You are on page 1of 44

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Name Of The Project


Wi-Max Communication System

Course Teacher
Dr. Md. Saifur Rahman
Professor
Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology

Submitted By-

1. Ahmad Yahya Hasan Salman


T-061239
6th Semister
Group Leader
What is Wi-MAX?
WiMAX is an IP based, wireless broadband access technology that
provides performance similar to 802.11/Wi-Fi networks with the coverage
and QOS (quality of service) of cellular networks. WiMAX is also an
acronym meaning "Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
(WiMAX).

At its heart, however, WiMAX is a standards initiative. Its purpose is to


ensure that the broadband wireless radios manufactured for customer use
interoperate from vendor to vendor. The primary advantages of the
WiMAX standard are

• To enable the adoption of advanced radio features in a uniform


fashion, and

• Reduce costs for all of the radios made by companies, who are part
of the WiMAX Forum™ - a standards body formed to ensure
interoperability via testing.

The more recent Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard is a similar term
describing a parallel technology to WiMAX that is being developed by
vendors and carriers as a counterpoint to WiMAX.

The Idea of Wi-MAX


Much of the credit for the formation of the WiMAX Forum™ and to the
founding members of the WiMAX Forum, which committed themselves
early to the process of creating a collaborative standards body. As a
founding member of the WiMAX Forum, Intel recognized that a well
developed ecosystem was necessary to drive adoption and thereby drive
lower hardware costs. Intel was also instrumental in getting other silicon
chip manufacturers involved whose products would form the core of
WiMAX technology.

Starting Of Wi-MAX
WiMAX is relatively new in terms of a standards initiative - and in
particular, the launch of numerous WiMAX technologies supporting
chipsets by Forum members. However, much of the technology being
incorporated into the IEEE 802.16 technology set is existent in the
industry today and well tested. A number of best of breed broadband
radio manufacturers have been offering various elements used in WiMAX
for several years as proprietary technology. However, vendors rarely
offered consistent iterations of radio modulation and other techniques---
ensuring that solutions had to be specific to a single vendor. This is
especially true on the fixed wireless side. And even more so for unlicensed
band fixed wireless. However, mobile broadband wireless technologies
suffered from the fragmentation of multiple proprietary approaches.
This means that much of the technological capability of WiMAX is
relatively mature. In fact, the radio vendors who are members of the
forum have deployed equipment in over 125 nations around the globe
with trials and deployments exceeding 275. The combination of these
advanced technologies into two standards packages for Fixed and Mobile
broadband wireless combined with new generation optimized chipsets and
tested and certified interoperability between radio manufacturers deliver
a robust and powerful technology. This capability can match or exceed the
performance and cost factors of other broadband technologies. This can
all be achieved without traditional wireline tethers.

On the horizon, plans are to expand the WiMAX product capability as well
as the early underpinnings of the next version of WiMAX, which will
incorporate increasingly newer technologies. Also, the next major version
of the 802.16 standard 802.16m, is already in the process of being
defined. This version will offer even better throughput, spectral efficiency
and capabilities along with increased interoperability.

Why is WiMAX needed?


To answer this question it is important to understand the state of
technical fragmentation experienced in the past by the mobile wireless
and fixed broadband wireless industry. Early broadband wireless systems
began as extensions of indoor local area network (LAN) technology known
as Wi-Fi or the 802.11b protocol. This standard has evolved into a
ubiquitous and widely available standard used in short range hotspots all
over the globe. However, the media access controller (MAC) and physical
layer (PHY) specifications for this protocol are suboptimum for outdoor
citywide wireless networks or metropolitan area networks (MAN). Recent
updates and new standards such as 802.11g, 802.11a and 802.11n have
improved these elements. However, once again these technologies are
configured for best performance in small venues and at short range.
It should be noted that recent developments in the ratification standard of
the IEEE 802.11n protocol offer the promise of significant improvements
to Wi-Fi---improvements that will blur the lines of capability between
WLAN and more robust WMAN (wireless metropolitan area network)
systems somewhat. There are numerous 802.11n products on the shelf
and being marketed vigorously, despite that fact that the standard is not
yet finalized. While 802.11n is not necessarily optimized for great range,
its bandwidth capabilities are a major leap ahead from Wi-Fi. Its range
improvements in the hotspot will be significant also. However, despite
hopes for a final standard this specification remains mired in the
competing desires of various camps and their approaches to its
implementation. A number of companies, including, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys
and others have nevertheless launched Pre-N or pre-certified 802.11n
products. These offer solid improvement over even 802.16a/g systems;
however, early testing by ZDNet has shown that the gains remain modest.
Also, interoperability between the various products is problematic at best.
The standard appears set to be finalized near the end of 2009 which has
clearly been the biggest holdup for the technology.

To compensate for deficiencies in early Wi-Fi technology, vendors


developed proprietary MAC and PHY layers based on the root LAN
standard of 802.11. Many of these systems are in use today and possess
significant improvements in modulation scheme, polling technology and
data transport that enable effective and modestly affordably citywide or
rural wireless networks. However, none of these proprietary iterations of
the technology are exactly the same. No two companies' products will
work with each other. This means that broadband wireless carriers must
use base stations and customer premise equipment from the same vendor
in any given city---which may not be the best solution in some geographic
and radio frequency (RF) environments.

Some of these radio vendors were even forced to manufacture their own
silicon chips to deliver technical improvements. The high costs for
equipment resulting from this approach significantly slowed adoption of
broadband fixed wireless versus cheaper mass market technologies such
as DSL and Cable modem service.

In the mobile arena, the standards for broadband wireless delivery are
less fragmented. More importantly however, the cost, speeds delivered
and time to market of broadband mobile solutions have been
suboptimum. But that is changing.

The promise of 3G services was slow to emerge. but that is changing with
wide deployments coming from Verizon using its EVDO system as well as
from Sprint and AT&T Wireless, which is widely deploying its HSDPA 3G
system, mobile WiMAX systems based on newer technology such as
OFDMA® offer the promise of cheaper, more effective and faster
deployments of broadband mobile wireless systems. More recently 3G
deployments do appear to have accelerated with a number of high-profile
GSM-friendly broadband technology (called UMTS or its updated version
HSDPA) have gained some traction, mostly in Europe. In the US, Sprint is
in the process of rolling out a CDMA network with the newer and faster
Revision-A version. Perhaps most importantly, the advent of WiMAX has
greatly accelerated long-held plans by cellular carriers worldwide on the
Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard, which offers strong promise of a new
generation of truly broadband capable wireless handsets and modems.
And longer term there is potential, if not yet perhaps the technology
political will, for a merging of WiMAX and LTE. LTE does appear about two
years behind WiMAX systems.

WiMAX important for fixed broadband wireless


WiMAX is arguably even more important for the fixed broadband wireless segment than
mobile broadband, at least internally to that industry. It seems clear that mobile broadband
wireless holds the loftier long term monetary and customer growth potential. However, the
fixed wireless segment has been fragmented essentially since its inception. There are no
cohesive standards for outdoor metropolitan area networks beyond the adapted Wi-Fi
technologies. Wi-Fi as a standard has been accepted in broad strokes by the industry and the
public. However, it is not a well conceived citywide technology.

This industry has languished due to the inability to foment a cohesive technology strategy.
Innovative features were restricted to individual brands with the result that numerous
innovations if combined would have greatly improved results for all. Since most fixed
broadband wireless systems in the US rely primarily upon unlicensed band technology, the
potential for WiMAX to impact this segment, albeit a small segment did not appear very
good. However, the advent of fixed WiMAX radio systems in the 3.65 GHz bands in the US
that have been adapted from licensed band 3.5 GHz technology originally designed for
European and Asian markets offers real hope for WiMAX impact in the US. Due to the
number of adherents for the technology LTE will certainly play a major if not dominant part
in the mobile broadband wireless equation.

WiMAX important for mobile broadband wireless?


