology, where backhaul is endemic to the design of the particular vendor's flavor of meshing. It might support traffic to an upstream provider or, depending on network conditions necessitating failover, it could also support traffic between user clusters, as well.
My earlier point, however, had to do with linear backhaul routes that take traffic from a local cluster of users, say in a hamlet or a small village, where no inexpensive bandwidth alternatives exist for access to the Internet's core. In the latter case, backhaul could consist of taking traffic all the way back to a bandwidth center, be it in the next town or five towns over. Here WiMAX is seen as the more robust alternative, for whatever reasons, which I posited as my original answer to your question of, "why wimax and not wifi?" |
