Won't be long....

http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/

Technology moves on, dragging bribed politicians and bureaucrats along
trying to stop it.

---

› See More: Won't be long....

"Cubit" <[email protected]> hath wroth:

>The website seems to say that in 2001 Wimax was intended for the 10 to 66
>Ghz range. Yet, current implementations are in the 2 to 6 Ghz range. Is
>there a technological/economic barrier to the higher frequencies?

Yes. Current state of commodity microwave technology is only up to
about 5.7Ghz. Above that frequency, the technology is currently more
specialized and therefore more expensive. For example, a simple
5.7Ghz wireless bridge pair can be found down to about $300/end. The
same thing on the 24Ghz unlicensed band roughly start at $1200/end
(and up). Basically, the higher the frequency, the more critical the
design and construction, which costs money. It also tends to use more
bandwidth and supply more throughput, which makes comparisons a bit
awkward. Anyway, trust me.... there's no cheap microwave above 5.7GHz
(unless you want to include 10GHz Gunnplexers and radar speed traps,
which don't use much bandwidth or move any data).

>I'm asking because I assume that equipment in the 60Ghz range might find
>huge bandwidth opportunities. Unlimited wireless bandwidth would kill telco
>and cable TV data services.

Chuckle. 60GHz is right at the atmospheric oxygen absorption band.
Range is severly limited unless you live in a vaccuum. The main
application of 60GHz is "secure" communications because you're fairly
sure that nobody is going to be able to hear your signals with all
that attenuation. This might help:
<http://www.terabeam.com/solutions/whitepapers/benefits-60ghz.php>

>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/
>>
>> Technology moves on, dragging bribed politicians and bureaucrats along
>> trying to stop it.

Wrong. The current paradigm at the FCC is to sell bandwidth. If the
politicians need money, sell more bandwidth. Bandwidth and licenses
are big dollar revenue. They got greedy a few years ago when
auctioning off LMDS licenses. Some of the more obscure rural areas
went for peanuts.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> hath wroth:

>"Cubit" <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>
>>The website seems to say that in 2001 Wimax was intended for the 10 to 66
>>Ghz range. Yet, current implementations are in the 2 to 6 Ghz range. Is
>>there a technological/economic barrier to the higher frequencies?
>
>Yes. Current state of commodity microwave technology is only up to
>about 5.7Ghz. Above that frequency, the technology is currently more
>specialized and therefore more expensive.

Sorry, morning memory fault. I forgot about DBS satellite technology
at 13GHz. That's higher frequency than 5.7GHz and is quite cheap. The
bulk of the cost reduction is in the receiver LNB and not in the
corresponding (e.g. DirecWay) return transmitter. The new Ka DBS
satellite band brings the commodity microwave limit up to 40GHz, but
there's still a learning curve and manufacturing cost reduction to
deal with. However, these are not portable handsets, but fixed
installations, with big antennas, and not much consideration for power
consumption. Cramming it all into a handset is possible, but still a
challenge.

I also forgot to mumble that the 24GHz band corresponds to the
atmospheric water absorption frequency and is therefore a problem in
high humidity areas.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:11:25 -0500, [email protected]lid wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 60GHz is right at the atmospheric oxygen absorption band.
>
>Amazing the interesting facts you can pick up in discussion groups.
>Almost at random, Usenet's incredible educational functionality remains
>fresh, despite all attempts to degrade it.

The problem is finding and distinguishing the ever smaller amount of
signal in the noise.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgroup.com/>

"Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cHwNh.10523$Um6.594
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:

> Is
> there a technological/economic barrier to the higher frequencies?
>

Range? Higher you go, more absorption there is, poorer penetration, etc.

Even at 2Ghz there's going to have to be a LOT of APs to do the job across
a city. As I understand what WiMax is about, it will hand off, like
cellular, when necessary...which will be great.

I haven't read a lot of the webpages. A 10-year-old INSISTED to wear me
out at kickball, today. She succeeded, 100%!...(c;

Larry
--
Message for Comcrap Internet Customers:
http://tinyurl.com/3ayl9c
Unlimited Service my ass.....(d^