There's considerable debate, and ample skepticism about whether Mobile WiMAX will "make it" in competition against wireless telephony technology GSM/HSxPA, CDMA/1xEVDO, and soon, LTE.
I've been waiting for a company to emerge that embraced the "WiMAX Paradigm" to illustrate why (Mobile) WiMAX can not only complete against wireless telephony technologies, but eventually triumph over them.
The first such company has now emerged - Augere.
Simply, Augere is going to deploy WiMAX (unstated whether it will be "fixed" or "Mobile" WiMAX) in developing areas, such as the vast majority of Africa, that effectively don't have any Broadband Internet Access.
How is Augere deploying WiMAX work better than upgrading the wireless telephony systems already in existence? Basically (and this is, admittedly, a gross oversimplification), because WiMAX technology was designed for the Broadband Internet Access era, where it's assumed that you need a lot of data transferred cost-effectively, that's engineered for the connectionless nature of TCP/IP. Wireless telephony systems, on the other hand, even LTE, are designed for the era of "everything the customer does is a billable event".
With Augere deploying WiMAX systems, a person can go get a modem or device, take it home, and be on the Broadband Internet, mobile, or fixed - doesn't matter. No messing with wirelines, no issues with by the minute billing. When they get on the Augere network, they're on the Internet.
By using WiMAX, Augere's networks will be built for those "excessive uses" that wireless telephony networks are being "abused" by their users - Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), video downloads (they'll completely bypass the Broadcast Television, Cable Television, and Satellite Television eras; they won't NEED them), peer-to-peer (well, WiMAX will handle that better, anyway), videoconferencing, telemedicine, tele-education, and most of all... all the things we haven't yet dreamed up yet, but that the Internet is able to accommodate.
And getting the rest of the world on the Internet, where their voices can contribute to the global discussion, makes a huge difference in the world.
Bravo, Augere!
By Steve Stroh
Copyright (c) 2009 by Steve Stroh
My Twitterbate With @wirelessmics
I was off work today for illness - something struck me suddenly and I can't stray too far from a bathroom, and I'm pretty dehydrated at the moment. So, as I slowly sip liquids to fix the dehydration, I enjoyed a rare "long session" in my home office in front of the big desktop computer. I was catching up on my Twitter tweets, and found myself enjoying a spirited debate with @wirelessmics about an apparent petition to the FCC by the TV Broadcast Band Whitespace industry-to-be.
In fairness to @wirelessmics, I haven't followed the day-to-day goings on with whitespace and wireless mics of late, but I feel that I'm familiar enough with the issues from my following the emergence of the whitespace rules, and how the wireless microphone industry shaped those rules to its requirements.
I have no idea who, or what, is behind @wirelessmics, only that they said in one of their last tweets, that they're not a PR agency as I accused. My bad.
In the exchange below, I've tried to maintain the order of the exchange, as shown on my Twitter feed (@bwianews), and I'll let the respective tweets, and viewpoints, speak for themselves.
The following exchange is ordered most recent / conclusion, at the bottom.
@wirelessmics is in bold
@bwianews (me) is in italics.
I've edited out the headers and timestamps for readability. I tried to get the ordering of the exchanges right, but if not, apologies to readers and @wirelessmics.
"Twitterbate" begins:
wireless devices "accept interference" but work...despite some transmit delay...a wireless mic with transmit delay is broken
changing the fcc's wireless mic rules will make (some) companies money, but damage live performance and art (cont'd one more time)
(some tech lobbyists) now want the fcc to make wireless mics "accept interference" like other wireless devices (cont'd next tweet)
parallel thought...music/movie piracy (@fightpiracy) undermines artists rights so that someone else gets the money...(cont'd)
Wireless mic vendors want to keep making simple, cheap-to-make, stupid FM xmitter / receivers. Don't blame 'em - PROFITABLE!
