Re: WiMAX leaving 802.11a-b-g behind?

On May 20, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Karl Medina wrote:

>  Is WiMAX leaving 802.11a-b-g behind?
>  Intel has called 802.16 "the most important thing since the Internet 
> itself" and to me a 30 mile coverage area spells doom for a-b-g. 
> Anyone out there with the negatives on the ledger for 802.16x which  
> won't be heard from the WiMAX industry group? 

  think I've been loud enough about the fact that 802.16 in unlicensed 
spectrum being interference-limited (just like WiFi), and that these 
"outdoor/residential broadband" wireless networks, while highly 
desirable from certain segments, are entirely ill-considered and will 
ultimately fail.

.16 in licensed spectrum is doomed for different reasons, mostly having 
to do with interference again, but this time from CCI and ACI due to 
other (licensed) transmitters.

Intel has a brown thumb when it comes to RF.   I've been known to 
quote:  "INTC + RF = 0".   Say this in-front of anyone who has seen 
Intel fail, repeatedly, at things RF and you'll get one of two 
reactions:

1) a knowing smile, typically from those who aren't employed by Intel.
2) resignation, (typically from those that are)

lately I get folks from Intel insisting that I'm wrong, but their 
argument (and the argument from the rest of the pro-WiMax crowd) is one 
centered on economics ("its cheaper with wireless" (*)) and completely 
discounts the physics of the situation, which run counter to the 
desires of the pro-WiMax crowd.

In the end, WiMax (in fact, any fixed wireless system) will succeed in 
limited deployments, but can't scale.  This is straightforward to prove 
with mathematics.   The only provable way to build a scalable wireless 
network (with any real capacity) is via mesh, but even here, those who 
dream of succeeding with mesh on top of 802.11 are doomed.

I (once again) point to Tim Shepard's MIT thesis.   Its all in there, 
in solid mathematics.  
http://www.lcs.mit.edu/publications/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-670.pdf


Jim

(*) the logical endpoint of the WiMax dream seems to be $10/mo wireless 
broadband to the home.  ("We'll be rich!")  I heard this kind of talk 
far too often during Vivato board meetings.   Besides missing the point 
(that fixed wireless is far too fragile/unreliable to provision a 
service (You're damned by the first yahoo that brings up a continuous 
tx close to your "basestation"), this *dream* my be the root cause of 
Vivato's missteps at the hands of its founders.  It wasn't supposed to 
be about "4 mile WiFi".

_______________________________________________
BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list
[unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless