Comments on: Beyond WiMAX: Gigabit Wireless

By: Breakthrough For Post-4G Communications | Innovation Toronto

Breakthrough For Post-4G Communications | Innovation Toronto — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:16:40 +0000

[...] Beyond WiMAX: Gigabit Wireless (gigaom.com) [...]

By: New links for January 28th | Working Wikily

New links for January 28th | Working Wikily — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:05:17 +0000

[...] on Twitter * Using Social Networks for Social Change: Facebook, MySpace and More * Is Email Dead? * Beyond WiMAX: Gigabit Wireless * Building Blocks of Social Media (summary and commentary after the [...]

By: Jay Baker

Jay Baker — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:13:19 +0000

I just moved from Portland where I had Clear wireless internet (www.clear.com) and they operate on a WiMAX system. I really loved how easy it was to use – all I had to do was plug a USB modem into my computer and I was online. Their WiMAX network was really fast and allowed me to be online anywhere in the greater downtown area. I don’t know much about the system that this article talks about, but I’m happy with my WiMAX connection.

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:11:42 +0000

@Kit

There is a lot more going on than absorption bands when you go to millimeter wave. Remember, wave propagation is such that intensity decreases with the square of frequency. This means that going from 3GHz to 60GHz brings an inherent attenuation of 400X. To overcome this natural disadvantage you need to increase TX power — that is what Jason is talking about, when he says power-hungry. Yes, we can offset this disadvantage by substituting bandwidth (which higher frequencies have in spades) for power, but both power and bandwidth are linear factors and in the end it is very hard to overcome the exponential nature of a large frequency discrepancy. Anyway, the bottom line is that you will not be able to deploy a macrocellular topology using MMW anytime in the foreseeable future and that is what WiMAX is all about. This is the piece you are missing — topology. Mesh WiFi can already achieve similar throughput to WiMAX, the difference is that it requires 100X the base-stations. So, while it may be fair to call MMW a potentially viable competitor to WiMAX, it is just wrong to claim it is in any way a successor.

By: Kit Eaton

Kit Eaton — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:36:33 +0000

*NB the above comment is actually from me, just juggling between different accounts*

By: hawkit

hawkit — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:25:25 +0000

Research is already underway into mobile millimeter wave comms solutions. Mmw LANs for example, in this reference: http://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/97_mmlan.pdfhttp://www.sss-mag.com/pdf/97_mmlan.pdf

By: Kit Eaton

Kit Eaton — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:12:21 +0000

If you check out the specs, the research is going on at frequencies _between_ 60GHz and 100GHz. For sure there are absorption spectra that overlap this band: water for one, but that doesn’t cover the whole frequency range. Again, it’s mainly being investigated for the “last mile” connection between an ISP and your home– imagine an external box on you house aimed at an ISP’s antenna– that’s also why the article references “greater density of signals to occupy the same physical space.” Powerhungriness is a function of research time spent: in time power requirements will erode.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:26:16 +0000

Gigaom must do better.. This guys is smoking..

- 60GHz is power hungry – Read: Not for mobile
- 60Ghz requires line of sight – even with beam forming
- 60GHz doesn’t work when it is raining – water kills the signals, very susceptible to humidity

60GHz has some future for P2P HDMI replacement but that is it.. Om, you gotto do better man.. We are spending time on your site..

By: McGuire’s Law » Blog Archive » Enabling Technology: January 14, 2009

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:15:59 +0000

[...] Gigabit wireless [...]

By: Robert J Berger

Robert J Berger — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:29:07 +0000

It is literal line of sight. No obstructions at all, not even your body. Its not a mobile tech at all. And its pretty short distance as well unless you have well engineered static antennas. Great for interconnecting buildings in a downtown for instance. Possible rural backhaul with lots of repeaters. Nothing that will solve the US lack of broadband. We need fiber to the home and office for that. And the longer we waste time letting the Carriers and CableCos screw us, the more we will fall behind the rest of the world.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:32:29 +0000

To add to the previous commenters’ posts, the propagation characteristics of a 60 GHz wave are fine for very short-distance applications or (slightly longer distance) line-of-sight applications. As a wireless replacement for a 1-meter HDMI cable? Fine. To communicate with a mobile phone that works indoors, or even inside a cardboard box? Not very likely.

By: bud

bud — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:10:51 +0000

Check out the way most cellular towers are set up next time you are driving. They are practically Line of Sight, to speak to the next cell tower. It would be more obvious if you were at the top of the tower, but it is perfectly plausible merely driving by the things.

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:26:48 +0000

Nothing based on millimeter wave can be WiMAX’s successor. WiMAX is a point-to-multipoint technology and millimeter wave is pretty much only useful for point-to-point.

By: Q dub

Q dub — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:33:48 +0000

60-100GHz? Wouldn’t it require line-of-sight? That serves an entirely different business purpose from mobile wireless…