I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.
I am looking for information about the following topics.
Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of the solutions.
Business models, like what its potentially used for? I see for example in Hong Kong and elsewhere the satellite TV provider has problems getting subscribers as private dishes are not allowed, will such networks be an alternative? Will we get TV over it into home?
What's the coverage limitation? I heard in Korea they have problems implementing handover at speed with Wibro.
I might not be in the exact forum, its the closest I found, so if there are better forums for teh topics, I will appreciate the advise.
its about wimax and TV, I do believe the technology will be used for delivering any content to the users and TV is only one example, and it can be over Internet or dedicated IP network
It wasn't. Most of the traffic in alt.wireless.internet is about home and office wireless 802.11a/b/g networking.
Wibro is an implementation of what Portable WiMax is suppose to eventually deliver when the IEEE gets done hammering out the specs. In theory, it will give the users high speed data on their cell phones but on different frequencies. As always, available bandwidth is the problem with 50Mbits/sec total bandwidth per base station and about
2Mbits/sec delivered per user maximum.
I'm not going to compare WiMax and WiBro because both are going to change when Intel, LG, and others hammer out a common and compatible standard:
formatting link
the modulation schemes are almost identical but the roaming protocols are radically different. WiBro is based on 802.16e (draft
3) and largely delivers what 802.16e roaming and fast handoff are suppose to eventually deliver. I guess Korea got tired of waiting.
The theory is that consumers will pay to watch a tiny TV image on their cell phones. Maybe video phones. Interactive games. Delivering advertising via location based services. Portable iTunes. Whatever features, note that they all are aimed at delivering "content" to the consumer at a price. There's a demand for all of these, but revenue model must include something for the service provider or there's no reason to do it. A good example is what Verizon did to the Motorola V710 cell phone. You have to use their overpriced BREW service to unload photographs via their network instead of just transferring it via the built in Bluetooth. So, the crippled the phone and disabled Bluetooth file transfers. Expect more of the same with DRM issues and replication.
No. The problem with satellite TV is that the local government has no control over content. With cellular based TV, the local government can easily control content and will surely do so.
Must I do the bandwidth calculations for you? To get lousy and over-compressed full screen TV, you need about 300Kbit/sec of streaming thruput. Download the latest Winamp and try some of the streaming video content. Would you pay to watch that level of non-quality while the rest of the planet is moving to HDTV? Why would you want it portable, when you can use a DVR to record it and watch it later?
Dig out your local wireless cellular data provider and find out what they charge for bandwidth by the byte transferred. Then calculate what 300Kbits/sec of a typical 1 hour TV show would cost to deliver via cellular.
They just installed the system. They're short on towers and have large gaps in the coverage. Expecting reliable handoff at this time is unrealistic. When they have sufficient overlapping coverage between sites, then we can talk seamless handoff. If you're expecting streaming content while moving down the highway without interruption and with seamless handoffs, methinks you're expecting far too much at this time.
Use Goggle. I'm sure there are WiMax and WiBro specific forums.
I appreciate your input but look at the attached link, Wimax & TV
formatting link
September 5, 2005 - Satellite operators continue to take a strong interest in WiMAX as a way to enhance their triple play plans with two-way communications. According to Reuters, Alvarion is negotiating with US satellite television giant DirecTV Group to supply WiMAX equipment, and the UK's SkyTV, another Rupert Murdoch company, is also investigating the technology as it comes under increasing competitive pressure from DSL and cable-based offerings.
the same article. They go on talking about balloon borne repeaters for delivering HDTV. The article is written by an employee of a research group, which derives its revenue from selling science fiction reports on such exotic technologies. In my never humble opinion, it won't fly and will have most of the problems and costs associated with satellites. It's interesting to note that there have been no pilot installations of such repeaters located on mountain tops, where the technology and reliability can be more easily tested.
In late 1998, I threw together a web page of alternatives to DSL and cable for the San Francisco Bay area. I included some of the science fiction schemes for delivering internet. I left it in place for historical interest. Most of the companies mentioned in the Sci-Fi section are gone. However, the ideas keep arising from the dead.
formatting link
the time, Skystation was pushing tethered balloons. Angel Technologies was doing airplanes flying donuts at high altitude. Since then, other companies and consortia have offered similar ideas. Few have offered anything substantial or economical. Deja Vu.
Whenever you read about some radical new technology adopted by a high profile company or consortium, always ask yourself "What problem are they trying to solve?" It's often not obvious. In the case of the satellite DBS TV vendors, the problem is how to get a piece of the internet action. DirectWay is fairly close to being saturated, offers comparatively mediocre performance compared to DSL and cable, and costs far too much for commodity service. In other words, it works, but doesn't scale well and is at a competitive disadvantage. So, the DBS vendors are looking for alternatives and WiMax seems to be a likely candidate.
In the USA, note that the same DBS vendors have tried to resell DSL, muscle into sharing CATV bandwidth, re-use their downlink frequencies for terrestrial internet, and sponsored some rather radical technologies. In other words, they're desperate.
They're also very conservative bordering on reactionary. Few of these are sold as technologies to deliver internet access. They're into delivering "content" which is a reflection of their original revenue base in the form of advertising. For CATV, it's not internet access but rather "interactive TV". Delivering the same advertising to cell phones via WiMax seems to interest everyone except the consumers.
Also remember that all this RF based technology is limited by spectrum and the various highly political regulatory disorganizations. If some company suddenly delivered the ultimate bandwidth saving delivery mechanism, with obvious benefits, and immediate popularity, it would still take years and more years to politic the FCC, ITU, and WRC into supplying the frequencies. Years after it was obvious the WiMax was viable and needed spectrum, the FCC managed to release a non-fabulous
50MHz of spectrum at 3.6GHz, which cannot be used in most populous areas near both coasts due to sharing with satellite downlink users. It was also a very bad trade for "deregulating" DSL, where WiMax is allegedly the direction the displaced ILEC's are suppose to drift.
Without frequencies and politics, nothing in RF-land ever happens.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.