Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (21571)	5/24/2007 12:45:18 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank - "I believe Peter has stated that when it comes to backhaul, WiMAX has nothing over directional 802.11 alternatives, or at least implied that the choice goes to WiFi, when viewing the tradeoffs." More or less, you're right. The discussion was back here... Message 23204696 Note Peter's comment about Moto's Canopy: "They are starting to experience 5.8 GHz deployments where Canopy (Hiperlan2-like) interferes with their systems" I'm not sure how nicely the different RF alternatives will play with each other, and I'm not speaking as a WiMax advocate. I was just suggesting that unless a backhaul alternative is clearly superior to WiMax, it may not be justifiable from a complexity/cost perspective. Maybe Peter will demonstrate that such alternatives (including WiFi, and beyond Moto's proprietary solutions) are contemplated, or already exist. I'm not sure the point is proven yet, but I'd be happy to see it settled. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (21571)	5/24/2007 8:47:38 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Frank, Maybe Motorola's Canopy obscures their view of WiMAX ;-) >>"P2P, FSO, etc are obvious alternatives. At what additional cost (and gain) vs. using the WiMax network itself for backhaul?"<< FSO can have the problem of > 300 dB/km of path loss when fog descends. Noone likes running a link with 600 dB of path margin. TDD WiMAX (802.16d) is little better than TDD 802.11a, having more flexibility in cyclic prefix protection, but 802.11a/j/y in 5 MHz channel bandwidth has 3.2 usec (about a kilometer's worth of delay spread) multipath protection. The shipping receivers have the same sensitivity, and transmit power is limited by regulation. TDD 802.11n is silicon Spring, products Fall, with proprietary 10 MHz channel bandwidths and radar detection. The main issue is available spectrum. 5.47-5.85 GHz is 480 MHz of Part 15 spectrum that 'Wi-Fi' devices have been approved to use, there is no big outdoor block at lower frequencies. 802.11n press releases will come in the Fall, the die is cast. petere