Archive | WiMAX RSS feed for this section

Comparative Study WIFI vs. WIMAX

5 Sep

Wireless networking has become an important area of research in academic and industry. The main objectives of this paper is to gain in-depth knowledge about the Wi-Fi- WiMAX technology and how it works and understand the problems about the WiFiWiMAX technology in maintaining and deployment. The challenges in wireless networks include issues like security, seamless handover, location and emergency services, cooperation, and QoS. The performance of the WiMAX is better than the Wi-Fi and also it provide the good response in the access. It’s evaluated the Quality of Service (Qos) in Wi-Fi compare with WiMAX and provides the various kinds of security Mechanisms. Authentication to verify. The identity of the authorized communicating client stations. Confidentiality (Privacy) to secure that the wirelessly conveyed information will remain private and protected. Take necessary actions and configurations that are needed in order to deploy Wi-Fi -WiMAX with increased levels of security and privacy.

Download: ART20161474

Source: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v5i9/ART20161474.pdf

Advertisements

WiMAX vs. LTE vs. HSPA+: who cares who wins?

2 Oct

Who cares who wins the 4G cup?

“We must stop the confusion about which technology is going to win; it achieves nothing positive and risks damage to the entire industry.”

Anyone among the curious band of people who track articles about the status of mobile broadband (and the chances are that you are one of them) will have noticed an interesting trend over the past 18 months: the temperature of the debate about the technology most likely to succeed is rising rapidly. Increasingly polarised articles are published on a daily basis, each arguing that Long Term Evolution (LTE) is the 4G technology of choice, or that WiMAX is racing ahead, or that it’s best to stick with good old 3GPP because HSPA+ is going to beat both of them. It remains surprising that their articles invite us, their readers, to focus slavishly on the question “WiMAX vs. LTE vs. HSPA+: which one will win?”

The question that we should ask of the authors is “Who cares who wins?” The torrent of propaganda washes over the essence of mobile broadband and puts sustained growth in the mobile industry at risk. By generating fear, uncertainty and doubt, the mobile broadband “battle” diverts attention away from the critical issues that will determine the success or failure of these evolving technologies.  The traditional weapon of the partisan author is the mighty “Mbps”; each wields their peak data rates to savage their opponents.

In the HSPA+ camp, authors fire out theoretical peak data rates of 42Mbps DL and 23 Mbps UL. The WiMAX forces respond with theoretical peak data rates of 75Mbps DL and 30Mbps UL. LTE joins the fray by unleashing its theoretical peak data rates of 300Mbps DL and 75 Mbps UL. All hell breaks loose, or so it would appear. Were it not for the inclusion of the word “theoretical”, we could all go home to sleep soundly and wake refreshed, safe in the knowledge that might is right. The reality is very different.

Sprint has stated that it intends to deliver services at between 2 and 4 Mbps to its customers with Mobile WiMAX. In the real world, HSPA+ and LTE are likely to give their users single digit Mbps download speeds.  Away from the theoretical peak data rates, the reality is that the technologies will be comparable with each other, at least in the experience of the user. These data rates, from a user’s perspective, are a great improvement on what you will see while sitting at home on your WiFi or surfing the web while on a train. The problem is that the message being put out to the wider population has the same annoying ringtone as those wild claims that were made about 3G and the new world order that it would usher in. Can you remember the allure of video calls? Can you remember the last time you actually saw someone making a video call?

3G has transformed the way that people think about and use their mobile phones, but not in the way that they were told to expect. In the case of 3G, mismanagement of customer expectations put our industry back years. We cannot afford to repeat this mistake with mobile broadband. Disappointed customers spend less money because they don’t value their experience as highly as they had been led to expect by advertisers.  Disappointed customers share their experience with friends and family, who delay buying into the mobile broadband world.  What we all want are ecstatic customers who can’t help but show off their device. We need to produce a ‘Wow’ factor that generates momentum in the market.

Every pundit has a pet theory about the likely deployment of mobile broadband technologies. One will claim that HSPA+ might delay the deployment of LTE. Another will posit that WiMAX might be adopted, predominantly, in the laptop or netbook market. A third will insist that LTE could replace large swathes of legacy technologies.  These scenarios might happen, but they might not, too.

More likely, but less stirring, is the prediction that they are all coming, they’ll be rolled out to hundreds of millions of subscribers and, within five years, will be widespread. We must stop the confusion about which technology is going to win; it achieves nothing positive and risks damage to the entire industry.

