OT: [Computerworld:] "Cisco takes aim at WiMax"

[Carlos Macedo Gomes]

Full disclosure: I work for Intel but not in our Wireless Group.

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Joseph Sinclair
<plug-discussion at stcaz.net>wrote:

> There are some substantial differences between WiMax and WiFi.


Agreed. WiFi is 802.11 (b,a,g,n) certified by the WiFi Alliance (
http://www.wi-fi.org/ )  WiMAX is 802.16 (e or d) certified by WiMAX Forum (
http://www.wimaxforum.org/ )

But there are also some basic similarities.  Both are
data communications standards that directly support IPv4 and IPv6.  Both
bring native IPv4/IPV6 to consumers via radio frequency (i.e., RF, radio,
wireless).  Only WiMAX does direct IPv4/IPv6 across large distances (i.e.
WANs) using RF.  LTE brings cellular RF over large distances closer to
IPv4/IPv6 but it's still not a pure data communications standard since it
has some genetic inheritance of legacy cellular designs and specifications.
 WiMAX and current celluar services are complementary.  WiMAX and LTE are
not so complementary due to basic overlaps in tech and in competing
business.

My elevator pitch would be: Both LTE and WiMAX bring data to RF WANs but LTE
is born of cellular (with inheritance) and WiMAX is born of
Ethernet/IPv4/IPV6 (with inheritance).

The Muni WiFi nets are about providing 802.11 throughout an area.
> Considering the limited range of the 2.4GHz band used, it's fairly difficult
> and there tend to be a lot of small dead zones.


Not to mention that 802.11 doesn't include roaming, meshing, robust security
(e.g., authentication, identification, confidentiality) that are needed for
continuous & contiguous wide area coverage and secure access.
http://www.wimaxmaps.org/

WiMax is a wide-area technology in a completely different (and fully
> licensed) band.  WiMax placements cannot be done by consumers because you
> have to pay a lot of money for the location-specific license and meet FCC
> siting requirements.  ClearWire holds most (about $3 billion worth
> transferred from Sprint) of the WiMax licenses in the US.


Right now the carriers own the transport part of the WiMAX equation. That
doesn't rule out the ability of other businesses from providing the backend
now offered (or planned) by carriers. Small groups might be able to create
smaller WiMAX (or 802.16) clouds that may or may not mesh w/ the carriers.
 Wireless Phoenix (http://www.wireless-phoenix.com/)
<http://www.wireless-phoenix.com/>already
offers private label WiMAX in Phoenix and other groups should be able to
come up w/ various business models leveraging the new technology including
free (as in speech and as in beer).  That's assuming WiMAX succeeds as a
technology... :-)  Some folks are already looking into open sourcing the
client side of the technology:
http://www.linuxwimax.org/Home
http://www.openclovis.org/project-poll/project-idea-building-wimax-wireless-broadband-802-16e-product-on-top-of-atca-platform
http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embedded/show/79241-1.php
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/open-source-linux/2009/02/linux-and-wimax-become-friends---finally.html

WiMax is more of a competitor to 3G cellular. Some have put it forward as
> the 4G cellular standard, but it's not clear what will happen there, since
> Sprint and Intel prefer WiMax, but NGMN chose LTE, and many carriers don't
> care which is used, as long as everyone uses the same radio standard.


I don't see WiMAX directly competing w/ 3G.  WiMAX and current 3G celluar
services are complementary (data vs cellular).  WiMAX and LTE are not so
complementary due to tech overlaps (small items) and business overlaps
(large items).

ymmv,
C.G.

-- 
powerofprimes at gmail.com
Carlos Macedo Gomes
_sic itur ad astra_
http://claimid.com/cmgomes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20090519/d078cff6/attachment.htm