Mobile broadband wireless or 3G has enjoyed two largely consistent
standards, those being the code division multiple access (CDMA) based
approach with its evolution data only (EVDO) and the universal mobile
telecommunications system (UMTS) and its faster upgrade high speed
downlink packet access (HSDPA), which in particular has gained some
deployments in the past year. However, these technologies were slow to
mature into economically viable and affordable iterations. The EVDO
schema is now in a Revision A version which improves bandwidth
considerably. Verizon and Sprint are the first US based carriers to begin
wide deployment. Sprint currently has deployed most of its markets with
3G as has Verizon. The bandwidth limitations have been significant and
the adoption by carriers, particularly those utilizing GSM technology here
in the US has been very slow (as they are essentially incompatible
technologies).

Newer broadband UMTS (universal mobile telecommunications system)


systems that are GSM compatible have seen some traction with AT&T
recently in the US, with the bulk of gains happening overseas, particularly
in Europe. The sheer cost factor of the technology relative to its native
spectral efficiency has not been conducive to adoption either. Estimates
for the nation's cellular carriers to build a comprehensive 3G network
have ranged as high as $50 Billion. But clearly the momentum is now on
the side of 3G simply due to carrier needs to improve revenue streams
and also due to innovations in handsets that are driving the public hunger
for broadband applications. AT&T, for example, stated its surprise at how
much higher the use of graphical and video downloads were for users of
its new Apple iPhone device, which has recently been introduced in a 3G
version. Carriers are scrambling to produce higher-capacity broadband
systems.

Mobile WiMAX offers a multi-spectrum standard with a better broadband


technology concept that can significantly reduce costs, improve spectral
efficiency and deliver profitable services. The growth curve of the
technology, partly due to the large number of chip and radio vendor firms
driving the technology, should provide a much higher innovation curve for
WiMAX. Internationally, broadband mobile wireless does enjoy greater
acceptance. Many companies are inherently more comfortable using a 3G
upgrade from the GSM side due to the similarities of the technology. The
efficiency and cost savings that WiMAX are already driving as we await
the final merger of Sprint and Clear wire’s 2.5 GHz spectrum assets are
affecting other technologies, particularly LTE, which has numerous
similarities between the two technologies.

WiMAX service on Cell Phone


Initially, one can expect to see Wi-Fi services converged with cellular
devices. The first GSM/WiMAX device was recently introduced into
Russia. This device operates on the carrier's WiMAX system when on its
network and roams to GSM on other carrier's systems.

This early foray will teach both the fixed and mobile wireless industries a
great deal about technological co-existence. In the US, T-Mobile began
trials of a cellular/Wi-Fi fixed-mobile convergence handset in the Pacific
Northwest. A number of other firms have dual-mode phones in the
marketplace, however, adoption has been slow. T-Mobile is using a Nokia
handset. Reference designs for PC-Card form factor WiMAX cards are
already in the marketplace from a number of different firms. The short
answer is that WiMAX on your phone is just around the corner.

The long term vision for broadband wireless utilizing WiMAX is clearly one
of multiple technologies that fill different niches in the service delivery
universe. Clearly, mobile voice products are mature, well-realized,
profitable and stable. The truly mobile variant of mobile WiMAX will likely
be the most technically difficult to achieve and may require the next
version of the technology to reach really high speed access. Of course,
the equivalent fixed broadband wireless products are also enjoying
innovation and already outstrip the speeds of planned mobile technology.
But as products like VoIP gain acceptance, the ability to utilize a fixed
network while stationary and eventually a truly mobile broadband network
(with somewhat different capabilities) will drive WiMAX/Cellular/and other
technology convergences to the handheld cell phone. In fact, this may
happen much faster than previously anticipated, at least in terms of
WiMAX and existing cellular technologies or LTE and existing cellular
technologies. In the long run, WiMAX and other wireless technologies
offer unprecedented flexibility to consumers.

WiMAX & Wi-Fi?


Clearly, WiMAX and Wi-Fi are complementary technologies and will remain
so for the foreseeable future. The widely available Wi-Fi technology used
in hotspots in hotels, restaurants, airports and even larger Wi-Fi zones in
some cities will continue to grow for many years. The recent flurry of
municipal Wi-Fi mesh networks has only served to cement the technology
into the wireless equation. Wi-Fi is not going away any time soon.

As the WiMAX standard grows into its first highs scale deployment with
Clear wire in 2009 and continues to gain acceptance and drive cost
reductions, new chipsets that incorporate the ability to function across
multiple platforms will become more common in general with the MAN
portion of this network technology slowly being converted to the more
robust WiMAX systems, as the business cases for hotspot venues merit.
Basically, this means that WiMAX users in a few years will be able to not
only access Wi-Fi hotspots at a café, but could also have mobile citywide
WiMAX access as well, along with access to other existing cellular
technologies. Multiple network capability in a single device is gaining
traction and should be the norm in only a few years. Once again, this
points towards a complementary aspect to the two technologies. True
mobile access users in many cases will not require the level of bandwidth
that they may need when in a fixed location. The two technologies will
fulfill differing needs for consumers.

However, other LAN technology standards such as Bluetooth, UHF


Whitespace frequencies, Ultra wideband and the 802.11n specification
that offer value in shorter range hotspot networks will all grow and
necessitate chipsets and laptop radios that will eventually be able to
seamlessly cross these shorter range data networks as well as cellular
networks and WiMAX citywide networks. The WiMAX standard is a major
part of the very bright vision of the broadband wireless future that
flexibility like this promises.

Though leaders in the industry often cite the potential for true software
defined radio systems, wherein a user’s handset, laptop or other devices
essentially scan for the best connection for the location and spectrum
available. The industry is slowly moving in this direction, however, expect
the full development of this type of seamless technology to be a few years
away. Even moderate incremental improvements in this direction could
afford consumers benefits that are essentially impossible with wire line
technologies.

Will WiMAX replace DSL and Cable?


It is important to remember that WiMAX is a global broadband wireless
standard. The question of whether or not it could replace either DSL or
Cable will vary from region to region. Many developing countries simply
do not have the infrastructure to support either cable or DSL broadband
technologies. In fact, many such countries are already widely using
proprietary broadband wireless technologies. Even in such regions
however, it is very unlikely that either Cable or DSL technologies would
disappear. The business case and basic infrastructure often dictates that
the cheapest solutions will predominate. In many areas in developing
nations, it may be cheaper to deploy Cable and DSL in the cities at least
for fixed applications, whereas WiMAX will dominate outside of major
towns.

In the US, both Cable and DSL are growing extremely fast, but are not
available for all customers. Rural and remote areas often lack broadband
choices if any are available at all. When they are available, the DSL or
cable plant may only exist within the town limits with no service outside
the city limits. This offers a compelling argument that low-cost WiMAX
gear can leverage access to many new customers. WiMAX also promises
a whole new level of data access flexibility that will be much less location
specific for customers. This type of robust mobile, portable or fixed
broadband access will be unprecedented.

In addition, WiMAX will provide competitive options for carriers and users
that will benefit traditional wire line carriers and customers by
encouraging innovation and improved services.

With the advent of IPTV fiber plays are enjoying resurgence. It does not
appear that WiMAX or broadband wireless will be ready to deliver IPTV in
the immediate future. However, fixed WiMAX may offer the best potential
for delivery of this potential content juggernaut. More recently some
promising new compression technologies have reached the market.
These technologies, while still new, allow the delivery of true IP-based TV
signals to cellular devices. One company asserts that it could deliver high
definition TV (HDTV) in as little as 2.5 Mbps of bandwidth, with standard
resolution signal requiring 1.5 Mbps. These speeds are within the
potential reach of WiMAX.

Qualcomm and its MediaFlo system are one good example of such
technologies. It is important to note that the resolution of this TV or video
system is not at the level of standard TV, but progress is occurring
rapidly.

What is the Range of WiMAX?


The answer to this question probably generates more confusion than any
other single aspect of WiMAX. In the early days of WiMAX it was common
to see statements in the media describing WiMAX multipoint coverage
extending 30 miles. In a strict technical sense (in some spectrum ranges)
this is correct, with even greater ranges being possible in point to point
links. In practice (and especially in the license-free bands) this is wildly
overstated especially where non line of sight (NLOS) reception is
concerned.

Due to a variety of factors explained in more detail in other FAQ answers,


the average cell ranges for most WiMAX networks will likely boast 4-5 mile
range (in NLOS capable frequencies) even through tree cover and building
walls. Service ranges up to 10 miles (16 Kilometers) are very likely in line
of sight (LOS) applications (once again depending upon frequency).
Ranges beyond 10 miles are certainly possible, but for scalability
purposes may not be desirable for heavily loaded networks. In most
cases, additional cells are indicated to sustain high quality of service
(QOS) capability. For the carrier class approach, especially in regards to
mobility, cells larger than this seem unlikely in the near future. The
primary WiMAX focused US carrier Clearwire has stated that its cell sites
are planned at about 1.5 miles apart for mobile purposes. This choice is
clearly one intended to meet NLOS requirements. In licensed frequencies,
expect similar performance or better for WiMAX than in traditional cellular
systems.

Factors For most greatly affect range for WiMAX


products
Many factors affect range for any broadband wireless product. Some
factors include the terrain and density/height of tree cover. Hills and
valleys can block or partially reflect signals. Bodies of water such as
rivers and lakes are highly reflective of RF transmissions. Fortunately
OFDM can often turn this to an advantage---but not always. The RF
shadow of large buildings can create dead spots directly behind them,
particularly if license-free spectrums are being used (with their attendant
lower power allotments). How busy the RF environment of a city or town
is can greatly degrade signals---meaning that properly designed and well
thought out networks are always desired. The physics of radio
transmission dictate that the greater the range between the base station
and customer radio, the lower the amount of bandwidth that can be
delivered, even in an extremely well-designed network. The climate can
affect radio performance---despite this there are ubiquitous wireless
networks deployed today with great success in frozen Alaskan oil fields as
well as lush South American and Asian climates. And increasingly WiMAX
radio antenna technology coupled with the inherent advantages of
OFDM/OFDMA based radios can be a major factor in range and bandwidth
capability. The new multiple input multiple output (MIMO) and adaptive
antenna systems (AAS) based antenna systems promise to maintain and
even link connection and link budgets with much higher bandwidth than
older technology.

No two cities are exactly alike in terms of the challenges and opportunities
presented. In many respects, broadband wireless remains very much an
art form. However, this is also true for the cellular carriers most of us use
daily. It can be done quite well. Mobile broadband wireless will be more
difficult. Achieving high quality of service (QOS) will be easier with fixed
broadband wireless. Despite all of these challenges, current broadband
wireless is very effectively serving customers even in the most
challenging environments.

Non line of sight (NLOS)


WiMAX does possess NLOS capabilities, although how much and to what
extent will vary depending on the spectrum bands being used. Non line of
sight indicates that the signal from a radio is received by either passing
through impeding objects, such as tree tops, walls or even in some cases
buildings or is received as a reflection from another building, body of
water or land feature. In both cases the broadcasting radio is completely
or at least partially obscured by some obstruction.

WiMAX radios utilize many of the best current techniques for receiving
reflected signals from objects (such reflected signals are called
multipath). Some of these incorporate antenna diversity techniques. The
OFDM modulation favored by the first iteration of WiMAX actually takes
advantage of reflected signals allowing radios to integrate multiple
reflected signals to improve signal strength and accuracy. The Mobile
WiMAX technique of OFDMA® also advantageously integrates both in
phase (or directly returned signal responses) and out of phase multipath
signals (reflections of returned signals that bounce from other objects---
resulting in their returning slower) to create an ultimately stronger
signal.

Additionally, for WiMAX radios that are built for service in licensed bands
(currently 2.5 GHz in the US and 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz Internationally -
although other licensed spectrums below 11 GHz will be used in other
profiles in future) the additional power allowed in these bands (typically
around 40 Watts) permit signal to actually penetrate through some tree
cover and building walls. There are limits posed by the physics of the
spectrum range in question and power allotted. In general NLOS ranges in
the 2.5 GHz band will mostly fall between 6-8 Kilometers (4-5 Miles).
Expect additional technology to follow in coming years. The innovation
curve for WiMAX should continue to be very steep.

In 2005 support for both Adaptive Antenna Systems sometimes called


multiple input multiple output (MIMO) and beam forming antenna
techniques were added to the mobile WiMAX standard. Both technologies
will be incorporated in Mobile WiMAX technology. and significantly
improves gain and thus signal strength and reliability for users.
Competing camps tout the various approaches and which is best is open
to interpretation and probably the specifics of the application desired.
Navini is a company, now owned by Cisco, championing beam forming
while ArrayComm's technology would be one expected to be widely used
with AAS/MIMO systems. Currently Mobile WiMAX technology is heavily
invested with companies using MIMO and some type of AAS. As the first
Clear wire mobile systems come online (the company is testing its first
markets now as is Sprint) they will incorporate this technology.

Data transfer rate of WiMAX Technology


WiMAX supports very robust data throughput. The technology at
theoretical maximums could support approximately 75 Mbps per channel
(in a 20 MHz channel using 64QAM ¾ code rate). Real world performance
will be considerably lower---perhaps maxing out around 45 Mbps/channel
in some fixed broadband applications. Remember however, that service
across this channel would be shared by multiple customers. Actual
transmission capabilities on a per customer basis could vary widely
depending on the carrier's chosen customer base, which is actually an
inherent strength because it can be defined by QOS in a deliberate
fashion to offer different bandwidth capabilities to customers with
different needs (and different budgets). Mobile WiMAX capabilities on a
per customer basis will be lower in practical terms, but much better than
competing 3G technologies. WiMAX is often cited to possess a spectral
efficiency of 5 bps/Hz, which is very good in comparison to other
broadband wireless technologies, especially 3G.

In practical terms, Sprint has stated that it intends to deliver service at 2


Mbps to 4 Mbps to its customers with Mobile WiMAX.

The modulation scheme, whether quaternary phase shift keying (QPSK),


quadrature amplitude modulation (16QAM, 64 QAM etc.) and their
attendant code rate variations deliver varying bandwidth capabilities by
channel size. Like most things wireless, the devil as they say is in the
details. The good news is that pretty much all of the news is good in this
regard relative to other broadband wireless and wireline competitors of
WiMAX excepting LTE, which is still at least two years away from reaching
the field. The OFDMA® technology actually supports multiple modulation
schemes depending upon the users range from the cell with users at
closer range receiving signal across more sub-channels at, for example,
64 QAM whereas a user at greater range would receive signal across
fewer sub-channels (with higher gain or power per channel) using a lower
bandwidth QPSK technique for example.

Many things affect transfer rate beyond simple radio capability---one


major element being distance from the base station. The physics of radio
cannot be avoided. Longer ranges result in lower bandwidth delivered.
Also, the spectrum channel size (1.e. 20 MHz or other) that regulation
defines as appropriate for different frequency bands will dictate
bandwidth capabilities at least to some extent. Also, remember that the
RF and physical environment play a strong role in throughput results.
Essentially, the real world blunts theoretical performance.

The physics of frequency range plays a powerful role in bandwidth


capability. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth delivery
potential and the shorter range potential. Lower frequencies enjoy much
greater range capability, but trade that off with much lower bandwidth
potential. Fortunately, even with disclaimers centered on real world
impediments, WiMAX throughput is excellent. Perhaps no litmus test is as
good as the results that carriers report and several carriers have shared
that they are consistently achieving as much as 5 Mbps download
speeds. Also, Clearwire has stated that it believes it can deliver upwards
of 10-15 Mbps once it has access to the full Sprint panoply of spectrum in
addition to its own and once it has shifted to mobile WiMAX.
Yes. WiMAX radios already support very robust QOS capabilities up to and
incorporating asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) quality. The MAC itself
is configured to handle IP traffic, Ethernet and ATM natively. The MAC was
designed to even support future transport protocols not yet invented.
Links can be dynamically configured based on link conditions. Basically,
this dynamic configuration technique smoothens the balancing act
between raw capacity and quality on the fly. It should improve capacity
or spectral efficiency a great deal. The whole issue of QOS is becoming
even more important as device capability (such as the iPhone) have
revealed an apparent pent-up desire for consumers to use more rich
media content such as video; a desire that was previously hidden by
devices that made the experience too hard for consumers to utilize
easily.

There are a lot of elements of wireless transmission which affect the


quality of signal---needs also vary depending on the type of data. For
example, VoIP can tolerate some errors, but must have low latencies
(anything above 150 ms is problematic) to operate. The packet sizes for
VoIP are typically much smaller than for data. When networks must
handle blended traffic, the polling mechanism that chooses which radio
can transmit with either a smaller VoIP packet or a larger data packet is
crucial to ensure that data traffic is not optimized at the expense of
voice. Video transmission is similar. Conversely, data packets do not
need especially low latencies, but cannot endure transmission errors.

WiMAX partly accomplishes this by assigning variable length Protocol Data


Units (PDU)s, which is basically the data packet size in the Physical Layer,
that can be combined in bursts to reduce signaling overhead in the PHY
layer. This is called adaptive modulation and is a sharp contrast from the
static modulation schemes of the past. A similar technique is used for
MAC signaling except they are called Service Data Units (SDU)s. Several
other techniques are used for reducing signaling transmissions and to
improve the polling or communications between radios. In the older
802.11b protocol for example, each radio and base station continues to
signal and interact constantly with other radios---basically a carrier sense
multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) approach similar to
Ethernet computer networks. This unfortunately results in packet
collision, packet loss and a great deal of inefficient cross talk in a static
mode.
WiMAX technology supports a variety of more efficient polling
mechanisms that vendors and carriers can choose to use, including a
defined contact cycle, grouping of radios into contact groups or even
allowing customer radios to generate a brief signal indicating it needs a
transmission cycle. All of these aspects, which are intended to solve
multiple problems, also result in improved QOS capabilities. QOS is
critical for delineating minimum bandwidth levels for VoIP sessions for
example, as well as other leading edge IP services.

Both common duplexing schemes are supported in WiMAX---those being


FDD and TDD. The frequency division duplexing (FDD) requires two
parallel channels for send and receive. This method is a well-understood
holdover from cellular technology. The newer time division duplexing
(TDD) allows for dynamic and symmetric transmission of data across a
single channel. Where and when either should be used often depend on
the frequency and the vendor's emphasis on particular strengths. It is not
unfair to suggest that TDD is more likely to be widely utilized by WiMAX
product vendors. Suffice it to say that multiple duplexing support adds
significant flexibility to WiMAX---capabilities not before supported by
broadband wireless technology.

Sequirity in WiMAX Technology


The sequirity of Wi-Max is too greater than broadband wireless systems.
However, this area appears to be early ground that vendors are staking
out to differentiate their products and philosophies. The WiMAX standard
itself incorporates much better and more flexible security support than
the Wi-Fi standard. It can be sometimes confusing when industry pundits
and detractors talk of standards such as WiMAX and then in the same
breath describe ways in which vendors will be "different" or that WiMAX
security might be weak. At first glance, these comments on the part of
some vendors zealous to promote the added capabilities of their products
can leave one feeling uncertain about the quality and reliability of the
product.

Security is probably a good place to explain the difference between the


very robust base standards of WiMAX and the ways in which individual
vendors can still differentiate their products (with additional and perhaps
more powerful or convenient features) beyond the features that the base
standard offers. We explain the base WiMAX security standard in a
different FAQ question. However, what is important to understand is that
it is quite robust. Perhaps more importantly, it allows for additional
feature sets that could be added by various vendors to achieve security
results as good as or better than any competing wireline broadband
option even those being used for extremely secure governmental
applications. Typical residential service does not require the kind of
security a bank, hospital or government often needs. WiMAX can handle
this.
An example can be helpful here. Let us say that a broadband wireless
service provider chooses one particular customer premise equipment
(CPE) radio that has nice features and an especially good price for its
consumer based offering. These CPEs possess normal WiMAX security
functionality which is at least as good as other broadband consumer
technologies such as cable. It might choose to utilize a second vendor's
base station to feed service to those radios that also possesses enhanced
security capabilities adding an additional security overlay to the base
security of the residential network consumer purposed CPE radios---
particularly in the backhaul portion of the network. This could add a small
layer of additional support to radios that, while secure, could not feature
enhanced capabilities due to the cost factors that consumer radio
business requires.

This same base unit could also offer the company an ability to support an
additional layer of radios for business or governmental or health care
industry customers, where health insurance privacy and portability act
(HIPPA) confidentiality compliance is of great importance, that actually
have a DIFFERENT CPE radio that, while more expensive, possesses
feature sets that take full advantage of extended security features that
are commonly added to high-security government networks. It does not
detract from the network for perfectly serviceable residential class
security capable (and inexpensive) radios to coexist with premium feature
(and cost) WiMAX products on the same network designed to serve
specialty customers. This approach is similar to add on products used
with wireline products that often require additional hardware beyond the
modem.

In fact, as the economies of scale for WiMAX are realized through volume
manufacturing, second generation, high-security products may actually be
cheaper than first generation consumer grade units granting carriers
enhanced service margins for high-value services.
WiMAX Security scheme/protocol
Realizing the sticking point that security has been in the widespread
adoption of broadband wireless service, the IEEE and the Forum both
determined to define a robust security environment. WiMAX security
supports two quality encryptions standards, that of the DES3 and AES,
which is considered leading edge. The standard defines a dedicated
security processor on board the base station for starters. There are also
minimum encryption requirements for the traffic and for end to end
authentication---the latter of which is adapted from the data-over-cable
service interface specification (DOCSIS) BPI+ security protocol.

Basically, all traffic on a WiMAX network must be encrypted using Counter


Mode with Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code Protocol
(CCMP) which uses AES for transmission security and data integrity
authentication.

The end-to-end authentication the PKM-EAP (Extensible Authentication


Protocol) methodology is used which relies on the TLS standard of public
key encryption.

At least one chip company designed processors to support this standard


of onboard security processor.

About IEEE 802.16?


The IEEE 802.16 working group is the body tasked to determine the final
specifications to be included in the WiMAX specification. What this body
does not do is ensure commercial compatibility with the standards. The
IEEE 802.16 standard is similar, but not exactly the same as the European
driven HiperMAN or the Korean WiBro/Mobile WiMAX standard. However,
the IEEE 802.16 standard incorporates support for both HiperMAN and
WiBro/Mobile WiMAX. The current active 802.16 standards include both
802.16d (or 802.16-2004 - Fixed WiMAX) and 802.16e (or 802.16-2005
Mobile WiMAX). However, the IEEE is also working on an extension of the
802.16e version called 802.16m, which will offer improved throughput and
capability.
Difference of WiMAX from IEEE 802.16
The WiMAX Forum™ is a non profit trade association industry group with a
different mission from the IEEE 802.16, ETSI HiperMAN or WiBro/Mobile
WiMAX standards working groups. The imperative of the IEEE and ETSI
groups is to formulate the technology specifications. The forum shoulders
the task of incorporating the variations in the three specifications groups
to ensure interoperability amongst them and to promote and market the
technology and its adherents.
Additionally, the forum regulates and defines the testing parameters for
true WiMAX Certification™ of interoperable products. The ultimate result
is that both bodies are very collaborative, but with clearly delineated
responsibilities.

WiMAX a Global Standard


Yes. WiMAX is a Global Standard that has certified products shipping
worldwide and interoperate with gear in the same frequency range and
power range. It is important to note that different countries utilize
different spectrum frequencies for broadband delivery. For instance, the
licensed band 2.5 GHz range in the US is also widely used around the
world. However, the widely used international broadband spectrum range
in the 3.5 GHz channels is not available in the US, although the FCC has
recently opened a small slice of lightly regulated spectrum in the US at
3.65 GHz that uses the same WiMAX radios. The early waves of WiMAX
products are not intended to function in multiple WiMAX spectrum ranges
simultaneously. However, some of the early WiMAX radio sets may
incorporate WiMAX/GSM or Wi-Fi dual connectivity from the beginning as
several vendors appear to be engineering this capability into some Mobile
WiMAX radios. A dual WiMAX/GSM handset is already on the market in
Russia.

Other major standards includeWiMAX


There are three International standards that are in common acceptance or
in the process of finalization. These are the IEEE 802.16, the European
HiperMAN and the Korean WiBro/Mobile WiMAX. These standards have
many similarities, but there are some differences. A major task of the
WiMAX Forum ™ is to ensure that support for all three is incorporated into
the global WiMAX standard.

WiMAX ecosystem
In many ways, the WiMAX ecosystem is one of the most important aspects
of the power of the technology. Much like an environmental ecosystem
that inspired its name, the viability of WiMAX in general depends on the
interaction of many firms delivering different, but crucial aspects of the
solution to the market.

Just like a marine ecosystem has numerous plant, fish, coral and even
water conditions that affect life for all, the WiMAX ecosystem consists of
standards bodies, chip vendors, radio manufacturers, systems integrators,
software developers, trade groups and even the media to address various
aspects of the technology.

Just at the chip level, the variety of companies delivering solutions ranging
from the OFDMA™ technology being used in Mobile WiMAX to a wide
variety of system-on-a-chip silicon providers, offer the variety of support
and implementation strategies that will either ensure or fail to ensure that
the technology supports the range of optional features that will garner
customer attention. As deployments have occurred around the world the
promise of the WiMAX ecosystem to deliver lower prices is being realized.
Costs have largely dropped at all levels of the ecosystem. And, in
particular, once the Clearwire and Sprint spectrum merger is complete
late in 2008 and deployments on that network accelerate, expect to see
prices drop even more.

The various radio vendors and their most direct partners, the system
integrators, deliver unique solutions tailored to the various market niches
that offer opportunity to them and their service provider customers. Both
fulfill specific roles within the ecosystem.

Wireless Architectures
The following section will provide a simple overview of wireless concepts
and nomenclature to help the reader understand how WiMAX works and
will assist the reader in com-municating with the WiMAX industry.

Wireless architecture: point-to-point and point-to-multipoint


There are two scenarios for a wireless deployment: point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint.
Figure 7: Point-to point and point-to-multipoint configurations

Point-to-point(P2P)

Point to point is used where there are two points of interest: one sender
and one receiver. This is also a scenario for backhaul or the transport from
the data source (data center, co-lo facility, fiber POP, Central Office, etc)
to the subscriber or for a point for distribution using point to multipoint
architecture. Backhaul radios comprise an industry of their own within the
wireless industry. As the architecture calls for a highly focused beam
between two points range and throughput of point-to point radios will be
higher than that of point-to-multipoint products.

Point-to-Multipoint(PMP)

As seen in the figure above, point-to-multipoint is synonymous with


distribution. One base station can service hundreds of dissimilar
subscribers in terms of bandwidth and services offered.

Line of sight (LOS) or Non-line of sight (NLOS)?


Figure 8: The difference between line of sight and non-line of sight

Earlier wireless technologies (LMDS, MMDS for example) were


unsuccessful in the mass market as they could not deliver services in non-
line-of-sight scenarios. This limited the number of subscribers they could
reach and, given the high cost of base stations and CPE, those business
plans failed. WiMAX functions best in line of sight situations and, unlike
those earlier technologies, offers acceptable range and throughput to
subscribers who are not line of sight to the base station. Buildings
between the base station and the subscriber diminish the range and
throughput, but in an urban environment, the signal will still be strong
enough to deliver adequate service. Given WiMAX's ability to deliver
services non-line-of-sight, the WiMAX service provider can reach many
customers in high-rise office buildings to achieve a low cost per subscriber
because so many subscribers can be reached from one base station.

WiMAX Radios
At the core of WiMAX is the WiMAX radio. A radio contains both a
transmitter (sends) and a receiver (receives). It generates electrical
oscillations at a frequency known as the carrier frequency (in WiMAX that
is usually between 2 and 11 GHz). A radio might be thought of as a
networking device similar to a router or a bridge in that it is managed by
software and is composed of circuit boards containing very complex chip
sets.

WiMAX architecture, very simply put, is built upon two components: radios
and antennas. Most WiMAX products offer a base station radio separate
from the antenna. Conversely, many CPE devices are also two piece
solutions with an antenna on the outside of the building and subscriber
station indoors as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 9: Most WiMAX solutions use radios separate from antennas

The chief advantage of this is that the radio is protected from extremes of
heat cold and humidity all of which detract from the radio's performance
and durability. In addition, having the antenna outdoors optimizes the link
budget (performance of the wireless connection) between transmitter and
receiver especially in line of sight scenarios. The antenna is connected to
WiMAX radio via a cable known as a "pigtail". One simple rule for wireless
installations: keep the pigtail as short as possible. Why? The longer the
pigtail the more signal is lost between the antenna and the radio. The
popular LMR-400 cable, for example will lose about 1 dB (pronounced
"dee-bee" for decibel, a measure of signal strength) for every 10 feet of
cable. Very simply put, if an antenna is placed at the top of a 20-story
building and the radio in the wiring closet on the ground floor, one may
lose all signal in the cable.

Radios-Enclosures

Figure 10: WiMAX performance can be optimized by placing the


radio in a weather resistant or weatherproof enclosure near the
antenna

Radio-placement
The photo above shows the WiMAX radio deployed in an enclosure. Note
from left to right: a) copper grounding cable on the inside of the enclosure
b) Ethernet connection to the data source c) Heliax "pigtail" to the
antenna (Heliax is a heavy duty, lightning resistant cable) d) 110v power
via an APC UPS (note black box in top right hand corner of enclosure.
What are some strategies to ensure the antenna can be as high as
possible to take advan-tage of line-of-sight topologies where ever possible
while keeping the pigtail as short as possible? One approach is to co-
locate the radio on or near the roof with the antenna in an enclosure.
Considerations for enclosures include: a) security and b) weather
resistance-how hot or cold can your radio gets and still function?

Sheet metal or fiberglass enclosures with a lock provide security. Next, it


is necessary to determine how well suited the radio is for local
atmospherics (hot or cold). Most Wi-MAX radios are rated as operating
between -20 degrees Fahrenheit to 120 degrees F at the upper end. If you
will be operating in locations that will exceed those parameters you need
an enclosure that will shield your radio form those extremes. As the radio
will generate its own heat, surrounding it with insulation will ensure the
temperature of the radio will not suffer from sub-zero temperatures.

WiMAX Antennas

Figure 11: Different antenna types are designed for different applications

WiMAX antennas, just like the antennas for car radio, cell phone, FM radio, or
TV, are designed to optimize performance for a given application. The figure
above illustrates the three main types of antennas used in WiMAX deployments.
From top to bottom are an omni directional, sector and panel antenna each has a
specific function.

Omni-directional-antenna
Figure 12: An omni-directional antenna broadcasts 360 degrees from the base station

Omni directional antennas are used for point-to-multipoint configurations.


The main drawback to an omni directional antenna is that its energy is
greatly diffused in broad-casting 360 degrees. This limits its range and
ultimately signal strength. Omni directional antennas are good for
situations where there are a lot of subscribers located very close to the
base station. An example of omni directional application is a WiFi hotspot
where the range is less than 100 meters and subscribers are concentrated
in a small area.

Sector-antennas

Figure 13: Sector antennas are focused on smaller sectors

A sector antenna, by focusing the beam in a more focused area, offers


greater range and throughput with less energy. Many operators will use
sector antennas to cover a 360-degree service area rather than use an
omni directional antenna due to the superior per-formance of sector
antennas over an omni directional antenna.

Panel-antennas

Figure 14: Panel antennas are most often used for point-to-point applications

Panel antennas are usually a flat panel of about one foot square. They can
also be a configuration where potentially the WiMAX radio is contained in
the square antenna enclosure. Such configurations are powered via the
Ethernet cable that connects the ra-dio/antenna combination to the wider
network. That power source is known as Power over Ethernet (PoE). This
streamlines deployments as there is no need to house the radio in a
separate, weatherproof enclosure if outdoors or in a wiring closet if
indoors. This configuration can also be very handy for relays.

Xx Subscriber Stations
The technical term for customer premise equipment (CPE) is subscriber
station. The generally accepted marketing terms now focus on either
"indoor CPE" or "outdoor CPE". There are advantages and disadvantages
to both deployment schemes as described below.

Outdoor-CPE

Figure 15: An outdoor CPE device. Note mounting brackets for outdoor mounting on roof or side of
building
Source Airspan

Outdoor CPE, very simply put, offers somewhat better performance over
indoor CPE given that WiMAX reception is not impeded by walls of
concrete or brick, RF blocking glass or steel in the building's walls. In
many cases the subscriber may wish to utilize an outdoor CPE in order to
maximize reception via a line of sight connection to the base station not
possible with indoor CPE. Outdoor CPE will cost more than indoor CPE due
to a number of factors including extra measures necessary to make
outdoor CPE weather re-sistant.

Indoor-CPE

Figure 16: Indoor WiMAX CPE (Airspan EasyST)- object on left) with telephone handset and VoIP
adapter

The most significant advantage of indoor over outdoor CPE is that it is


installed by the subscriber. This frees the service provider from the
expense of "truck roll" or installation. In addition, it can be sold online or
in a retail facility thus sparing the service provider a trip to the customer
site. Indoor CPE also allows a certain instant gratification for the
subscriber in that there is no wait time for installation by the service
provider. Currently, many telephone companies require a one month wait
between placement of order and in-stallation of T1 or E1 services. In
addition, an instant delivery of service is very appeal-ing to the business
subscriber in the event of a network outage by the incumbent service
provider.
Site Survey
Before any equipment is deployed, there must be a site survey to determine what is needed in
order to have a successful wireless operation. By understanding the dynamics of the market
where the deployment will take place and planning accordingly, the service provider can
ensure success on Day One of operations.

Link-Budget
Figure 17: The link budget determines the success or failure of a wireless operation

The figure above illustrates a link budget. It is the equation of the power
of a signal transmitted minus detractions between the transmitter and
receiver (rain, interference from other broadcasters, vegetation, gain at
the antennas ate either end) and what signal is received at the receiver.

Frequency-Plan
Part of the site survey process is to determine a viable frequency plan.
The wireless op-erator must make maximum use of limited spectrum
assets. How does one do that?

Figure 18: By reusing frequencies at different base stations, a WiMAX operator can avoid interference from their own network

The diagram above illustrates how a wireless operator (cellular, WiMAX,


etc) uses their limited spectrum allocation to deliver the best service
possible while avoiding interfer-ence between their base stations. Note
there are nine different base stations with three different frequencies but
no similarly shaded circle touches another. If they did touch, there would
be interference between base stations because they would be operating
on the same frequency.

Its about windows, not roof tops


Traditional wireless thinking dictated that a radio and its associated
antenna should be at the highest point possible with a line of sight to a
majority of the service area (note mountain tops and the Empire State
Building). This is not necessarily so with WiMAX. As indoor subscriber units
mature, the value of antenna placement is not necessarily in height above
subscribers, but in achieving as short and direct a line of sight possible be-
tween base station and subscriber's CPE.

Figure 19: Imagine each window or floor paying $500 per month in WiMAX services

Objections to WiMAX
A discussion of WiMAX is not complete without taking on objections to the
technology. Before any one can sell a high technology product, they must
first sell the customer on the technology.

Figure 20: Objections to WiMAX are best understood via the provisions built into the
WiMAX Physical and MAC layers
Source: EEE Technology sales people invariably encounter objections to
the technology they are sell-ing.
The primary objections to WiMAX are:

1. Interference: Won't interference from other broadcasters


degrade the quality of the WiMAX service?
2. Quality of Service (QoS): Wireless is inherently unstable so
how can it offer voice and video services?

3. Security: Is WiMAX secure? Can anything wireless be secure?

4. Reliability: Nothing can be as reliable as the telephone


company's service (rumored to offer "five 9s" of reliability or 5
minutes of downtime per year).

The answers to those objections are best understood via the Physical
(known as the PHY, pronounced "fi") and Medium Access Control (MAC
pronounced "mac") Layers. The WiMAX Working Group no doubt were
aware of these objections based on experiences with earlier wireless
technologies (Wi-Fi, LMDS, MMDS, CDMA, GSM) and have engineered
WiMAX to fix failures of past wireless technologies

Interference
Wireless services have been around for a century. There is always the potential for
inter-ference and the service provider must engineer accordingly.

Figure 21: Interference occurs in a number of forms and interference mitigation is a matter of good
engineering
Source: IEEE Countering interference is a matter of understanding it and
engineering accordingly. Interference occurs naturally in the
electromagnetic spectrum. Figure 21 above shows out-of-channel
interference, which comes from other transmitters that are not on the
same frequency as the primary radio. A co-channel interfering
transmission occurs on the same frequency as the desired signal. Step
One in interference mitigation is to avoid co-channel interference through
thorough frequency planning, use of licensed spectrum, and dynamic
frequency selection. Step Two is to pay close attention to the link budget
on the wireless network and plan power and spectrum to overcome
interfering signals. Much of the im-pact of out-of-channel interference can
be avoided using such technologies as OFDM, OFDMA, and a host of
antenna technologies.
Solutions-to-Interference-OFDM

Figure 22: Multipath and intersymbol interference occur with all wireless transmissions

OFDM mitigates interference by breaking the signal into subcarriers. The loss
of the data on a small percentage of the subdivided signal does not degrade
the reception of the received signal.

Antenna Technologies & Interference


Adaptive-Antenna-System(AAS)

Figure 24: By utilizing AAS and beam steering technologies, WiMAX overcomes
interference while boosting range and throughput

Adaptive Antenna Systems (AAS) use beam-forming technologies to focus the


wireless beam between the base station and the subscriber. This reduces the
possibility of interference from other broadcasters as the beam runs straight
between the two points.
Dynamic Frequency Selection, MIMO, and Software Defined
Radios

Figure 25: Dynamic Frequency Selection enables a radio to shift frequencies when interference is
present

One of the simplest remedies to interference is to simply change frequencies


to avoid the frequency where interference occurs. Dynamic frequency
selection (DFS) does just that. A DFS radio sniffs the airwaves to determine
where interference does not occur and selects the open frequency to avoid
the frequencies where interference occurs.

Multiple in and multiple out (MIMO) antenna systems work on the same
principle. With multiple transmitters and receivers built into the antenna, the
transmitter and receiver can coordinate to move to an open frequency
if/when interference occurs.

Software defined radios (SDR) use the same strategy to avoid interference.
As they are software and not hardware defined, they have the flexibility to
dynamically shift frequencies to move away from a congested frequency to
an open channel.

Figure 23: OFDM and OFDMA mitigate interference by breaking the signal into mul-tiple
subcarriers
Quality of Service
Quality of Service (QoS) is what determines if a wireless technology can successfully deliver
high value services such as voice and video. The chief detractors from good QoS are latency,
jitter and packet loss. Solve these issue and you have a carrier-grade service. Very simply put,
WiMAX offers a very low latency across the wireless span. Most ven-dors have products where
latency is less than 10 milliseconds from base station to CPE (and vice versa). To put this in
perspective, latency must be measured end-to-end. VoIP, for example, is highly susceptible to
latency. If latency exceeds 150 milliseconds for ex-ample, the quality of the conversation begins
to drag. At or above 200 milliseconds many listeners may find a conversation unintelligible.

In the case of WiMAX, the large majority of latency will not occur on the air link be-tween
subscriber and base station but rather on the wired portion of the connection be-tween the
subscriber and what ever the "other end" might be (web site server, IPTV server or VoIP called
party). The figure below illustrates how any latency on the wireless portion of a network is
minimal relative to that on the wired portion of a network.

Figure 26: Over-the-air latency in a WiMAX network is minimal relative to the latency on
the IP backbone or the rest of the network

Prioritizing-Traffic
The chief solution in offering good QoS is to prioritize time sensitive traffic such
as VoIP and video. Fixed WiMAX offers 4 categories for the prioritization of
traffic and mobile WiMAX has 5 categories.
Table 1: Prioritization of packets depending on traffic type (voice, video, etc) ensures good QoS

Source:WiMAX Forum and IEEE Early Wi-Fi offered no prioritization of traffic


and the technology has not gone beyond the wireless local area network
(WLAN) stage. WiMAX is different in that, in the case of fixed WiMAX, there
are four categories of traffic prioritized per their needs in delivery with VoIP
and video at the top and web surfing at the bottom. Mobile WiMAX offers 5
such prioritized categories with VoIP being top priority.

OFDM & Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation


Good-QoS

Figure 27: WiMAX coding and modulation schemes ensure steady


signal strength over distance by decreasing throughput over range to
deliver the best QoS possible

An old wisdom in the networking world goes "Bandwidth is the answer,


now what was the question?". WiMAX offers a pair of mechanisms that
ensure good QoS. First, the coding and modulation schemes (64-QAM/16-
QAM/QPSK) ensure a steady signal strength over increasing distance.
Secondly, Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA) is a mechanism that
monitors the network and, when interference or other detractions to sig-
nal strength occur, the base station allocates more bandwidth and power
for the afflicted stream.

Spectral-Efficiency

Figure 28: Beam width is a measure of a product's spectral efficiency

Spectral efficiency is the measure of the width of the signal's beam through
the air. It is also the measure of the WiMAX radio's scalability. In mobile
WiMAX, for example, commonly used beam widths range from 1.25 MHz to
20 MHz. Efficiency of the product is determined by how much bandwidth
(measured in megabits per second in this case) can be transported over how
little beam width (MHz in this case). Spectral efficiency is especially
important in cases where a service provider is paying a high price for
spectrum (example: 40 MHz at 2.5 GHz). With high spectral efficiency, the
service provider can service more customers at a lower cost per subscriber
for the spectrum in use.

WiMAX-Security

Figure 29: WiMAX offers state of the art security via authentication and strong encryption

Security in WiMAX is set in the Privacy Sub layer in the MAC Layer. Per their
respective specifications, fixed WiMAX (802.16-2004) uses X.509 certificates
for authentication and 56-bit Digital Encryption System (DES) for encryption
of the data stream. Mobile WiMAX (802.16e-2005) uses EAP for
authentication and Advanced Encryption System (AES, also used by the US
government) for encryption. Vendors may use variants of these. Some
vendors offer 152-bit AES, which is rumored to take millions of years to crack
with a consumer grade PC. Both variants use Privacy Key Management (PKM)
for authentication between base station and subscriber station. While Wi-Fi
may have suf-fered a bad reputation for security given early problems in the
industry, WiMAX offers strong security measures to thwart a wide variety of
security threats.

WiMAX Reliability
Some supporters of the telephone network say it offers 99.999% reliability or
that it is down 5 minutes per year. That may be true of the switches in the
Central Office, but is not true of the telephone network as a whole. The
copper wires coming to the home or office, for example, represent a single
point of failure (that is, there is no back-up if the wire or fiber optic cable
breaks or is cut). Businesses using the telephone company should ask
themselves two questions:

1. What does it cost us per hour to be down?

2. What back up, if any, do we have if the telephone line is cut or


broken?

WiMAX service providers have no wires or cables that can be cut and can
offer 99.999% of reliability by using redundant radios to cover a given
market. Use of licensed spectrum ensures that only one service provider is
broadcasting on a given frequency. Finally, ra-dios with high quality chips
have a mean time between failure (MTBF) of 40 or more years. If nothing
else, businesses should consider WiMAX as a cost effective disaster re-covery
solution. Note: a backhoe operator cannot cut a WiMAX wireless connection
to the home or office.

WiMAX VoIP
A fixed wireless solution not only offers competitive internet access, it can do
the same for telephone service thus further bypassing the telephone
company's copper wire network. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offers a
wider range of voice services at reduced cost to subscribers and service
providers alike. The diagram below illustrates a typical solution where a
WiMAX service provider can obtain wholesale VoIP services (no need for the
WiMAX service provider to install and operate a VoIP softswitch) at about
$5/number/month and resell to enterprise customers at $50.
Figure 34: VoIP is the "killer app" for WiMAX

In residential markets, VoIP is a "must offer" service. Without the additional


revenue per user (think ARPU where "A" is for average), WiMAX does not
offer a compelling reason to switch from other forms of residential
broadband. When bundled with broadband internet access and IPTV, a
WiMAX triple play becomes very attractive to residential subscribers. Given
the QoS, security and reliability mechanisms built into WiMAX, sub-scribers
will find WiMAX VoIP as good or better than voice services from the telephone
company.

Applications for WiMAX


The race is on in the service provider community to offer "triple play" (voice,
video and data) or "quadruple play" (voice, video data as well as mobile voice
and data). Some ser-vice providers are attempting to do this with 3 or 4
dissimilar networks as illustrated in the figure below. For example, at the
time of this writing, Qwest Communications Inter-national sold their own
voice and broadband data for the residential market, Dish Networks for
satellite TV and resells Sprint Nextel cellular service. Reselling other service
providers services does not generate the profit margins as selling one's own
services does. Given the vertical orientation of legacy systems like cable TV
(only does TV), circuit-switched voice services (like cell phone networks-
designed almost entirely for voice), it is difficult and expensive to offer more
than one type of service on any one "stovepipe" network. The solution is IP
Multimedia Subsystems (IMS).
Figure 31: Legacy "stovepipe" infrastructure cannot easily offer more than one service

IMS-Vision
The vision for IMS is that an all-IP network will allow a subscriber to access a
multitude of services regardless of how they access the network (cable TV
modem, DSL, cellular, Wi-Fi, or WiMAX). Very simply put, the subscriber will
be able to access any service on any device

Figure 32: IMS allows a subscriber to access any service on any device using any form of
access

IMS began as a concept in the cell phone industry to offer voice, short
messaging service (SMS) and video on cell phones. It utilizes a simple three-
layer architecture consisting of the Connectivity Layer (similar to the physical
layer in the OSI model), a Control Layer, which provides switching and
signaling functions, and the Service Layer where applica-tions such as IPTV
and VoIP features are offered. Running parallel to those function layers are a
range of support systems, which control security and QoS across the network.
The signaling protocol known as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) provides
signaling across the network.
Fixed Wireless (IEEE 802.16-2004) Applications
Perhaps the most lucrative application for WiMAX is that of substitute for the telephone
company's copper wire. This is achieved through fixed wireless solutions. A majority of
US businesses and residences receive their telephone service and internet access via the
telephone company's copper wires. A T1 data line from the telephone company may re-
tail for $800/month in many US cities. About 50% of that expense is "local loop" charges
or paying to use the telephone company's copper wire to access a wider network. As the
diagram below illustrates, a WiMAX service provider could purchase the bandwidth
equivalent of a T1 (1.54 Mbps) at, say, $45 and resell to an enterprise customer for $400.
Through oversubscription (overselling), that service provider could realize a multiple of
that profit.

PSTN bypass for fixed wireless T1/E1/DS3 substitute

Figure 33 WiMAX offers a substitute for the telephone company's T1/E1 or


DS3

WiMAX & IPTV


The third leg of the triple play is Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). IPTV
enables a WiMAX service provider to offer the same programming as cable or
satellite TV service providers. IPTV, depending on compression algorithms,
requires at least 1 Mbps of bandwidth between the WMAX base station and
the subscriber.
Figure 35: IPTV and Video on Demand enable a WiMAX service provider to
offer programming identical to cable and satellite providers

In addition to IPTV programming, the service provider can also offer a variety
of video on demand (VoD) services. The subscriber can select programming a
la carte for their television, both home and mobile, viewing needs. This may
be more desirable to the sub-scriber as they pay only for what they want to
watch as opposed to having to pay for doz-ens of channels they don't want to
watch. IPTV over WiMAX also enables the service provider to offer local
programming as well as revenue generating local advertising.