Confusion unsettles investors, who move to other markets and starve us of the R&D funds needed to deliver mobile broadband. At street level, confusion leads early adopters to hold off making commitments to the new wave of technology while they “wait it out” to ensure they don’t buy a Betamax instead of a VHS.  Where we should focus, urgently, is on the two topics that demand open discussion and debate. First, are we taking the delivery of a winning user experience seriously? Secondly, are we making plans to cope with the data tidal wave that will follow a successful launch?

The first topic concerns delivery to the end user of a seamless application experience that successfully converts the improved data rates to improvements on their device. This can mean anything from getting LAN-like speeds for faster email downloads through to slick, content-rich and location-aware applications. As we launch mobile broadband technologies, we must ensure that new applications and capabilities are robust and stable. More effort must be spent developing and testing applications so that the end user is blown away by their performance.

The second topic, the tidal wave of data, should force us to be realistic about the strain placed on core networks by an exponential increase in data traffic. We have seen 10x increases in traffic since smartphones began to boom. Mobile device makers, network equipment manufacturers and application developers must accept that there will be capacity shortages in the short term and, in response, must design, build and test applications rigorously. We need applications with realistic data throughput requirements and the ability to catch data greedy applications before they reach the network.

In Anite, we see the demands placed on test equipment by mobile broadband technologies at first hand. More than testing the technical integrity of the protocol stack and its conformance to the core specifications, we produce new tools that test applications and simulate the effects of anticipated capacity bottlenecks. Responding to the increased demand for mobile applications, we’re developing test coverage that measures applications at the end-user level. Unfortunately, not everyone is thinking that far ahead. Applications that should be “Wow”, in theory, may end up producing little more than a murmur of disappointment in the real world.

So, for the sake of our long-term prospects, let’s stop this nonsense about how one technology trounces another. Important people, the end users, simply do not care.  WiMAX, LTE and HSPA+ will all be widely deployed. As an industry, our energy needs to be focused on delivering services and applications that exceed the customer expectations.  Rather than fighting, we should be learning from each other’s experiences.  If we do that, our customers will reward us with growing demand. If we all get sustained growth, then don’t we all win..?

Source: http://www.telecoms.com/11695/wimax-vs-lte-vs-hspa-who-cares-who-wins/

Network Architecture Considerations for Smart Grid

3 Jul

Most would agree that the traditional centralized electrical distribution model will evolve to a distributed generation (DG) model. When this occurs, and to what degree remains to be seen. Regardless, a smart grid communications infrastructure is essential in the safe, reliable and efficient management of a DG infrastructure.

For the past couple of years, WireIE has worked in collaboration with the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) in developing a model for a smart grid distribution system of the future. Faculty in the university’s Electrical Engineering & Applied Science program, along with their students, have modeled a number of distributed generation scenarios from the utility’s perspective. One of the many outcomes of this exercise has been a clearer specification of communication network requirements to support these distributed generation scenarios.

Communication Network Requirements
A smart grid communications network must support a number of applications, some mission critical, while others are comparatively forgiving. As our UOIT colleagues specify, the operation of taking a distributed generation source on or off line demands execution of the transition in no more than 5 – 6 cycles, or 80 – 100 milliseconds. In contrast, other administrative functions such as a dispatch applications may be tolerant of a number of seconds delay.

With UOIT’s DG scenarios in mind, our most critical communications network specification is latency. Latency is defined as the time taken for an element of data to transcend a link, or series of links, in a data communications network. We therefore need to factor in the very stringent latency requirements of DG while also recognizing that our smart grid communications network will be handling significant volumes of less time-sensitive administrative traffic.

Communications Network Architecture
A smart grid communications network must support protection and control functions at DG interconnection points. These sites include facilities on the grid itself, along with businesses and residences where alternative energy may also to be available to the grid. With a clear delineation between mission-critical operations and those more tolerant of latency and throughput variations, a dual or potentially multi-layered, communications network is envisioned.

One can think of the bottom layer of the network being administrative and housekeeping oriented. It is designed for high reliability but it also has comparatively high forgiveness of latency, along with other network performance variations. Geographically, this layer covers a wide area – potentially all of a Local Distribution Company – and is appropriately referred to as a Wide Area Network (WAN). In contrast, the top layer is composed of several Local Area Networks (LANs). All LANs connect to the WAN so that communication can take place between the Operations Centre on the WAN and remote sites on the network.

 

Mouse Over the Image to Reveal the LAN Layer

The Drawing Assumes an IEC 61850 Interface as a Demarcation Between Electrical Utility and Communication Network Assets

While this basic topology is by no means revolutionary, the mission-criticality of many protection and control functions will require unprecedented robustness and redundancy – particularly on the LAN layer, and often at the network edge. As is the trend with many modern networks, edge oriented data processing and storage yields significant bandwidth efficiencies, along with a commensurate improvement in network performance and service reliability.

The LAN’s primary purpose is to execute time-sensitive, mission-critical protection and control operations such as a DG source switch-over. It should be noted that DG operational decision making is not the same thing as the actual execution of the operational decision. This distinction is important in that business and operational policies and decision-making do not occur on the LAN. Instead, a centralized operations facility, or perhaps a collection of regional operations centres, are located on the WAN. Among other things, these centres are where operational decisions are made and subsequently delivered to the appropriate LAN. Once an instruction is delivered to the appropriate LAN, local sensing and measuring equipment determine whether conditions are conducive to actual execution on the instruction. The outcome of the instruction (executed successfully, failed) is then delivered from the LAN to the operations centre via the WAN.

Why not consolidate the WAN and LAN layers? The main reason relates to the wide range of expectations placed on the smart grid communication network as a whole. As previously mentioned, protection and control functions are comparatively demanding of the network in terms of reliability and low latency, whereas administrative functions are quite forgiving.

As a self-contained network within a larger ‘network of networks’, the local aspect of a LAN has some very important attributes in supporting protection and control. As a topologically simple, self-contained local network, a LAN is very fast – an essential characteristic in executing protection and control operations. Not only are communication link distances short in a LAN, there are fewer hops (a linear collection of communication links) per communication channel. Multiple hops introduce aggregate latency. An additional inherent benefit of the LAN’s simplicity is reduced points of failure within the LAN itself. In fact in most situations, the LAN can operate autonomously should there be either a planned or unforeseen disconnection from the WAN. Predefined operational policies would stipulate the degree to which the LAN can operate autonomously in the event of a disconnection from the WAN.

Communications Network Technology Considerations
Many DG sources are in locations where limited or no communications infrastructure exists. In these cases deployment of digital radio, or a digital radio/fiber optic hybrid is both attractive and pragmatic.

WireIE’s Transparent Ethernet Solutions™ (TES) are built with exceptionally low latency characteristics – all backed up by a Service Level Agreement (SLA). WireIE TES can be deployed in a point-to-point, or point-to-multipoint topology. For access, Long Term Evolution(LTE) promises very attractive latency characteristics, well within the requirements set out by our friends at UOIT. WiMAX(Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) also shows potential as a Smart Grid access technology — particularly WiMAX 802.16m, recently approved by the ITU.

Single hop latency in a WiMAX or LTE link measured from base station to CPE (customer premises equipment), is typically equal to or less than 10 milliseconds. Aggregate latency must therefore be kept safely below 50 milliseconds on all protection and control paths. Again, containing execution of distributed generation activities to a LAN ensures latency thresholds are not exceeded.

WireIE TES, LTE and WiMAX offer a number of sophisticated capabilities over and above impressive latency characteristics. All employ dynamic radio link quality management capabilities. Throughput is traded off for link robustness in the event the quality of a radio path should deteriorate. The reverse is also true as radio path quality improves. The mechanism facilitating throughput verses robustness is known as adaptive modulation.

It is essential that each digital radio link be engineered to exceptionally strict path propagation specifications because of the mission critical nature of smart grid protection and control applications. This entails exhaustive path analysis and a subsequent network design to ensure that every radio path is never at risk of engaging a modulation scheme below a carefully calculated threshold. As a fixed network, radio link reliability can be achieved with a high degree of predictability. That said, best-of-breed engineering is an essential ingredient from a reliability and performance perspective. In addition, network redundancy and/or diversity must be incorporated into the design, thus enhancing overall reliability and equally important, allowing for any and all network failure scenarios. Further protection against communication network failures must also be addressed as the application layer.

Conclusion
A properly engineered LAN using digital radio technologies such as WireIE’s TES, LTE and WiMAX will provide a safe and reliable platform by which to execute critical protection and control operations such as a DG switch-over. The underlying WAN provides the necessary communications foundation to administer such activities. The WAN also supports the broader administrative, ‘house keeping’ activities envisioned for smart grid.

 

 

 

 

Source: http://www.wireie.com/next_gen/network-architecture-considerations-for-smart-grid/

Carrier Aggregation and the Road to Cognitive Radio and Superwide Spectrum

16 Jan

Carrier Aggregation

Often, the least hyped technologies are the most effective, get the widest adoption, and have the greatest impact. Carrier aggregation is one such technology that I don’t think it received its fair share of attention. LTE did bring a number of new features that were not available in 3G, such as MIMO. But MIMO was already deployed in other technologies including both Wi-Fi and WiMAX. Carrier aggregation on the other hand developed by the requirement to achieve higher data rates in LTE network. True channel bonding is a feature of Wi-Fi, but it applies to adjacent channels. Carrier aggregation on the other hand combines distinct channels in different bands. From that perspective, I am not aware of any wireless technology that has implemented carrier aggregation.

Carrier Aggregation - LTE-Advanced

Carrier Aggregation – LTE-Advanced: Up to 5 20 MHz Carriers can be combined for 100 MHz bandwidth.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then carrier aggregation has a few mothers! Data rate requirement is one, but another very important aspect is spectrum fragmentation. To date, there are 44 bands defined for LTE operation between 400 and 3800 MHz. Each band supports anywhere from 2 to 6 different channelizations for a total of 159 different profiles! Trunking theory stipulates higher efficiency and greater capacity in wider channels than narrow channels. In fact, a 20 MHz LTE channel carries 103% more capacity on average than 10 MHz channel – that’s a 3% gain in capacity. Carrier aggregation is therefore a mean to achieving greater capacity with fragmented spectrum.

LTE Spectrum Fragmentation

Carrier aggregation is an important development because it is the first step along the long road to realize cognitive radio implementation in wireless networks. Cognitive radio involves the capability of spectrum sensing to identify suitable bands for operations (which is a very challenging task). The radio would in effect ‘stitch’ different bands together to meet the application performance requirements. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Spectrum utilization is highly variable and can include long idle periods. This encouraged the concept of spectrum sharing techniques in which cognitive radio will play a part. Carrier aggregation is therefore a first step on that road.

Implementation of carrier aggregation is the result of integrating and optimizing multiple developments. On the handset side, we now have available on the market wideband RFICs and frontend chipsets with highly integrated power amplifiers that span the entire sub 6 GHz spectrum: example is the Qualcomm RF360 chipset. We also have developments in antenna design and tuning and matching techniques that allow support for multiple bands. Although implementation on the base station side can be easier because some parameters such as space and cost can be more relaxed than the handset side, numerous challenges related to integrating multiple high-power carriers had to be resolved. Finally, the LTE functions to support carrier aggregation had to be put in place such as cross-scheduling.

There have been a number of trials of carrier aggregation to date. Commercially, it is operational on all three carrier networks in Korea. It is the first feature of LTE-Advanced (Release 10) to be deployed. Users can therefore expect better capacity which translates also into lower delay. Operators can use carrier aggregation to support a greater number of users in a single cell. Furthermore, small cells and hetnets can make use of carrier aggregation to coordinate operation and avoid interference. This can be particularly advantageous when coupled with shared spectrum access in bands such as 3.5 GHz (US) and 2.3 GHz (Europe).

LTE Advanced Carrier Aggregation Downlink Throughput

Probability Distribution Function of LTE Advanced Carrier Aggregation Downlink Throughput. (Source: Signals Research Group)

Country Operator Max Downlink Speed (Mbps)
Australia Telstra (2×20 MHz, 1800/2600 MHz, Ericsson) 300
Australia Optus (TD-LTE, 2×20 MHz, 2300 MHz, Huawei)(TD-LTE, 4×20 MHz, 2300 MHz, Huawei) 160520
Austria A1 Telekom Austria (NSN) 580
France SFR (2×10 MHz, 800/2600 MHz, Ericsson) 174
China China Mobile (TD-LTE, 2×20 MHz, ZTE) 233
Japan NTT DOCOMO 300
Philippines Smart Communications (Huawei) 211
Portugal Optimus (Huawei) 300
Russia Yota (Huawei) 300
South Africa Telkom Mobile (TD-LTE, 2×20 MHz, 2300 MHz, Huawei) 200
South Korea SK Telecom (2×10 MHz 800/1800 MHz, Samsung, Ericsson, NSN) 150*
South Korea LG U+ (2×10 MHz, 800/2100 MHz, Samsung, Ericsson, NSN) 150*
South Korea Korea Telecom (2×10 MHz, 900/1800 MHz, Samsung, Ericsson, NSN) 150*
Turkey Turkcell (Huawei) 150900 (Lab)
UK EE (2×20 MHz, 1800/2600 MHz) 300

Table 1. Carrier Aggregation Trials & Deployments (*)

As we evolve from 4G LTE/LTE-Advanced, carrier aggregation is set to play a major role in any future 5G technologies through cognitive radio and in what is called “super wideband spectrum.” That is what makes carrier aggregation such an important development in wireless technologies. The potential for innovation is truly great and we are still at the beginning of this journey.

Source: http://frankrayal.com/2014/01/14/carrier-aggregation-and-the-road-to-cognitive-radio-and-superwide-spectrum/

There will be no ‘5G’

6 Dec

It’s the end of the year. Traditionally, that’s the time when folks in the tech media (analysts included) talk about their expectations for the upcoming year. Which technologies and services will gain momentum? Which will fall behind? What new innovations might we see emerge? Sometimes this is actually done within the context of the year we’re trying to put behind us. You know, the whole looking back to look forward thing.

I’m going to resist any temptation to follow suit.

Why? In part, I find these analyses largely gratuitous and rarely insightful; most of us have an idea of what’s coming up in the year ahead. If the goal, then, is to help operators or vendors with their marketing or product development planning, the entire exercise is a waste of time. At the same time, I have no interest in competing with what looks to be the penultimate 2013/2014 telecom and IT trends review. Pulling together Current Analysis’ brightest minds (well, and me), our, “Now and Then: Insights from 2013 and Drivers for 2014” webinar isn’t one to miss. No, not every insight will be unexpected or earth-shattering. Some will be. More importantly, tying what our analysts see happening next year to recommendations should yield some actionable insights. Register here–you won’t regret it. (Trust me. I’ve seen all of the slides already)

So, if I’m not going to focus on the near-term, what’s left? The long-term, of course. And what’s everyone’s favorite long-term topic of the moment? 5G! Not “5G” the term used by some to describe LTE-A, but “5G” as in the evolution from LTE-A expected around the 2020 timeframe.

A few weeks back, I was lucky enough to be at Alcatel-Lucent’s Tech Symposium out in New Jersey. While the first day of presentations focused on business in the here and now, the last day included a presentation on “Fifth Generation Communications” by Tod Sizer, Access Domain Leader at Bell Labs. It was a good slide deck, in part because of its simple message; 5G isn’t about speed, new air interfaces or the Internet of Things–It’s about delivering a better end-to-end network performance with enhanced (tailored) support for diverse applications. You can check out the slides here.

I don’t mean to single this presentation out because Alcatel-Lucent’s positioning around 5G is incredibly unique or an outlier amongst its competitors. Quite the opposite; 5G as a return to the concept of “always best connected” seems to be the de facto view of the technology. Rather than a technology, per se, it’s more about optimizing the network to accommodate specific application demands, coverage demands and expectations around network usage and density evolutions. And if this is correct, you’ll probably never have an opportunity to buy a “5G” service.

When WiMAX services first started rolling out, a lot was made of what could–or couldn’t–be marketed as 4G. More recently, the discussion has been around what could–or couldn’t–be called LTE-Advanced.  In each case, I’ve taken a liberal stance.  If 4G is a marketing term (and, it is), then marketers should get to use it flexibly. If LTE-Advanced includes multiple components, then deploying one of them should get you some credit, especially if an operator can link this to enhanced service performance…like we’ve seen out of Korea:


Source: SK Telecom

But, if like 4G, 5G is just a marketing term, a future with “5G services” in it looks unlikely. 5G as it’s currently understood will be a tough thing for anyone to wrap their marketing machines around for a handful of reasons.

–        Air Interface. The move from GSM/EDGE to WCDMA was easy to position as a generational shift because it came with a new air interface. Same thing is true for the move from WCDMA/HSPA to LTE. Right or wrong, if 5G doesn’t come with a new air interface, it might not feel like a next-generation anything.

–        Faster Speeds. Generational shifts in mobile technologies have come to be associated with speed bumps. If 5G isn’t about faster speeds, explaining to consumers why it’s significantly different from 4G and why it’s something they want won’t be easy.

–        Coverage & Density. It’s great that 5G will support enhanced coverage models and the added demands that come with high (or variable) user density. How many operators would be willing to play up the fact that their new technology delivers the reliability they should have expected with the old technology?

–        IMT-Advanced Advanced. While the ITU didn’t define 3G or 4G, their specifications for IMT-2000 and IMT-Advanced, respectively, set out how people thought about them. So, where’s the next version of IMT-Advanced? Sure, folks like ETSI and METIS will set out 5G requirements and the technologies that could meet them–but that’s far from anointing them.

Yes, I’m making something of a leap here; if you can’t market something, it doesn’t really exist. Where you’re talking about a collection of technologies and no one is making it clear where the threshold for 5G actually is, however, it’s not that much of a leap. Of course, there is hope for future wireless marketer.  5G may not be about new data speeds, but it will likely support them. Likewise, 5G may not be about new air interfaces, but it will likely include them.

Ultimately, however, the best scenario may be a future where marketers are forced to look beyond the “G” as a marketing tool. The concept of 5G as a combination of diverse technologies aimed at delivering a seamless, application-specific user experience makes sense. It’s a concept that should benefit the end-user. If operators are forced to find a way to sell that concept (vs. selling speed), then the true value of what 5G can deliver will be better understood. After years of selling Gs and Mbps, this won’t be easy. Luckily, we’ve all got a few years before we need to worry about 5G being a commercial reality.

Source: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/jarich-there-will-be-no-5g/2013-12-04?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&goback=%2Egde_136744_member_5814410442100985856#%21

Sprint intros first phones to tap its trio of 4G LTE network frequencies

31 Oct
Sprint LTE logo

SUMMARY:Sprint is turning a spectrum disadvantage into a strength with Spark, the carriers solution to optimize bandwidth between its three different LTE network bands. The first phones to use Spark are launching on November 8.

Sprint will have three smartphones on sale November 8 that can support all three of the its 4G LTE frequencies, with a fourth smartphone coming soon. The company is calling its technology Sprint Spark, and it’s the solution for Sprint’s relatively disjointed LTE implementation. All Spark phones will be able to seamlessly move among the 800 MHz, 1.9 GHz and 2.5 GHz frequency bands dynamically as needed based on activity and if coverage allows.

Sprint Galaxy Mega

To get Spark moving, Sprint will sell the $199 Samsung Galaxy Mega, $99 Samsung Galaxy S 4 mini and $199 LG G2 next week (those prices are with-contract — each can be had in lieu of a monthly fee through the Sprint One Up program as well). Right out of the gate, the two Samsung phones will have tri-band support soon after launch with a software update. The LG G2 will get its tri-band functionality in early 2014. And Sprint says the HTC One Max will also be part of Spark and is “coming soon.”

Spark is an effective way for Sprint to manage speeds on its LTE networks. When Spark-compatible phones are sipping data for Twitter or email retrieval, they can use one of Sprint’s lower-bandwidth LTE networks. But if a customer fires up Netflix and needs faster LTE speeds, the handset can tap into a its forthcoming high-capacity 2500 MHz network for more throughput.

Why does Sprint need to do this at all? Because it backed WiMAX as a next-generation technology while its peers decided to wait on LTE. As a result of that and spectrum auctions, AT&T and Verizon got the lion’s share of the lower frequency “beachfront” spectrum for their respective LTE networks.

T-Mobile has had to refarm existing spectrum for its LTE implementation and Sprint is doing the same. But by doing so and being late to the LTE game, the operator has three LTE frequencies to manage, which requires a solution such as Spark. I’m be curious to see how well the technology fares, as the higher frequencies won’t work as well indoors when compared to the 800 MHz band. The 2.5 GHz network launched in five cities today, and once it goes national Sprint will have a solid LTE offering thanks to Spark and the spectrum Sprint picked up from Clearwire.

Source: http://gigaom.com/2013/10/30/sprint-intros-first-phones-to-tap-its-trio-of-4g-lte-network-frequencies/

What is WiMAX?

18 Oct

Think about how you access the Internet today.  Basically: Broadband or Wireless. The main problems with broadband access are that it is pretty expensive and it doesn’t reach all areas of society and the main problem with Wifi and cellular internet access is that hot spots are very small, so coverage is sparse. What if there was a technology that solved all of these problems? This new technology would provide: high speeds, wireless access, broad coverage, secure gateway and less expensive at the same time.

This technology is actually coming into being right now, and it is called WiMAX. WiMAX is a telecommunications protocol that provides fixed and fully mobile internet access. WiMAX is short for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, and it also goes by the IEEE name 802.16. WiMAX is an extended concept of Wifi with all the added features to it making it more usable, efficient, secure and economic. Mobile WiMAX is a replacement candidate for cellular phone technologies such as GSM and CDMA, or can be used as an overlay to increase capacity. Fixed WiMAX is also considered as a wireless backhaul technology for 2G, 3G and 4G. WiMAX is also called as triple play because it provides data, telecommunications (VoIP) and IPTV services.

 How WiMAX works?

Image

The backhaul of the WiMAX (802.16) is based on the typical connection to the public wireless networks by using optical fibre, microwave link, cable or any other high speed connectivity. In few cases such as mesh networks, Point-to-Multi-Point (PMP) connectivity is also used as a backhaul. Ideally, WiMAX (802.16) should use Point-to-Point antennas as a backhaul to join subscriber sites to each other and to base stations across long distance.

A WiMAX base station serves subscriber stations using Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) or LOS Point-to-Multi-Point connectivity; and this connection is referred to as the last mile communication.  Ideally, WiMAX (802.16) should use NLOS Point-to-Multi-Point antennas to connect residential or business subscribers to the WiMAX Base Station (BS). A Subscriber Station (WiMAX CPE) typically serves a building using wired or wireless LAN.

Advantages:

  • WiMAX does not depend on cables to connect each endpoint, deploying WiMAX to an entire high-rise, community or campus can be done in a matter of a couple days, saving significant amounts of manpower.
  • A WiMAX network can be connected with an IP based core network, which is typically chosen by operators that serve as Internet Service Providers (ISP); Nevertheless the WiMAX BS provide seamless integration capabilities with other types of architectures as with packet switched Mobile Networks.
  • Single station can serve hundreds of users without compromising on individual system speeds.
  • Much faster deployment of new users compared to wired networks.
  • Speed of 376 Mbits/s with the range of 113 kilometres.
  • Can reach hostile places.
  • Can serve as the only working connectivity at times of disaster (Ex: Hurricane Katrina).
  • Providing a source of Internet connectivity as part of a business continuity plan.
  • Smart grids and metering

Fang FACT:

WiMAX was not adopted in the most recent iPhone 5 for the only reason that it lacks popularity and presence across the globe and was left down to a more popular 4G LTE based connectivity.

Source: http://neev28.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/wimax/

TD-LTE and WiMAX Co-existence and Migration paper.

24 Jun

Nokia Siemens Networks’ strong experience
and expertise in TD-LTE, LTE FDD and WiMAX
provides the operator with confidence that they
are getting an efficient, highquality and reliable
network.
One important question on a lot of Operator minds
is: How can operators deploy TD-LTE next to
WiMAX and then migrate WiMAX to TD-LTE?
The answer to this question is as varied as the
many different operator business models. The one
constant, however, is that interference mitigation
can be very costly and involve a complex set of
issues. If not properly addressed, interference can
wreak havoc on a network resulting in smaller bits
of useable spectrum, less capacity to handle
heavy data usage and subscriber growth,
and ultimately dissatisfied customers. In this
increasingly competitive marketplace where the
cost of acquiring spectrum is a major debt burden
that operators may carry for years, it is crucial to
resolve interference issues quickly and optimize
network performance right from the start.
In this white paper, we discuss the interference
scenarios between WiMAX system and
LTE system in adjacent spectrum blocks,
recommendations and specific solution for
WiMAX/TD-LTE coexistence

wimax_lte_co-existence (1)

Source: nokiasiemensnetworks.com nokiasiemensnetworks.com

WiMAX vs. LTE vs. HSPA+: who cares who wins?

6 Feb

Who cares who wins the 4G cup?

“We must stop the confusion about which technology is going to win; it achieves nothing positive and risks damage to the entire industry.”

Anyone among the curious band of people who track articles about the status of mobile broadband (and the chances are that you are one of them) will have noticed an interesting trend over the past 18 months: the temperature of the debate about the technology most likely to succeed is rising rapidly. Increasingly polarised articles are published on a daily basis, each arguing that Long Term Evolution (LTE) is the 4G technology of choice, or that WiMAX is racing ahead, or that it’s best to stick with good old 3GPP because HSPA+ is going to beat both of them. It remains surprising that their articles invite us, their readers, to focus slavishly on the question “WiMAX vs. LTE vs. HSPA+: which one will win?”

The question that we should ask of the authors is “Who cares who wins?” The torrent of propaganda washes over the essence of mobile broadband and puts sustained growth in the mobile industry at risk. By generating fear, uncertainty and doubt, the mobile broadband “battle” diverts attention away from the critical issues that will determine the success or failure of these evolving technologies.  The traditional weapon of the partisan author is the mighty “Mbps”; each wields their peak data rates to savage their opponents.

