backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 11 comment(s) - last by barjebus.. on Mar 31 at 3:40 PM

Buzz Broadband CEO calls WiMAX service with Airspan hardware a disaster

WiMAX is a wireless service that has created a lot of buzz promising broadband speeds without needing to run wires. While WiMAX networks here in America have not yet begun to take off, WiMAX is in use in several locations abroad.

Buzz Broadband was the first operator of a WiMAX network in Australia. Buzz CEO Garth Freeman slammed WiMAX at a conference on WiMAX in Bangkok on March 19. Buzz was using WiMAX equipment form Airspan and CommsDay reports that Freeman told the audience at the conference that the non-line of sight performance for the equipment was “non-existent” outside of 2km.

Freeman went on in his reported tirade to say that indoor performance decayed only 400m from the base station and that latency rates hit as much as 1000 milliseconds. A latency rate that high made it impossible to use VOIP service, which was one of the main selling points Buzz was using to lure customers away from existing Internet providers.

CommsDay says the highlight of Freeman’s presentation was that WiMAX may not work.  Buzz abandoned its WiMAX plans for a policy called “Horses for Courses” that includes the use of TD-CDMA at 1.9GHz and a wireless platform called DOCSIS.

Other WiMAX operators do not mention the issues that Buzz had with its service. A rival company called Internode reports that its equipment sourced from Airspan provides consistent coverage at speeds up to 6Mbps at distances of up to 30km. Internode further describes the platform as “proven.”

With an outright tirade at a conference to promote WiMAX service, it was a given that Airspan would issue a comment of some type relating to Buzz’s complaints. Airspan chief marketing officer Declan Byrne issued a statement saying:

Buzz Broadband deployed Airspan MicroMAXd, ProST, and EasyST equipment to around 200 users, the same equipment that is installed in many of the 100 or so other Airspan WiMAX deployments. In addition to broadband services, Buzz Broadband intended also to offer VoIP services to its subscribers. Mr. Freeman’s recent statements highlighted two complaints: the range of the solution, and the quality of service (QoS) capabilities for voice traffic.

With regard to range, although Airspan offers both micro-cell and macro-cell base station solutions, Buzz Broadband opted to go with the less-expensive micro-cell base stations in order to reduce cost. This was a well understood tradeoff of cost vs. range. In support of larger cell radii, particularly in support of indoor desktop CPE devices, Airspan offers the HiperMAX base station, which offers the best link budget in the industry for an 802.16d-2004 solution.

Airspan goes on to say that Buzz and Freeman rejected offered for help from the outside and that Buzz simply lacked the technical and financial resources to roll out a functional WiMAX network using Airspan equipment.

Sprint's WiMAX service in America, dubbed XOHM, has been cut back and will have a soft launch in a few large markets this year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

failure
By xsilver on 3/27/2008 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 4
while this was a technological failure of WiMax, I question the logic in launching such a service here in australia. We have a VERY low number of users that would be interested in this, unless of course your local dingo is looking on the web for babies to steal ;)

The only reason why this service launched was probably due to telstra (monopoly cable provider) as they own all the cable and all re-sellers have to lease the line from them; this way they can bypass them, but this time, no dice.

On the plus side, Australians have hardly any expectations of "broadband" speeds. A connection speed of 512/128k with 3gb per month download for $50 would probably considered a good deal.




RE: failure
By jhinoz on 3/27/2008 12:02:36 PM , Rating: 3
1. Telstra used to be state owned, hense owning all the infrastructure.

2. You can much much faster than 512/256K for 50 bucks, with better data allowance, shop around.

3. The service was probably more aimed at beating out Unwired wireless and Telstra's 3G wireless broadband services (I use telstra's 3g).


RE: failure
By xsilver on 3/27/2008 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 4
im australian, I know.

the fact still stands that companies are still trying to circumvent paying telstra line fees.

2) we're talking wireless here - i dont think you can get 512k 3gb for less than $50 /month

telstra's current pricing is 256k / 1gb = $50
excess = 0.15c / mb
3gb would absolutely kill you! ($500/month!)