WiMAX Mobile Applications (802.16e)


In order to execute a true quadruple play strategy, a service provider will
need to offer mobile services. Even though it's called "mobile", 802.16e-2005
offers a number of ad-vantages to the fixed wireless market as well. Better
building penetration as well as im-provements in security and QoS point to a
strategy of "one network serves all".

WiMAX-as-cellular-alternative
Of all the sub industries in telecommunications, perhaps the one best
positioned to take advantage of WiMAX is the cellular service providers. They
have a lot going for them including a wireless culture (RF engineers, wireless
savvy sales staff, etc) and millions of "early adaptor" customers. On the other
hand, the transition from legacy circuit switching and a dependency on the
incumbent telephone service provider's network will not be easy or
inexpensive.
As the diagram below supports, a large percentage of a cell phone operator's
monthly operating expense (OPEX) is T1 backhaul to support their base
stations. In addition, they use aging circuit switches (Class 4 and 5 as well as
Mobile Switching Centers) to switch phone calls. These come with expensive
annual service contracts. A WiMAX substitute for the cell phone infrastructure
could be operated at as little as 10% of the OPEX of a cellular operator using
legacy infrastructure.
Figure 36: The cellular network is a mixture of wireless and PSTN architectures
Source: Trendsmedia Replacing a cell phone infrastructure with WiMAX will need to incorporate
a large mo-bile data and mobile TV element with it as data bandwidth demands on the system
will be far greater than what is now seen with a voice-centric cell phone network. The diagram
below provides a high overview of a converged voice and data wireless network.

Figure 37: Perhaps the most immediate application for mobile WiMAX is mobile voice (cell phone)
&data

When one mentions "mobile" the first thing to come to mind is cell phone
service, which is a huge industry in itself. However, mobile now connotes a
wide range of services be-yond voice to include mobile data and TV, as well
as emergency services (police, fire, ambulance, aka 4.9 GHz market).

Figure 38: Samsung's WiBro telephone handset, considered to be the first


WiMAX telephone handset
Source Samsung :Samsung's mobile WiMAX phone, the M8000, provides
wireless broadband converged services delivered from a single IP-based
network. The Samsung can handle broadcast-ing, home networking,
videoconferencing, video on demand, and more.
Figure 39: WiMAX as a mobile voice and data network is potentially exponentially more
efficient (profitable) than the legacy cellular infrastructure

A wireless operator will want to pay close attention to their ARPU while
minimizing their OPEX. WiMAX allows an operator to do both simultaneously.
Failure to update a legacy network could put an operator at risk of losing
business to new market entrants armed with WiMAX.
WiMAX Economics
WiMAX costs less to deploy than any other broadband technology. As the
table below indicates many technologies such as fiber to the home (FTTH) are
exponentially more expensive to deploy. The doomsday scenario for service
providers using an expensive landline technology (and their investors) such
as FTTH or cable is that after an invest-ment in the many billions of dollars to
serve one small region, a WiMAX operator could enter their market and far
less capital expenditure (CAPEX) and drive the incumbent, high CAPEX
operator out of business.

Table 2: Comparisons of leading broadband technologies

The table above shows the strong economic advantage of WiMAX over other
broadband technologies. With the exception 2.5 and 3 G wireless technologies, the
other broadband technologies cannot offer mobile services and are not quadruple
play capable. Disruptive technology is defined by Harvard Business School
Professor Clayton Christensen as being "cheaper, simpler, smaller and more
convenient to use" than legacy technologies. WiMAX is clearly a disruptive
technology.
WiMAX: Low barrier to entry
As Table 4 would suggest, the barrier to entry for WiMAX service providers is
very low relative to other broadband technologies. This has the potential to
invite entrepreneurs into many markets to offer WiMAX-related services in
direct competition with incumbent service providers who have invested
millions if not billions of dollars in their respective network infrastructure. The
best way to illustrate this is the notion that, for the price of a new pickup
truck, an entrepreneur could be the ISP, the telephone company, the cable
TV company and even the cell phone company for a small city. This puts at
risk investment in incumbent service providers who do not upgrade their
infrastructure to compete with WiMAX.

WiMAX-Value-Networks

Figure 43: WiMAX creates a new value network in telecommunications


A value network encompasses a series of industry participants into a vast
series of symbiotic relationships. Telecommunications companies can be
described as being "monolithic" in that they control every aspect of the
service from the device in the customer's home or office, the means of
access (copper, coaxial, or wireless) and all switching and application
platforms. WiMAX is simply a means of access for customers. After access,
the "internet model" kicks in where any variety of services (VoIP, IPTV,
gaming, etc; remember, they are just applications) can be offered to the
subscriber. In addition the WiMAX service requires access to IP backbones,
which further expands the value network beyond a single monolithic service
provider such as the traditional telephone company. The figure above
illustrates the new telecommunications value network.

Is WiMAX Safe?
Since much of the technology being utilized in the IEEE 802.16 standard
(WiMAX standard) is widely deployed, there is a historical body of evidence
supporting the safety of technologies used in upcoming WiMAX and WiMAX
products. Microwave and other spectrum technologies enjoy over a hundred
years of historical evidence of safety when prudently handled and
configured. The amount of power allowed to deliver broadband wireless
signal varies from frequency to frequency, however, most are modest topping
out at around 40 watts at the tower relay site. While certain basic
precautions need to be taken when onsite at communications towers (i.e.
standing directly in front of active microwave links at essentially zero range)
the configurations for public use are understood and safe. Customer premise
equipment is even safer.

OTHER BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY


EvDo(Evolution-Data-only)
This is not a mass market technology. It is merely a means of delivering some semblance of
broadband (a few hundred Kbps) to a road warrior's laptop. It is not intended as a triple or
quadruple play technology. Expect to see roll out in urban business districts and airports, but not
to residential areas. A few factors that limit its appeal: expensive infrastructure, (base stations in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars) limited market (road warriors or other white collar business
users) and limited to licensed spectrum held by cell phone providers (expensive and ergo, must
show a rapid return on investment thus limiting it to dense urban business districts).

DSL
DSL has a number of show stoppers: a) it is inextricably tied to the incumbent
telephone service providers copper wire infrastructure making it vulnerable
to the whims of the in-cumbent's executives and regulatory decision makers
and b) it is a fixed wire line solution i.e. no mobility possible, c) a single
DSLAM costs tens of thousands of dollars giving it a high cost per subscriber.

Cable-Modem
Only cable TV operators can use this technology. In order for this to be a
means of access the coaxial cable networks must be bi-directional. Not every
operator has made that up-grade or has the financial means to upgrade their
network (or at least a portion of it) to bi-directional service capable of
supporting cable modem service. So, the chief limitations of cable modem as
an access service are: 1) requires the network to be bi-directional and 2) it's
a fixed, wire line technology that offers no mobility.

FTTH(Fiber-to-the-Home)
The show stopper with FTTH is its $2,000/home or office served price tag. In
addition to trenching and laying the fiber to the subscribers home, massive
rights of way issues have to be over come in order to even begin the
trenching and laying of fiber. Also, it offers no mobility options.

BPL(Broadband-over-Power-line)
The chief argument against BPL is that, in order to install service in
conjunction with existing power company service, an electric company
technician must make a physical circumvention of the power line at each
residence or business where service is to be installed. Read: big truck roll
expense. A second argument is that copper power line, like copper telephone
line, offers a good deal of resistance leading to the need for numerous
repeaters and a limited number of prospective subscribers per home passed.
Finally, it offers no mobility. Truthfully, a power company would be better off
in terms of cost per subscriber and return on investment to deploy WiMAX
utilizing their existing rights of way and access to power poles for attaching
radios and antennas than attempting to roll out service to existing
subscribers using BPL.

Competing Technologies Summary


The previous paragraphs detail the disadvantages of the technologies
competing with WiMAX. These technologies were initially envisioned as
various means of upgrading an incumbent service providers legacy
network and not as quadruple play, Greenfields deployment strategies.
Because WiMAX offers a low cost per subscriber and a rapid return on
investment, WiMAX will enable a new market entrant to reach
profitability quickly, especially in underserved markets where
incumbents cannot afford to roll out economical (as compared to a
telephone company's data T1 service) broadband solutions.

You might also like