Wimax?

Chaz

This is all amusing :-)

watty

A satellite Receive only LNB is 10.75GHz to 12.6GHz in and 750Mhz to 2100MHz out, NF of 0.6dB and can cost less than 20 Euro. I have converted (as have others) old 10GHz L.O. Standard "blue cap" LNB into a 10mW transmitter (Metro uses rather more power). Useruser, if you order Metro you will enjoy the practical benefits rather than the theory and no doubt be able to see who makes the radio part. I have an idea that info was posted on the Broadband forum some weeks ago.

useruser, do you see my point that a copper pair dsl provider is disadvantaged compared with cable or wireless? (no adjustable trade off between per user data and broadcast, as the physical medium is not shared at all between exchaneg and home)

Years ago I argued that dsl was superior because the connection was per person. Indeed if bandwidth of the medium was equal (Wireless, cable, twistedpair copper), then for ONLY broadband the telecom copper is superior. as the wireless and cable bandwidth must be shared with the other sector or segment users.

But when TV is considered too, especially if the home has more than one TV set then wireless or cable using shared badwidth not only has no disadvantage, but the more TV sets in the house the better the advantage of wireless or cable.

In fact for total bandwidth (not taking into account contention of Cable or wireless on a segment or sector for per user data), Cable beats twisted pair forever at any distance more than 1000 metres. Wireless can have dsl type bandwidth at lower frequencies and exceed cable bandwidth at microwave.

So while for per user IP data and phone xDSL can beat cable TV network or wireless, for integrated solution including TV or HDTV, xDSL can't even come close to Wireless/Cable, really only offering one SD TV IP channel for most users. Wireless/Cable is a solution that can offer multiroom and satellite broadcast performance on 120 channels simultanous TV, or perhaps 80 channels SDTV and 10 Channels HDTV.

Satellite can of course do a 1000 channels or 800 regular and 100 HDTV. But it basically can hardly do broadband at all.

If you want satellite pay TV and can get xDSl, then that is the customers best choice.

IF you don't want satellite payTV and can't get xDSL then Wireless or cable is best choice for customer.

ONLY the xDSL only provider, has a vested interest in pushing the very limited IPTV over xDSL solution. It doesn't make sense for the customer if they can get Satellite, terrestrial, "wireless" or cable based digital TV.

useruser

watty wrote:

A satellite Receive only LNB is 10.75GHz to 12.6GHz in and 750Mhz to 2100MHz out, NF of 0.6dB and can cost less than 20 Euro. I have converted (as have others) old 10GHz L.O. Standard "blue cap" LNB into a 10mW transmitter (Metro uses rather more power). Useruser, if you order Metro you will enjoy the practical benefits rather than the theory and no doubt be able to see who makes the radio part. I have an idea that info was posted on the Broadband forum some weeks ago.

OK, so they're using secret hardware then for some reason - why the reticence? I find it hard to believe that their CPE costs anything near 20 Euro Watty - anyone care to post a more accurate figure?

useruser, do you see my point that a copper pair dsl provider is disadvantaged compared with cable or wireless? (no adjustable trade off between per user data and broadcast, as the physical medium is not shared at all between exchaneg and home)

I have never claimed otherwise! My point has always been that IPTV over DSL is viable not that it is better than anything else. Why on earth would I claim that cable or sat doesn't work or that a more mature TV technology is inferior?

Years ago I argued that dsl was superior because the connection was per person. Indeed if bandwidth of the medium was equal (Wireless, cable, twistedpair copper), then for ONLY broadband the telecom copper is superior. as the wireless and cable bandwidth must be shared with the other sector or segment users.
But when TV is considered too, especially if the home has more than one TV set then wireless or cable using shared badwidth not only has no disadvantage, but the more TV sets in the house the better the advantage of wireless or cable.

You completely missed my point Watty - I'll state it again, simply, Telcos do not have access to cable/sat/broadcast so the fact that they are "superior" is simply irrelevant.

ONLY the xDSL only provider, has a vested interest in pushing the very limited IPTV over xDSL solution. It doesn't make sense for the customer if they can get Satellite, terrestrial, "wireless" or cable based digital TV.