In the HSPA+ camp, authors fire out theoretical peak data rates of 42Mbps DL and 23 Mbps UL. The WiMAX forces respond with theoretical peak data rates of 75Mbps DL and 30Mbps UL. LTE joins the fray by unleashing its theoretical peak data rates of 300Mbps DL and 75 Mbps UL. All hell breaks loose, or so it would appear. Were it not for the inclusion of the word “theoretical”, we could all go home to sleep soundly and wake refreshed, safe in the knowledge that might is right. The reality is very different.

Sprint has stated that it intends to deliver services at between 2 and 4 Mbps to its customers with Mobile WiMAX. In the real world, HSPA+ and LTE are likely to give their users single digit Mbps download speeds.  Away from the theoretical peak data rates, the reality is that the technologies will be comparable with each other, at least in the experience of the user. These data rates, from a user’s perspective, are a great improvement on what you will see while sitting at home on your WiFi or surfing the web while on a train. The problem is that the message being put out to the wider population has the same annoying ringtone as those wild claims that were made about 3G and the new world order that it would usher in. Can you remember the allure of video calls? Can you remember the last time you actually saw someone making a video call?

3G has transformed the way that people think about and use their mobile phones, but not in the way that they were told to expect. In the case of 3G, mismanagement of customer expectations put our industry back years. We cannot afford to repeat this mistake with mobile broadband. Disappointed customers spend less money because they don’t value their experience as highly as they had been led to expect by advertisers.  Disappointed customers share their experience with friends and family, who delay buying into the mobile broadband world.  What we all want are ecstatic customers who can’t help but show off their device. We need to produce a ‘Wow’ factor that generates momentum in the market.

Every pundit has a pet theory about the likely deployment of mobile broadband technologies. One will claim that HSPA+ might delay the deployment of LTE. Another will posit that WiMAX might be adopted, predominantly, in the laptop or netbook market. A third will insist that LTE could replace large swathes of legacy technologies.  These scenarios might happen, but they might not, too.

More likely, but less stirring, is the prediction that they are all coming, they’ll be rolled out to hundreds of millions of subscribers and, within five years, will be widespread. We must stop the confusion about which technology is going to win; it achieves nothing positive and risks damage to the entire industry.

Confusion unsettles investors, who move to other markets and starve us of the R&D funds needed to deliver mobile broadband. At street level, confusion leads early adopters to hold off making commitments to the new wave of technology while they “wait it out” to ensure they don’t buy a Betamax instead of a VHS.  Where we should focus, urgently, is on the two topics that demand open discussion and debate. First, are we taking the delivery of a winning user experience seriously? Secondly, are we making plans to cope with the data tidal wave that will follow a successful launch?

The first topic concerns delivery to the end user of a seamless application experience that successfully converts the improved data rates to improvements on their device. This can mean anything from getting LAN-like speeds for faster email downloads through to slick, content-rich and location-aware applications. As we launch mobile broadband technologies, we must ensure that new applications and capabilities are robust and stable. More effort must be spent developing and testing applications so that the end user is blown away by their performance.

The second topic, the tidal wave of data, should force us to be realistic about the strain placed on core networks by an exponential increase in data traffic. We have seen 10x increases in traffic since smartphones began to boom. Mobile device makers, network equipment manufacturers and application developers must accept that there will be capacity shortages in the short term and, in response, must design, build and test applications rigorously. We need applications with realistic data throughput requirements and the ability to catch data greedy applications before they reach the network.

In Anite, we see the demands placed on test equipment by mobile broadband technologies at first hand. More than testing the technical integrity of the protocol stack and its conformance to the core specifications, we produce new tools that test applications and simulate the effects of anticipated capacity bottlenecks. Responding to the increased demand for mobile applications, we’re developing test coverage that measures applications at the end-user level. Unfortunately, not everyone is thinking that far ahead. Applications that should be “Wow”, in theory, may end up producing little more than a murmur of disappointment in the real world.

So, for the sake of our long-term prospects, let’s stop this nonsense about how one technology trounces another. Important people, the end users, simply do not care.  WiMAX, LTE and HSPA+ will all be widely deployed. As an industry, our energy needs to be focused on delivering services and applications that exceed the customer expectations.  Rather than fighting, we should be learning from each other’s experiences.  If we do that, our customers will reward us with growing demand. If we all get sustained growth, then don’t we all win..?

Source: http://www.telecoms.com/11695/wimax-vs-lte-vs-hspa-who-cares-who-wins/

As Sprint and Clearwire get closer, FreedomPop has a smile on its face

19 Dec
%d bloggers like this: