Australian WiMAX Provider Declares the Technology a ''Disaster''

[Adama D. Brown]

The CEO of the first WiMAX provider in Australia declared that WiMAX technology has "failed miserably" in its application by his company.

Garth Freeman, CEO of Buzz Broadband, speaking during a speech to the International WiMAX Conference in Bangkok, called the technology a "disaster" and blamed it's techical failings and "second-tier vendors" for the weak performance of the WiMAX network his company deployed just over a year ago.

Describing WiMAX as "mired in opportunistic hype," Freeman described an inability to get a signal inside a structure just 400 meters (1300 feet) from the base station, and latency up to 1000 milliseconds, making the service unusable for Voice-over-IP.

Change Of Heart

Freeman's attack was underscored by the fact that a year earlier at the same conference he had generally praised WiMAX shortly after his company rolled it out, despite concerns expressed then about indoor performance issues. In his more recent remarks, he said that these comments provoked complaints from the company's hardware vendor, who felt that they were being implicitly criticized.

Freeman went on to endorse the 3G technology HSPA over WiMAX, praising its existing deployments and vendors.

Opinion Not Universal

Though some other early adopters of WiMAX, such as VSNL in India, have also expressed displeasure with their real-world experiences with WiMAX, not all such providers are unhappy with their networks. Australia-based Internode Systems reports that its initial rollout in the Yorke Peninsula region it is successfully providing average speeds of 6 megabits to customers up to 30 kilometers (18 miles) from the tower.

Several major technology companies including Sprint and Intel have invested considerable amounts of money in developing and promoting WiMAX as a faster alternative to cellular-wireless internet technologies such as EV-DO and HSDPA.

Related Articles:

• Sprint WiMax Network On Track for Late April Launch
• Big Name Companies Push for High-Speed Services in Wireless White Spaces
• Verizon Beat Out Google in the 700 MHz Spectrum Auction

Via Commsday

[questionfear]

That's bad news. Dan Hesse (CEO of Sprint) is probably rocking back and forth in his office right now. Or frantically trying to get signatures on a collaboration with Comcast et al before anyone else starts slamming WiMax...

[Adama D. Brown]

It's worth noting that Buzz Broadband was trying to deliver service using the 3.5 GHz band, which is a ridiculously bad idea for anything not involving line of sight and really good antennas. The higher the frequency, the lower its ability to go through obstacles like trees, walls, etcetera, and also the shorter the range for the same power.

Everybody here probably has experience with WiFi signals dropping off, which are in the 2.4 GHz band. And while you'd have better antennas on both ends of a commercial service, 3.5 GHz is too high in my opinion to produce a end-user service.

Of course, that's still not great news for Sprint, which plans to use the 2.5 GHz band. They really should have sold that and bought themselves some 700 MHz.

[Genjinaro]

Its not WiMax that is poor, its was the rollout they did.

S. Korea has a successful rollout as does Dubai.
Other places too.
Sprint need not worry, if they carefully plan how to distribute it. Australia's provider there probably goofed in the same way Philadelphia had done with the WiFi rollout.

[Genjinaro]

Wait theyre using the 2.5 band for this...?

[Adama D. Brown]

Wait theyre using the 2.5 band for this...?

Sprint and Clearwire are, possibly also other providers in the US. It's my hope that some will wise up and use 700 MHz, since this offers VASTLY better performance for the same build-out. If you stuck WiMAX gear in the 2.5 GHz band on cell towers, even ones spaced for Sprint's 1900 MHz cell network, you'd have a lot of coverage gaps, at least for mobile devices. Fixed installs with larger antennas would be fine. This is unless you amped it up beyond what's typically used for a cell site: better antennas, say, or more sites.

700 MHz, on the other hand, could easily cover an area upwards of a thousand square miles per tower, possibly more.

[Konrad Pierce]

The higher the frequency, the lower its ability to go through obstacles like trees, walls, etcetera, and also the shorter the range for the same power.

Well, there's the whole problem ... "same power". Hmmphf. Forget that pathetic little 30mW ... I'd say BOOST the power and take advantage of the lower long-distance signal attenuation inherent in the higher frequencies ... of course the tradeoff might involve flagrant disregard for FCC (and similar) regulations, lugging a car battery around, and increased risk of cancer. Still, why not take advantage of the 3.5GHz spectrum?

(btw: are similar failings present in the even higher 5.0GHz bands?)

[Adama D. Brown]

Well, there's the whole problem ... "same power". Hmmphf. Forget that pathetic little 30mW ... I'd say BOOST the power and take advantage of the lower long-distance signal attenuation inherent in the higher frequencies ... of course the tradeoff might involve flagrant disregard for FCC (and similar) regulations, lugging a car battery around, and increased risk of cancer. Still, why not take advantage of the 3.5GHz spectrum?

There is the one big advantage of higher frequencies: shorter ranges mean you can make smaller cells, and therefore divide the available bandwidth among fewer users. Of course, you can still do something like this with longer-range frequencies by using antennas with narrow beam widths: say, 8 directional antennas with 45 degree beam widths. This results in you being able to provide the tower's coverage area with 8 times the normal bandwidth supported by the wireless standard you're using. It's a slightly more expensive way to wire things, but it has benefits.

Can you tell I know way too much about this stuff?

(btw: are similar failings present in the even higher 5.0GHz bands?)

Yes and no. While the issues with range vs. power don't go away, the 5 GHz band isn't as easily absorbed by things like water or water vapor as the 2.4 GHz band is, meaning better performance under some conditions. Real-world effect though is that you while you don't lose much, you don't gain much either.

[Konrad Pierce]

It's my (incomplete) understanding that higher freqs require higher power output to xmit to the same effective range. If the max allowed power output is constant then the maximum effective range declines. On the plus side, the actual xmit/receive equipment tends to be smaller ... dunno if that's really much of a consideration, since one 90nm chip is pretty much the same size as any other. On the bad side, higher freqs are more susceptible to dissipation and interference, and an urban electrical glass & steel environment is sheer hell for a poor little radio packet to traverse.

I don't follow WiMAX specs much (beyond their inclusion in processor packages) ... do they employ any OFDM protocols? I ask because - as I understand radio - this is so effective at carrying cellular signals that it's almost required in worst-case (ie: real world) environments. I guess there's always the advantage that 700MHz is kinda empty, at least for a while, so there's less need to use complex processing to share the band. For now.

I've heard of European wifi models based on 5GHz ... are they obsolete now, replaced by 802.11a?

[Edit]
"Don't lose much, don't gain much either." - The 5GHz gain/loss factors might work out quite differently in an environment where "things like water or water vapor" (Vancouver) are ubiquitously present. Enough to make a difference, IYHO?

[Adama D. Brown]

It's my (incomplete) understanding that higher freqs require higher power output to xmit to the same effective range.

That's correct.

If the max allowed power output is constant then the maximum effective range declines.

True, but maximum allowed power varies wildly by band, and also by country, and by the type of antenna. For instance, maximum allowed power in the US on the 2.4 GHz band is 4 watts EIRP when you're using an omnidirectional antenna. (EIRP is a measurement of effective radiated power: basically, the raw radio power plus antenna gain.) However, on point-to-point systems using directional antennas, you can go up to 158 watts, which is just about the point where small birds start dropping from the air fully cooked.

Short version is, your mileage may vary even within a single band, let alone comparing across bands which are treated differently by law. An AM radio station is limited to a maximum of 50,000 watts, TV stations can go into the hundreds of thousands or higher.

I don't follow WiMAX specs much (beyond their inclusion in processor packages) ... do they employ any OFDM protocols?

They do indeed: OFDM for the fixed WiMAX spec, and OFDMA for the newer mobile WiMAX (slightly misnamed, since it can serve fixed locations as well).

I ask because - as I understand radio - this is so effective at carrying cellular signals that it's almost required in worst-case (ie: real world) environments. I guess there's always the advantage that 700MHz is kinda empty, at least for a while, so there's less need to use complex processing to share the band. For now.

True. I'm not an expert on modulation schemes--actually, I'm not actually an expert on any of this, I just happen to be well informed. But most of the bands that are being contemplated for WiMAX right now, particularly 700 and 2500, are pretty barren, or will be. That's the advantage of licensed spectrum.

I've heard of European wifi models based on 5GHz ... are they obsolete now, replaced by 802.11a?

I would assume so, though I've heard that 802.11n is also going to optionally operate in the 5 GHz spectrum as well. Though it would make more sense to me that if they were going to add a band, they'd want to add 900 MHz, which would give better range performance, which is a big part of what 802.11n is all about.