Well, duh - of course DSL providers have a vested interest in DSL! - do you not think cable providers have a vested interest in cable? (and butchers in meat and grocers in vegetables...) It makes sense for the customer when they can get their Voice, Video and Data from one provider as you well know.

Which leaves us with Digiweb, sounds to me like their TV service is even more of a pig in a poke than IPTV over DSL - you seem to be hinting at this anyway. Why don't they use cable/sat instead? ;-)

useruser

Chaz wrote:

This is all amusing :-)

A Digiweb employee! Can you tell us some more about the proposed TV solution? (In broad outline?) What is the top secret equipment that you use in 10.5GHz?

Chaz

useruser wrote:

A Digiweb employee! Can you tell us some more about the proposed TV solution? (In broad outline?) What is the top secret equipment that you use in 10.5GHz?

If its Top Secret, then theres no point in sharing it - is there?

useruser

useruser wrote:

A Digiweb employee! Can you tell us some more about the proposed TV solution? (In broad outline?) What is the top secret equipment that you use in 10.5GHz?

Doh! didn't realise Watty was a Digiweb employee too until I read this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=309016

Edit - he is not in fact anything of the sort - apologies.

Seems the gear they are using is this: http://www.ogierelectronics.com/, as posted by watty - why not post it here too?

Jaysus, you guys are getting nearly as much of a drubbing as IBB! I think I'll stick with NTL for the moment, thanks.

useruser

Chaz wrote:

If its Top Secret, then theres no point in sharing it - is there?

No, none at all - and no point in you posting here either if you have nothing to add.

Chaz

I thought the thread title called 'WiMax' meant it was a technology discussion and not comparing ISPs. I was simply amused that some in this discussion had made certain assumptions and based whole hearted arguments on it. Some assumptions are 100% correct, some entirely wrong.

Lighten up - our hardware has never been 'secret'. You can check on the back of the unit who made it. Next time I post some scarcasm/polite banter Ill indicate it with one of these ...;)

Chaz

useruser wrote:

Doh! didn't realise Watty was a Digiweb employee too until I read this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=309016

Seems the gear they are using is this: http://www.ogierelectronics.com/, as posted by watty - why not post it here too?

Jaysus, you guys are getting nearly as much of a drubbing as IBB! I think I'll stick with NTL for the moment, thanks.

Ill have to check our payroll ...... Watty an employee? News to me.

useruser

Chaz wrote:

I thought the thread title called 'WiMax' meant it was a technology discussion and not comparing ISPs. I was simply amused that some in this discussion had made certain assumptions and based whole hearted arguments on it. Some assumptions are 100% correct, some entirely wrong.

Somehow the discussion went from the (de)merits of Wimax to the viability of Wireless broadband to the viability of IPTV over DSL to some guessing as to how you will provide TV over your Metro product. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth then - I am genuinely interested.

Lighten up - our hardware has never been 'secret'. You can check on the back of the unit who made it. Next time I post some scarcasm/polite banter Ill indicate it with one of these ...;)

Fair enough, if it's not a secret why not just tell us some more about it? I would like to know why this is so much cheaper to deploy than other WLL stuff in 10.5 - and yet seems to have as much available capacity and more! (Cambridge broadband claim 60mb (actual IP throughput) in 28MHz, full duplex, per sector - but seem to have CPE in the $1200 range). You're the expert - give us a bit more info!

useruser

Chaz wrote:

Ill have to check our payroll ...... Watty an employee? News to me.

Sorry Watty - looked like it from the Broadband thread, you are obviously just very familiar with the product.

watty

Any internet thread goes OT with time. It is a fundamental principle.

I don't work for any ISP. But I am a Communications Engineer and Telecoms Design Engineer by background, training and experience.

Also very very expert in Internet/PC security, VB/SQL programming, distributed network programing, LAN/WAN design/project management and support etc.

There are very many products relating to Digital TV/Radio and Data comms that I am familar with. As I am also an Electronic Design Engineer and Embedded systems programmer by training, background and experience, some products I could design better. I have done a lot of consultancy and even managed to get one IT system/ Wireless patent.

Most people posting on Broadband forum have very little clue as even to what a "ping" is really testing. I like to help educate people.

If I'm using a product I like to *REALLY* understand it, and thus in refuting illinformed comment or suggesting solutions I suppose I might have sounded a bit like the Crawler and Chaz team at times. (They already checked weeks ago to make sure I wasn't an employee !)

Years ago before I did the sums I had some niave ideas myself about IPTV, broadband on adsl or cable etc.

"Ogier" is a race in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy series, I wonder is that where they got the name or some other source?

watty

Discussing various methods of delivery of differnt content types and media is more interesting than Wimax. There isn't a whole lot you can say about the two main Wimax systems (fixed and mobile) at the end of the day.

Chaz

useruser wrote:

Somehow the discussion went from the (de)merits of Wimax to the viability of Wireless broadband to the viability of IPTV over DSL to some guessing as to how you will provide TV over your Metro product. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth then - I am genuinely interested.



Fair enough, if it's not a secret why not just tell us some more about it? I would like to know why this is so much cheaper to deploy than other WLL stuff in 10.5 - and yet seems to have as much available capacity and more! (Cambridge broadband claim 60mb (actual IP throughput) in 28MHz, full duplex, per sector - but seem to have CPE in the $1200 range). You're the expert - give us a bit more info!

We are looking at different methods to deliver TV and VOD. Unfortunately not much more can be said at the moment as there is more going on than that.

As for the reason to have gone with our current system versus from any of the other vendors, again, for many reasons - some apparent, some not and not really open for public discussion on behalf of the company.

useruser

watty wrote:

I don't work for any ISP. But I am a .... Also very very expert in.... [Watty's CV]

All that and modest too! ;-p

Years ago before I did the sums I had some niave ideas myself about IPTV, broadband on adsl or cable etc.

Show us the sums that say telcos should not invest in IPTV. What is naive about telcos attempting to squeeze more revenue from their copper infrastructure? I submit that it is naive to believe that IPTV is not a reality in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is! (back to those 1 million users again I'm afraid).

"Ogier" is a race in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy series, I wonder is that where they got the name or some other source?

Much as the notion of a wireless company being named after a fantasy novel amuses me, I suspect it is just the surname of the founder.

damien

Chaz wrote:

Lighten up - our hardware has never been 'secret'. You can check on the back of the unit who made it. Next time I post some scarcasm/polite banter Ill indicate it with one of these ...;)

Chaz. Isn't there a 58 page thread with Metro complaints that needs your attention, besides making snide remarks to posters on this forum?

Note my lack of smilies because I'm not being sarcastic.

useruser

Chaz wrote:

We are looking at different methods to deliver TV and VOD. Unfortunately not much more can be said at the moment as there is more going on than that.

As for the reason to have gone with our current system versus from any of the other vendors, again, for many reasons - some apparent, some not and not really open for public discussion on behalf of the company.

And the scene is set:

Digiweb MD: Hey Chaz, how about some of that TV? - how are we going to do it?
Chaz: Beats the sh1t out of me boss, we're having enough trouble getting 6mb broadband working with voice.
MD: What about VoD?
Chaz: I'll drop down to Xtravision.
MD: Bugger.




(Actual conversation may not have happened.)

Sponge Bob

That thread is about 5 particular people TBH Damien and reads like a fringe reception blog .

Wimax , in regulatory and licencing terms, is a potential minefield but just wait for UWB

The prime radio slots for Wimax are 3.5Ghz where one could squat spectrum squatted by Eircom were one in possession of the correct laptop along with the 2.5Ghz slot which is unused since June 2004 because Comreg decided to squat it themselves in case Vodafone or O2 or 3 wanted it (not because they actually wanted it mind )

If Intel bring in a modular system , allowing interchangeable radios and damn the local regulatory system then Wimax could turn into a right mess as individuals start to honk away in those bands and blame Dell / Intel/ The salesman who sold them that laptop in Florida ....etc...whatever.

While I do not have all the info yet, and have stayed well out of this thread as the real experts banged away at each other , it strikes me now that Wimax will be a serious challenge to radio spectrum regulation in those bands but that Wimax is only the beginning.

In anticipation of compo from Comreg, eircom are now looking at deploying frequency hopping Alvarion gear in the 3.5Ghz band to work around the certain interference as well as suing Comreg for not protecting 'their spectrum' .

This fine mess should be underway within a year along with some UWB tech from Intel to really mess things up .


I quote from the above link.

UWB's combination of broader spectrum and lower power improves speed and reduces interference with other wireless spectra. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that UWB radio transmissions can legally operate in the range from 3.1 GHz up to 10.6 GHz, at a limited transmit power of -41dBm/MHz. Consequently, UWB provides dramatic channel capacity at short range that limits interference.

Do you think Intel will have an intelligent crippler or contention avoidance system built into the UWB tech to keep a piss weak regulator like Comreg happy ? Will we bananas as the woman said to the bishop

Watch Intel trample Comreg and watch the licencees sue Comreg into oblivion as Comreg fail to protect their licenced spectrum. Hopefully Comreg will simply (and rapidly) evaporate into a cloud of wind and piss and we can finally get a proper regulator in this country :cool: . I see Wimax as the start and Wimax + UWB as the end of this process but both Wimax and UWB chipset and radio combinations will hit the market in 2007 .

Nothing will stop it now .

bk

Chaz and Crawler must be having great fun reading this thread as we all try to guess what they are up to.

Stop being such a tease!

So does anyone want to speculate if somone might be looking at buying Digiweb?

They would be a very valuable target for UPC.

In fact pretty much any ISP would be interested and there seems to have been a lot of consolidation in the market recently.

jesus_thats_gre

damien.m wrote:

Chaz. Isn't there a 58 page thread with Metro complaints that needs your attention, besides making snide remarks to posters on this forum?

Note my lack of smilies because I'm not being sarcastic.

While it is definetly the bitchiest comment I have ever seen, its pretty bang on the money.. Recommended to a friends in Dundalk to go with Digiweb over IBB.. Made sense then and still does but he is getting the run around majorly.

watty

No-one can operate in EU without CE approved gear for "so called licence free spectrum" (in reality pre-licencend chunks for approved equipment.). All other spectrum requires the user or the supplier of service to have a licence (THIS is EU wide). Generally unless you are a licenced Wireless Experimenter operating in the Licenced bands approved by Comreg and ITU etc, then even if a company is issued a spectrum licence there must be final regulator approval of the equipment, which also usually means various EU or Internation type approvals are met.

Any retail CE marked Wimax for self build WiFi replacement thus must use existing so called "licence free" band chunks, co-existing with existing WiFi, video senders, Amateur radio, IBB Ripwave, baby alarms, wireless cameras etc.

Any service provider supplied gear (i.e. Internet / BB) must use licences the service provider has. (IBB, Clearwire, Eircom, leap, Digiweb etc).

NO-ONE, service provider or retailer can simply start selling new gear because it has an Intel chip.

It's got almost nothing to do with what Intel or the public want, but up to IBB, Eircom etc to introduce Wimax or not.

Intel isn't going to trample anyone on this.

watty

IMO there seem to be a very small number of people with real Metro BB problems . Perhaps some should not have had an install. I know far more people with problems with other ISPs. No ISP is perfect and neither is the Internet.

damien

Sponge Bob wrote:

That thread is about 5 particular people TBH Damien and reads like a fringe reception blog .

I don't appreciate snakeoil salesman Spongebob. Perhaps Chaz and Digiweb should spend less time snarking on a web forum and more time trying to fix the issues of "5 particular people" who I have to say have been far too patient while waiting to get their issues resolved.

Sponge Bob

I dont think its snakeoil (a la IBB) but they were a bit optimistic about the phone bit of their Metro package.

I am personally astonished at a few places where Metro _does_ work .....such as 10km from a mast low on the horizon and will be utterly stunned if the imminent arrival of leaves on the trees do not cause problems in about 3 months. Ask me then

Having said that this thread is at heart a technology discussion but I feel that Wimax, in Ireland, is more of a regulatory minefield than a technical minefield.

Digiweb have opted for Docsis and given Wimax the finger big time. They are notably the only wireless operator to have done so in Ireland . They may have made the right decision but not in my opinion because of the technology but because of the overall regulatory situation in the bands for which Wimax is optimal or optimal with technical caveats .

Originally Posted by Watty No-one can operate in EU without CE approved gear for "so called licence free spectrum" (in reality pre-licencend chunks for approved equipment.). All other spectrum requires the user or the supplier of service to have a licence (THIS is EU wide). Generally unless you are a licenced Wireless Experimenter operating in the Licenced bands approved by Comreg and ITU etc, then even if a company is issued a spectrum licence there must be final regulator approval of the equipment, which also usually means various EU or Internation type approvals are met.

Watty is entirely correct . This is the law and thats how these things are supposed to work. I , on the other hand, remember the different EU and US variants of 802.11 wi-fi , for indoor use ONLY in teh 2.4Ghz band and how , in the end, the sheer number of US spec CPE such as Centrinos meants that the EU rules were abandoned and the US rules became the de facto situation. This all worked itself out in a few years around 2000-2002

Nor did Comreg ever do anybody for having a US chipset in Ireland and for honking away merrily on those channels that were meant to be US only. They could have made an example of a few people but in the end they abandoned all their rules on those US only channels and rolled over.

The same will happen on Wimax and worryingly...to my mind... on UWB

A legal chipset , CE mark and all that, will be easily flashed to an illegal chipset once the gear is in the wild and in the large quantities for which Intel is famous .

Thats how I see things and quite soon too.

bminish

Sponge Bob wrote:

Digiweb have opted for Docsis and given Wimax the finger big time. They are notably the only wireless operator to have done so in Ireland . They may have made the right decision but not in my opinion because of the technology but because of the overall regulatory situation in the bands for which Wimax is optimal or optimal with technical caveats .

What about perminet http://www.permanet.ie/ ?
they are using 3.5 Ghz with docsis modems

The same will happen on Wimax and worryingly...to my mind... on UWB

I as far as I can see one of the big advantages of UWB (to manufactures ) is that they get to do RF without having to deal much with the expensive bits of the radio (front end, filtering, linearity etc)
there are real risks that widespread UWB will have very detrimental effects on other spectrum users and once that genie is out of the bottle it won't be going back in :mad:

A legal chipset , CE mark and all that, will be easily flashed to an illegal chipset once the gear is in the wild and in the large quantities for which Intel is famous .

Comreg have done hundreds of mast site surveys, supposedly to see if we are safe (we are by massive margins )
http://www.comreg.ie/sector/default.asp?stv4=TSG&s=4&navid=179
One of the things that is included in quite a few of these site surveys are spectrum analyser plots of sites made by expensive consultants with expensive toys.
On some sites out of band emissions were so large that the company charged with the audit included these out of band emissions in their exposure level audit.
Comreg to date appear to have not noticed all of the crud on these sites that these expensive audits uncovered but certain technical people at a regional airport found that this audit for an RTE site some 30 Km from the airport may have explained some present issues that they were having. take a look at the section covering 108 to 136 Mhz as that's the VHF airband

One thing is certain, comreg are not doing much of a job of spectrum policing and have made quite the pigs ear of 3.5 Ghz with the exclusion zones

If anyone needs some cavity filters properly lined up do give us a shout!

.brendan

watty

useruser wrote:

All that and modest too! ;-p


Much as the notion of a wireless company being named after a fantasy novel amuses me, I suspect it is just the surname of the founder.

That wasn't a CV summary. Just trying to explain where I am comming from in my analysis.

I don't blame adsl operators for jumping on the IPTV bandwagon hype. For a well defined scenario it does work, but it won't meet the expectations that customers are being misled with. I personally would not invest my life etc in any scheme that totally depended on it rather than it being icing on the adsl cake. Anyone with asdl is well recommended to examine TV aerial and/or Satellite for Free TV watching in quality and choice and Satellite / MMDS/Cable /Wireless providers for pay TV options as adsl can never deliver the same flexibily, quality and choice.

Re: Ogier
It may be a founder's name. It was a name I was unfamiliar with apart from Robert Jordan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogier
But indeed Google shows many people called Ogier.

watty

UWB is very worrying. Though perhaps not as evil as PLT.

useruser

watty wrote:

I don't blame adsl operators for jumping on the IPTV bandwagon hype. For a well defined scenario it does work, but it won't meet the expectations that customers are being misled with.

If your expectation is to watch a single SDTV stream then it will meet that today! Sounds OK to me. How are customers being misled?

I personally would not invest my life etc in any scheme that totally depended on it rather than it being icing on the adsl cake.

Jeepers, I didn't realise it had got that serious, who's asking you to invest your life in it? I hope they are offering you a decent return ;-)

Anyone with asdl is well recommended to examine TV aerial and/or Satellite for Free TV watching in quality and choice and Satellite / MMDS/Cable /Wireless providers for pay TV options as adsl can never deliver the same flexibily, quality and choice.

Thems fighting words, "never" is a particularly strong one. It has been an interesting debate, only time will tell if there's a future for this new technology.


And now, UWB - I don't understand the magnitude of the threat, surely the power levels are too low to be a problem? Is it that you think it will be used amped for outdoor deployments illegally? Is it that the aggregate of all of the many many devices will raise the noise floor unacceptably? Is that effect not likely to be small?

Sponge Bob

useruser wrote:

And now, UWB - I don't understand the magnitude of the threat, surely the power levels are too low to be a problem?

Nominally you are correct.

Is it that you think it will be used amped for outdoor deployments illegally?

Absolutely . So will wimax .

About 2 weeks after the first wimax chipset goes into a laptop with low power output the likes of Toms Hardware will tell us , with pics, how to clatter it 30 miles across the country

It will be more difficult to amp UWB but heck, expect a trier to crack it ....however crudely.

Given Comreg's stunning inability to close down or control a single MW station run by Jesus freaks somewhere in the midlands you may expect an unregulated free for all once the transmitters are sort of basically everywhere.

Apart from 802.16 variants (Wimax) and 802.15 variants (UWB) there is another interesting beast on the more distant horizon , 802.21 , which will up the honk rate as it searches around for all radio compatible networks.

The base standards are all very well and well meaning but 802.11b was originally a low power indoor use only type of standard . Then it turned into the wireless standard of choice for new outdoor carriers because teh gear was cheap. IBB and Digiweb got into wireless originally as 2.4Ghz operators around 2003/2004 . In no time the spectrum was swamped and they both had to go licenced .

Ironically the outdoor noise in the 2.4ghz band , in Dublin, c.2004 was so great that everybody stopped doing it and went elsewhere in the spectrum and the band is actually far more usable nowadays

useruser

Sponge Bob wrote:

About 2 weeks after the first wimax chipset goes into a laptop with low power output the likes of Toms Hardware will tell us , with pics, how to clatter it 30 miles across the country

I guess the only difference is that Joe Soap is not going to have the base station available to him to create his own l33t link. I take your point however.

Given Comreg's stunning inability to close down or control a single MW station run by Jesus freaks somewhere in the midlands you may expect an unregulated free for all once the transmitters are sort of basically everywhere.

What station is this? Is it any good?

The base standards are all very well and well meaning but 802.11b was originally a low power indoor use only type of standard . Then it turned into the wireless standard of choice for new outdoor carriers because teh gear was cheap. IBB and Digiweb got into wireless originally as 2.4Ghz operators around 2003/2004 . In no time the spectrum was swamped and they both had to go licenced .

I guess this is the main difference, when noone has a licence then anything goes. I'd hope it would be a little different if people start spewing all over licenced spectrum that is in use. I imagine your prediction of Comreg inaction is on the money though!

Ironically the outdoor noise in the 2.4ghz band , in Dublin, c.2004 was so great that everybody stopped doing it and went elsewhere in the spectrum and the band is actually far more usable nowadays

How are 5.4GHz and 5.8GHz?