So... If wireless mics cannot evolve to forward error correction than there's ultrawideband and 60 GHz - lots of room there.
forward error correction requires more bandwidth - not less
see today's tweets about delay and retransmission - wifi/phone transmission techniques don't work for mics
efficient mic tech (spectral efficiency) will come, but mics can't be wifi-type devices - fcc rules are correct now
if you move mics to 60 GHz - existing mics would become paper weights? that sound fair to churches/schools/musicians?
Many existing wmics ARE now paperweights because wireless mic industry kept selling mics that operated in TV ch 51-69.
That FEC requires more bandwidth, not less, would be news to the entire digital communications industry.
FEC is redundant data in stream i.e. more data no retrans. (less bw for delay tolerant data, more bw for real time data)
Problem is that Ch 51-69 are now allocated for two-way communications, not (mostly vacant) TV transmission.
Shure gives rebates to replace now obsolete microphone systems - http://tiny.cc/4PxW4
FEC is interleaved realtime - entire point is that it doesn't require retransmission or delay.
fcc rules now (good) ch 51-69 gone - there is now a lobby for mics to "accept interference" in 2-51 - new (bad) change
Wireless Mic industry arguments remind me of the minicomputer industry on the eve of PCs becoming powerful enuf for most jobs.
Wireless Mics could have had AMPLE protection from interference by using beacons, but rejected that during FCC investigations.
mic data is real time AND hi-res - repeat, it's not wifi data (delay tolerant) or phone data (lo-res)
Your marketing dept. is a bit confused - FEC is not incompatible with realtime and high-resolution.
Apologies... your lobbying department, not marketing department, is a bit confused...
the fcc rules as written work fine - there is lobby to change (brand new) whitespace rules http://tiny.cc/9h98J explians
Expecting the follow block from @wirelessmics any second now.
wont' follow block - a debates a debate - multiple technical ways to make mics work - but they work where they are
FEC is very compatible with realtime and high-resolution - over fiber where its used for video
mics DO have AMPLE protection from interference in the FCC rules - wthout beacons - we're in favor of FCC rules as-is
FEC is interleaved (and more data - my words) realtime - it doesn't require retransmission or delay (correct - my word)
Point being that whitespace devices will provide new services to a vastly larger population, not just a tiny # of wmic users.
And... And, wireless mics could have had ample protection from whitespace devices using beacons, but rejected beacon approach.
And it's understandable that wireless mic industry should try to block progress because they haven't updated their tech.
The TVBD rules are less than 9 mos. old (see http://tiny.cc/y0lAn) after 5+ years lobbying. Changes now aren't progress.
wmic industry will evolve their tech - "Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless". If wmics work poorly, people won't buy.
Yes, understood that wmics are, technically, a licensed service, but wmic industry enjoyed not having licensing rqmt enforced.
Thanks to @bwianews for today's discussion (we all have to work sometime and i do now).
Welcome to "Internet Time" :-) whitespace industry is seizing "bias towards action and progress" of Obama Admin and new FCC.
Put it this way... if Bluetooth can be made to work in 2.4 GHz junk band, with LOTS of users, than wmics can use better tech.
RT Learn about wireless mics and new TV spectrum regulations http://tiny.cc/y0lAn Already these new FCC rules are under attack by lobbyists!
wmic industry just doesn't want to change its tech - it's comfortable and profitable. Change is hard and uncomfortable.
RT parallel thought...music/movie piracy (@fightpiracy) undermines artists rights so that someone else gets the money...(cont'd)
RT (some tech lobbyists) now want the fcc to make wireless mics "accept interference" like other wireless devices (cont'd next tweet)
Some smart engineer will soon see the margins of wmics and invent Bluetooth, 5 GHz, UWB, or 60 GHz wmics (all with FEC) - $$$.
Yes, propaganda must be served to keep collecting PR fees from wireless microphone industry. Everyone's gotta make a living.
I'm not a PR agency - and you believe Google/Microsoft/Dell/Motorola/HP don't engage in "propaganda" about this issue?
Editing by Steve Stroh. No copyright claims.
Posted by Steve Stroh on July 28, 2009 at 12:48 in BWIA Industry Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)