RE: failure
By jhinoz on 3/27/2008 2:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well i can see you are an educated aussie from some of your previous posts on other articles. I agree on anyone and everyone circumventing telstra, good ol sol "charge through the nose" trujillo won't let them if he can help it. I agree it's totally stupid, especially the way telstra treats regional oz, profitable or not there is a social responsibility there as I'm sure you know. 2. i have wireless 3g with telstra, i pay 110 a month for 1.5M down 0.5M up, 3G cap. yes the excess of 0.15 is there if you go over, but i usually only use it for VPN and news so no prob there.


DOCSIS
By Cobra Commander on 3/27/2008 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 3
AFAIK "DOCSIS" has nothing to do with wireless anything - it's a standard for cable modem technology.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS




RE: DOCSIS
By fic2 on 3/27/2008 12:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Since I work in the cable industry I was wondering about that, too. The people I used to work with at CableLabs would probably be suprised that DOCSIS is wireless.


By mvrx on 3/27/2008 12:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nearly every WiFi/WiMax vendor exaggerates their performance at ridiculous levels. They usually claim 4-5x further distance than it really works, claim latency levels that work only in short distances with perfect reception, and they ALWAYS tell you the "up to" or "theoretical" throughput rates that never, ever, ever can be reached.

All of these companies should have regulated rules for their horribly deceptive advertising practices.

There was a company in CA a couple years back named Architron. They claimed to have mesh and antenna technology that offered over 300mbit/sec for miles. In the end it turned out there were using standard available linux router code, and off the shelf atheros 802.11g mini pci cards. They took a good dozen people for $50-100k each on pre-orders with all their tech talk before closing the doors and moving out of state to avoid more lawsuits. Rip-off’s like this are common in the wireless world were entrepreneurs got suckered into the math that wireless actually works as advertised. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=architron+%22...

When I first read about Sprint's WiMax plans I just shook my head. Their technology is a waste of time. There needs to be at least another couple years and another revision of Mobile WiMax before this is practical. And ClearWire? They will never make it. Not a chance. Sorry. The tech they use today is outdated, and the tech they are headed to will cost them so much it will never pay for itself.

If you are considering getting into the wireless ISP business, save yourself the effort now and don't.




See the problem is...
By 67STANG on 3/27/2008 1:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
wireless performance is based upon numerous variables. They can't be like a car manufacturer and say "our car does 0-60 in 5 seconds". Wireless can be hampered by NLOS, interference/noise, moisture, etc. These problems persist on EVERY wireless frequency, with higher frequencies having more problems with NLOS issues than lower frequencies.
I worked with 802.11a stuff for about 5 years and found that manufacturer claims are just that: claims. Businesses that use that equipment to service customers spew out the same thing they were told by the manufacturer. Personally, I found that you can get the same or better performance with sub-$500 radio setups than you can with setups costing thousands....

The bottom line: terrestial wireless to service customers for medium to high bandwidth usage is not a reality in today's world. WiMax was supposed to fix that, it obviously didn't. IMHO, satellite wireless has much less in the way of reliability problems, but there are generally way too many limitations on the service to make it feasible for standard use.




WiMax does work
By czr on 3/28/2008 1:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Before you all get too carried away with your assumptions, why not read this thread, it has the Managing Director of an ISP that IS successfully using WiMax, because they (the ISP) actually have a clue (plus the fact that they have a long history of deploying wireless equipment)

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t...

Cheers
Cezar




One Case?
By barjebus on 3/31/2008 3:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
I work for a company who develops a WiMax platform, and we currently have units in the field operating for quite a few companies that volunteered to beta them for us in return for reduced hardware costs. WiMax is still relatively new, and to simply look at one company's hardware, and one ISP's implementation of that hardware is pretty much ridiculous. I think the article is valid, however, this is akin to saying that Rogers cable service in Canada sucks, so obvious, cable internet is not the answer for the whole world.

WiMax does suffer from line of sight, so obviously you aren't going to try to implement it in a very mountainous region, or mount your base station at ground level. There IS regulation over the industry in the form of WiMax forum certification, of which I don't think anyone is Wave 2 certified yet, and until they are, I don't see many really kickass implementations until that point is reached by someone.

Anyways, from my own experience in the industry, WiMax is not dead, and it is a very valid solution to last mile type connections, especially in alot of third world nations who's infrastructure doesn't exist to just lay down cables alongside the country's power systems.




Hmmm
By Proteusza on 3/27/2008 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 1
Two friends of mine did their research projects on WiMAX implementations. As far as I remember, line of sight did have a huge impact on performance.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot













botimage
Copyright 2008 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki