3.6GHz WiMAX - Does this make any sense??

[Tyler van Houwelingen]

We were very excited about 3.6GHz until I got of the phone last week with Redline, trying to order their newly approved 3.6GHz 802.16 PtP product.

The problem, according to them, is with the power limits of Wimax at 3.6GHz. They said that, although the FCC set the max at 1W/1MHz, with a maximum of 25W for fixed products at 3.6GHz, the reality is that no products will ever ship that have more than 1Watt EIRP with antenna (28.4dB total to be exact) and mobile products will be much less. The reason is that the maximum channel width for WiMAX is 7MHz and the 1W/MHz is MAXIMUM, and not typical. Typical operating Tx power is much less then that. So the total for their product Tx + Antenna is only 28.4dB - Less than 1W.

This makes no sense to me, but they insisted. I thought that WiMAX can have 20Mhz channels and Max Tx + Antenna power is the EIRP, just like the max EIRP for WiFi is 4Watts, 36dB. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is Redline just blowing smoke or do you think this a real problem for 3.6GHz.

Clearly 1W EIRP vs 20W EIRP dramatically changes any 3.6GHz WiMAX plans.
tyler

-------

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com

[Irving Popovetsky]

Hi Tyler,

According to Redline's data sheet
<http://www.redlinecommunications.com/news/resourcecenter/productinfo/Redmax_an100u.pdf>,
their WiMAX products are based on 802.16-2004 (fixed OFDM-PHY, the older
standard), which does in fact only support 3.5 and 7Mhz channels. The
newer mobile WiMAX protocol (802.16e-2005 OFDMA-PHY) supports a wider
variety of channel widths. Further reading here.
<http://www.mobilehandsetdesignline.com/howto/201500260;jsessionid=VTSLBTHBTRKGSQSNDLQCKH0CJUNN2JVN?pgno=2>
The WiMAX proponents say that narrow channels are good because WiMAX has
higher "spectral efficiency" (meaning: it can push more bits) and
narrower channels provide better range and lower power consumption.

Also, don't forget that 3650-3700 in the US is an FCC licensed "shared"
spectrum, meaning that you have the pleasure of filing with the FCC and
coordinating the bottom 25Mhz of the spectrum with every other current
and future licensee in your area of deployment, assuming you are not in
an exclusion zone (see the last PTP thread about this issue).
Is that really worth it for fixed PtP links? If you're looking at
strictly at non-mobile PtP links, why not look at the Motorola PtP600?
They can push some insane bandwidth over unlicensed frequencies, if you
can afford them.

Regarding max EIRP, that does sound a bit low to those of us in the WiFi
world who are used to pushing output limits to compensate for all the
noise, but maybe life is a little nicer in protected spectrum land.
(Maybe they really can get 12 miles with such low output power, when
marketers dream :) The 1W EIRP statement does jive with Redline's FCC
filing, see "Antenna vs. Gain"
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=549096&fcc_id=%27QC8-AN100UA%27>.
Has anyone found FCC text to support this?

cheers,
-Irving

PS. Rick Lindahl knows a bit more than me on this subject, he can
double check my answers if he has time.

Post by Tyler van Houwelingen
We were very excited about 3.6GHz until I got of the phone last week with Redline, trying to order their newly approved 3.6GHz 802.16 PtP product.
The problem, according to them, is with the power limits of Wimax at 3.6GHz. They said that, although the FCC set the max at 1W/1MHz, with a maximum of 25W for fixed products at 3.6GHz, the reality is that no products will ever ship that have more than 1Watt EIRP with antenna (28.4dB total to be exact) and mobile products will be much less. The reason is that the maximum channel width for WiMAX is 7MHz and the 1W/MHz is MAXIMUM, and not typical. Typical operating Tx power is much less then that. So the total for their product Tx + Antenna is only 28.4dB - Less than 1W.
This makes no sense to me, but they insisted. I thought that WiMAX can have 20Mhz channels and Max Tx + Antenna power is the EIRP, just like the max EIRP for WiFi is 4Watts, 36dB. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is Redline just blowing smoke or do you think this a real problem for 3.6GHz.
Clearly 1W EIRP vs 20W EIRP dramatically changes any 3.6GHz WiMAX plans.
tyler
-------
Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com

--
-Irving Popovetsky Principal Consultant
ProStructure Consulting http://www.prostructure.com
Network and Security Consulting phone: [phone] x201
"Crafting Connectivity that Matters"

[Stephen Ronan]

Post by Irving Popovetsky
Has anyone found FCC text to support this?

See paragraph 50 on page 19 for fixed devices and paragraph 52 for
mobile devices on page 21 here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf

It's my understanding that WIMAX type time-based protocols are permitted
in the lower 25 MHz (3650-3675 MHz) and WiFi type contention-based
protocols will be permitted in the full 50 MHz (3650-3700MHz). 802.16h
and 802.11y are being developed with some hopes of improving capacity of
the two to share use of some spectrum.

I don't have a good idea of what to expect when in regard to the
availability of higher-powered devices than the Redline equipment.

Stephen Ronan


*






*

[Tyler van Houwelingen]

Thanks for the inputs.

If all Fixed WiMax flavors are limited to 7MHz channels then redline is correct and 3.6GHz is worthless for WiMAX. Even though mobile wimax supports up to 20MHz channels, the power limits that the FCC set here for mobile devices at 3.6GHz are much lower than for fixed - 2Watt EIRP max in fact, down from 25W.

We were hoping to upgrade our muni WiFi networks to WiMAX, but that appears impossible now. The FCC claims that 3.6GHz will bring WiMAX to middle america - what a sham. WiMAX will only be about the big carriers and billion dollar spectrum. What has Kevin Martin done for small ISPs or groups like PTP - Absolutely nothing in my opinion. Reading the FCC notes on 3.6GHz, the only one that thought the power limits were adequate was Sprint. Imagine that.

tyler



-------

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Irving Popovetsky
To: Tyler van Houwelingen
Cc: PTP General list
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ptp-general] 3.6GHz WiMAX - Does this make any sense??


Hi Tyler,

According to Redline's data sheet, their WiMAX products are based on 802.16-2004 (fixed OFDM-PHY, the older standard), which does in fact only support 3.5 and 7Mhz channels. The newer mobile WiMAX protocol (802.16e-2005 OFDMA-PHY) supports a wider variety of channel widths. Further reading here.
The WiMAX proponents say that narrow channels are good because WiMAX has higher "spectral efficiency" (meaning: it can push more bits) and narrower channels provide better range and lower power consumption.

Also, don't forget that 3650-3700 in the US is an FCC licensed "shared" spectrum, meaning that you have the pleasure of filing with the FCC and coordinating the bottom 25Mhz of the spectrum with every other current and future licensee in your area of deployment, assuming you are not in an exclusion zone (see the last PTP thread about this issue).
Is that really worth it for fixed PtP links? If you're looking at strictly at non-mobile PtP links, why not look at the Motorola PtP600? They can push some insane bandwidth over unlicensed frequencies, if you can afford them.

Regarding max EIRP, that does sound a bit low to those of us in the WiFi world who are used to pushing output limits to compensate for all the noise, but maybe life is a little nicer in protected spectrum land. (Maybe they really can get 12 miles with such low output power, when marketers dream :) The 1W EIRP statement does jive with Redline's FCC filing, see "Antenna vs. Gain". Has anyone found FCC text to support this?

cheers,
-Irving

PS. Rick Lindahl knows a bit more than me on this subject, he can double check my answers if he has time.



Tyler van Houwelingen wrote:
We were very excited about 3.6GHz until I got of the phone last week with Redline, trying to order their newly approved 3.6GHz 802.16 PtP product.

The problem, according to them, is with the power limits of Wimax at 3.6GHz. They said that, although the FCC set the max at 1W/1MHz, with a maximum of 25W for fixed products at 3.6GHz, the reality is that no products will ever ship that have more than 1Watt EIRP with antenna (28.4dB total to be exact) and mobile products will be much less. The reason is that the maximum channel width for WiMAX is 7MHz and the 1W/MHz is MAXIMUM, and not typical. Typical operating Tx power is much less then that. So the total for their product Tx + Antenna is only 28.4dB - Less than 1W.

This makes no sense to me, but they insisted. I thought that WiMAX can have 20Mhz channels and Max Tx + Antenna power is the EIRP, just like the max EIRP for WiFi is 4Watts, 36dB. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is Redline just blowing smoke or do you think this a real problem for 3.6GHz.

Clearly 1W EIRP vs 20W EIRP dramatically changes any 3.6GHz WiMAX plans.
tyler

-------

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com
--
-Irving Popovetsky Principal Consultant
ProStructure Consulting http://www.prostructure.com
Network and Security Consulting phone: [phone] x201
"Crafting Connectivity that Matters"

[Rick Lindahl]

Irving, Tyler,

Good job in explaining some of the issues with the FCC and WiMAX. I have
been very skeptical of WiMAX since I saw a presentation by Intel at an IEEE
meeting in early 2004 and heard some hype that would have required physics
laws to change...it was obvious to most in the room that this was an attempt
at marketing rather than hard science.

WiMAX was created from a need by carriers to standardize on
point-to-multipoint fixed, and later mobile, hardware. Sprint used
first-generation gear (Adaptive Broadband) for their early wireless
broadband services in Phoenix and quickly realized it was not mature enough.
They put out a request for manufacturers to create a next-gen hardware
platform that was interoperable, spectrally efficient and had more features.
WiMAX, as a standard, was jump started from this request. Intel, Fujitsu and
some others wanted to make the chipsets. Lucent, Alcatel, Nortel and others
wanted to make the base station gear. The frequencies were originally going
to be the licensed ones that the carriers had bid on, originally MMDS and
LMDS bands. Only later did other bands get added by the FCC.

There is a dire need for spectrum but also for technology to share the
spectrum efficiently and equally. Such things as auto transmit power
standards and variable channel width on demand and smart antenna technology
in order to more efficiently share the spectrum. I think this is the current
problem as everyone wants to use large swaths (20MHz, plus) of the available
bands.

Keep in mind that the "sweet spot" for WiMAX right now is in the mobile
space (a complete change from the original plan) and by the existing
carriers: Sprint/Nextel, etc. Whether this actually happens is anyone's
guess right now. There are still many carriers, small and large, with
fixed-wireless WiMAX deployments but most of these, in large markets, will
involve licensed spectrum. The smaller markets still have available
unlicensed bands as well as licensed, i.e. Clearwire.

Bottom line is WiMAX was designed for point-to-multipoint use by carriers
with licensed spectrum, originally for fixed and later mobile applications.
In working with hundreds of wireless ISPs and other clients over the years,
I believe there is still available spectrum, licensed and unlicensed, for
most point-to-point backhauls and even many multipoint networks if they are
carefully designed and deployed.

off soap box now...

Rick Lindahl
"Your Wireless Solutions Partner"
Invictus Networks, LLC
503-635-2562, f503-63509207
www.invictusnetworks.com


-----Original Message-----
From: general-bounces-9Og1/ECgh1HxcOW5sQhHe+***@public.gmane.org
[mailto:general-bounces-9Og1/ECgh1HxcOW5sQhHe+***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Tyler van
Houwelingen
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:39 AM
To: Irving Popovetsky
Cc: PTP General list
Subject: Re: [ptp-general] 3.6GHz WiMAX - Does this make any sense??

Thanks for the inputs.

If all Fixed WiMax flavors are limited to 7MHz channels then redline is
correct and 3.6GHz is worthless for WiMAX. Even though mobile wimax
supports up to 20MHz channels, the power limits that the FCC set here for
mobile devices at 3.6GHz are much lower than for fixed - 2Watt EIRP max in
fact, down from 25W.

We were hoping to upgrade our muni WiFi networks to WiMAX, but that appears
impossible now. The FCC claims that 3.6GHz will bring WiMAX to middle
america - what a sham. WiMAX will only be about the big carriers and
billion dollar spectrum. What has Kevin Martin done for small ISPs or
groups like PTP - Absolutely nothing in my opinion. Reading the FCC notes
on 3.6GHz, the only one that thought the power limits were adequate was
Sprint. Imagine that.

tyler



-------

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Irving Popovetsky
To: Tyler van Houwelingen
Cc: PTP General list
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ptp-general] 3.6GHz WiMAX - Does this make any sense??


Hi Tyler,

According to Redline's data sheet, their WiMAX products are based on
802.16-2004 (fixed OFDM-PHY, the older standard), which does in fact only
support 3.5 and 7Mhz channels. The newer mobile WiMAX protocol
(802.16e-2005 OFDMA-PHY) supports a wider variety of channel widths.
Further reading here.
The WiMAX proponents say that narrow channels are good because WiMAX has
higher "spectral efficiency" (meaning: it can push more bits) and narrower
channels provide better range and lower power consumption.

Also, don't forget that 3650-3700 in the US is an FCC licensed "shared"
spectrum, meaning that you have the pleasure of filing with the FCC and
coordinating the bottom 25Mhz of the spectrum with every other current and
future licensee in your area of deployment, assuming you are not in an
exclusion zone (see the last PTP thread about this issue).
Is that really worth it for fixed PtP links? If you're looking at strictly
at non-mobile PtP links, why not look at the Motorola PtP600? They can push
some insane bandwidth over unlicensed frequencies, if you can afford them.

Regarding max EIRP, that does sound a bit low to those of us in the WiFi
world who are used to pushing output limits to compensate for all the noise,
but maybe life is a little nicer in protected spectrum land. (Maybe they
really can get 12 miles with such low output power, when marketers dream :)
The 1W EIRP statement does jive with Redline's FCC filing, see "Antenna vs.
Gain". Has anyone found FCC text to support this?

cheers,
-Irving

PS. Rick Lindahl knows a bit more than me on this subject, he can double
check my answers if he has time.



Tyler van Houwelingen wrote:
We were very excited about 3.6GHz until I got of the phone last week with
Redline, trying to order their newly approved 3.6GHz 802.16 PtP product.

The problem, according to them, is with the power limits of Wimax at 3.6GHz.
They said that, although the FCC set the max at 1W/1MHz, with a maximum of
25W for fixed products at 3.6GHz, the reality is that no products will ever
ship that have more than 1Watt EIRP with antenna (28.4dB total to be exact)
and mobile products will be much less. The reason is that the maximum
channel width for WiMAX is 7MHz and the 1W/MHz is MAXIMUM, and not typical.
Typical operating Tx power is much less then that. So the total for their
product Tx + Antenna is only 28.4dB - Less than 1W.

This makes no sense to me, but they insisted. I thought that WiMAX can have
20Mhz channels and Max Tx + Antenna power is the EIRP, just like the max
EIRP for WiFi is 4Watts, 36dB. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is
Redline just blowing smoke or do you think this a real problem for 3.6GHz.


Clearly 1W EIRP vs 20W EIRP dramatically changes any 3.6GHz WiMAX plans.
tyler

-------

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder & CEO
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax: [phone]
www.azulstar.com
--
-Irving Popovetsky Principal Consultant
ProStructure Consulting http://www.prostructure.com
Network and Security Consulting phone: [phone] x201
"Crafting Connectivity that Matters"
--
The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/
Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.personaltelco.net/mailman/listinfo/general/
Archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/
Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette