Wimax Vs Wibro and TV

Hi,

I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.

I am looking for information about the following topics.
1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
the solutions.
2. 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?
3. 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.

Roni

Wimax is not Tv related
As for Wilbro I have never heard of it.

"rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126314867.891802.202290@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.
>
> I am looking for information about the following topics.
> 1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
> the solutions.
> 2. 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?
> 3. 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.
>
> Roni
>

I know its not TV related, but I assume it will be used to transmit TV
same as mobile is starting now ti be such media.


As for Wibro see attached article (one of many)
http://www.dailywireless.org/modules...ticle&sid=3569

And as you asked I looked for more.

http://www.wimaxtrends.com/ 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

On 9 Sep 2005 18:14:27 -0700, "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am just starting here so apologise if it was covered before.

It wasn't. Most of the traffic in alt.wireless.internet is about home
and office wireless 802.11a/b/g networking.

>1. Differences between the Wimax & Wibro, and also the limitation of
>the solutions.

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:

http://www.dailywireless.org/modules...ticle&sid=4164
Basically, 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.

>2. Business models, like what its potentially used for?

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.

>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?

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.

>Will we get TV over it into home?

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.

>3. What's the coverage limitation? I heard in Korea they have problems
>implementing handover at speed with Wibro.

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.

>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.

Use Goggle. I'm sure there are WiMax and WiBro specific forums.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I appreciate your input but look at the attached link, Wimax & TV

http://www.wimaxtrends.com/

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.

On 11 Sep 2005 03:50:19 -0700, "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I appreciate your input but look at the attached link, Wimax & TV
>
>http://www.wimaxtrends.com/
>
> 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.

Keep reading
| http://www.wimaxtrends.com/articles/...e/f090505b.htm
in 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.
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/nooze/wireless.htm
At 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.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558