<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WiMax Isn&#8217;t the Next Wi-Fi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/</link>
	<description>Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:21:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sean Doherty</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2781</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Doherty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2781</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Om - In using Wimax for direct-to-consumer applications (as a DSL or cable killer) RF engineering for Wimax will need to take into account issues of coverage and capacity. Wimax is theoretically great for coverage (relatively long range) but...to deliver a broadband experience with limited spectrum available, providers will need a very dense antenna infrastructure deplyed...more antennas than cell phone compaones have today.  I don&#039;t see capital being available for this anytime soon.
Sean&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Om &#8211; In using Wimax for direct-to-consumer applications (as a DSL or cable killer) RF engineering for Wimax will need to take into account issues of coverage and capacity. Wimax is theoretically great for coverage (relatively long range) but&#8230;to deliver a broadband experience with limited spectrum available, providers will need a very dense antenna infrastructure deplyed&#8230;more antennas than cell phone compaones have today.  I don&#8217;t see capital being available for this anytime soon.
Sean</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alistair Stobie</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2782</link>
		<dc:creator>Alistair Stobie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2782</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Could you tell Intel so that they don&#039;t use their vast marketing power to distort emerging markets, such as Russia, through financing of non-commercial businesses to &quot;prove&quot; that WiMAx works.  Meanwhile the guys making money, selling services are denied the cash they need to (really) succeed.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could you tell Intel so that they don&#8217;t use their vast marketing power to distort emerging markets, such as Russia, through financing of non-commercial businesses to &#8220;prove&#8221; that WiMAx works.  Meanwhile the guys making money, selling services are denied the cash they need to (really) succeed.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Srijith</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2783</link>
		<dc:creator>Srijith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2783</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;IEEE Security and Privacy magazine is carrying a report on the security issues associated with IEEE 802.16 specs (Sub. rqd I think).&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IEEE Security and Privacy magazine is carrying a report on the security issues associated with IEEE 802.16 specs (Sub. rqd I think).</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Srijith</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2784</link>
		<dc:creator>Srijith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2784</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hmm.. MT just ate my link.
Anyway here it is:
http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/sp/2004/03/j3040.htm&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm.. MT just ate my link.
Anyway here it is:
<a href="http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/sp/2004/03/j3040.htm" rel="nofollow">http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/sp/2004/03/j3040.htm</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eHomeUpgrade</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2785</link>
		<dc:creator>eHomeUpgrade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2004/07/01/wimax-isnt-the-next-wi-fi/#comment-2785</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intel Spread WiMAX FUD&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A week after I penciled my column, WiMAX Isn&#039;t the next WiFi, Intel is out spreading more WiMAX FUD. The Feature&#039;s Carlo Longino, today points out that Intel&#039;s vision has more holes than all the cheese in Switzerland. As a part of the biggest hype blit...&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Intel Spread WiMAX FUD</strong></p>

<p>A week after I penciled my column, WiMAX Isn&#8217;t the next WiFi, Intel is out spreading more WiMAX FUD. The Feature&#8217;s Carlo Longino, today points out that Intel&#8217;s vision has more holes than all the cheese in Switzerland. As a part of the biggest hype blit&#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
