Thursday, May 13, 2010
FCC Choose LTE for Public Safety
It’s official: LTE is the chosen 4G technology for interoperable public safety networks in the 700 MHz band. Yesterday the FCC granted conditional approval of 21 petitions filed by cities, counties and states that sought waivers to move forward with the construction of regional or statewide interoperable wireless broadband networks in the 700 MHz public safety broadband spectrum. In doing so, the FCC mandated use of the LTE air interface.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Alvarion Joins WCAI Board of Directors
WCAI today announced the addition of Alvarion Ltd., a global leader in 4G wireless communications, to its Board of Directors. Representing the company on the WCAI Board is Dr. Mohammad Shakouri, Corporate Vice President, Innovation and Marketing.
“Alvarion has been at the forefront of delivering the true 4G broadband experience in the United States and around the world,” said WCAI President and CEO Fred Campbell. “WCAI welcomes Alvarion on Board and looks forward to working together to promote next-generation wireless broadband access in support of achieving ubiquitous broadband deployment and technology innovation.”
An industry visionary and well-known expert in the field, Dr. Shakouri serves on Alvarion’s executive management team. Instrumental in growing WiMAX into a multi-billion dollar industry, including through his involvement with WiMAX Forum, Dr. Shakouri is considered to be the leading voice for the WiMAX industry.
“We are pleased to become part of WCAI Board to help US market enhance the broadband services across the country,” said Dr. Shakouri. “WCAI is a world class industry organization that is at the forefront of developments related to wireless broadband and we look forward to collaborating on new industry initiatives.”
Alvarion continues to demonstrate leadership in the wireless broadband industry. As the world’s leading provider of 4G WiMAX solutions with more than 270 WiMAX networks deployed around the globe, Alvarion offers fully integrated end-to-end all IP WiMAX solutions.
“Alvarion has been at the forefront of delivering the true 4G broadband experience in the United States and around the world,” said WCAI President and CEO Fred Campbell. “WCAI welcomes Alvarion on Board and looks forward to working together to promote next-generation wireless broadband access in support of achieving ubiquitous broadband deployment and technology innovation.”
An industry visionary and well-known expert in the field, Dr. Shakouri serves on Alvarion’s executive management team. Instrumental in growing WiMAX into a multi-billion dollar industry, including through his involvement with WiMAX Forum, Dr. Shakouri is considered to be the leading voice for the WiMAX industry.
“We are pleased to become part of WCAI Board to help US market enhance the broadband services across the country,” said Dr. Shakouri. “WCAI is a world class industry organization that is at the forefront of developments related to wireless broadband and we look forward to collaborating on new industry initiatives.”
Alvarion continues to demonstrate leadership in the wireless broadband industry. As the world’s leading provider of 4G WiMAX solutions with more than 270 WiMAX networks deployed around the globe, Alvarion offers fully integrated end-to-end all IP WiMAX solutions.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Myth of Broadband “Reclassification”
Hank Hultquist
Vice President Federal Regulatory
AT&T
The D.C. Circuit’s decision to vacate the FCC’s Comcast-BitTorrent order has a lot of people chattering, including a University of Michigan Law School professor, about how the FCC should “reclassify” broadband as a “Title II” service. The belief is that such a move is necessary to either (a) extract the FCC from an “existential crisis,” or (b) free the FCC’s National Broadband Plan from “legal limbo.” The FCC’s top lawyer has fueled the chatter with a blog post, questioning its authority on a variety of issues, in light of the court decision.
I’m not going to bore you with our view of why classifying broadband as Title II is a mistake. Instead, I’m going to bore you with a brief history of broadband classifications and the mythology that has sprung up around them.
Some believe, incorrectly, that broadband Internet access used to live under the watchful eye of a wise and beneficent FCC. In this latter-day Eden, the FCC regulated broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II. But then the FCC was tempted into taking a bite out of the Title I apple, and pretty soon they had eaten the whole thing.
I can see why some people want to peddle this story and why others might believe it. But the truth is that the FCC has never regulated “broadband Internet access” under Title II. In fact, the FCC has never regulated any type of Internet access under Title II.
What, you ask? How can that be? Everyone knows that the deregulatory Bush Administration spoiled everything when it changed the classification of broadband to an information service under Title I. However, this narrative simply is not true. In fact, it was the Clinton Administration FCC that definitively declined to classify Internet access as a telecommunications service.
When it first looked at this issue back in 1998, the FCC (under then-Chairman Bill Kennard) said that “classifying Internet access services as telecommunications services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet. We recognize the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.”
The FCC reached the same conclusions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 when it likewise classified cable broadband, DSL, powerline broadband and wireless broadband as information services. And when this information service classification was challenged, the FCC defended it all the way to the United States Supreme Court… and won.
If you want a detailed legal explanation of why broadband was never classified as a Title II telecommunications service, read this.
The bottom line is that this idea that broadband Internet access was once in the Eden of Title II, only to have paradise lost by putting it under Title I is revisionist history. The reality is that if the Commission decides to classify any Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II, it would be doing so for the first time. And that would be unprecedented.
Vice President Federal Regulatory
AT&T
The D.C. Circuit’s decision to vacate the FCC’s Comcast-BitTorrent order has a lot of people chattering, including a University of Michigan Law School professor, about how the FCC should “reclassify” broadband as a “Title II” service. The belief is that such a move is necessary to either (a) extract the FCC from an “existential crisis,” or (b) free the FCC’s National Broadband Plan from “legal limbo.” The FCC’s top lawyer has fueled the chatter with a blog post, questioning its authority on a variety of issues, in light of the court decision.
I’m not going to bore you with our view of why classifying broadband as Title II is a mistake. Instead, I’m going to bore you with a brief history of broadband classifications and the mythology that has sprung up around them.
Some believe, incorrectly, that broadband Internet access used to live under the watchful eye of a wise and beneficent FCC. In this latter-day Eden, the FCC regulated broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II. But then the FCC was tempted into taking a bite out of the Title I apple, and pretty soon they had eaten the whole thing.
I can see why some people want to peddle this story and why others might believe it. But the truth is that the FCC has never regulated “broadband Internet access” under Title II. In fact, the FCC has never regulated any type of Internet access under Title II.
What, you ask? How can that be? Everyone knows that the deregulatory Bush Administration spoiled everything when it changed the classification of broadband to an information service under Title I. However, this narrative simply is not true. In fact, it was the Clinton Administration FCC that definitively declined to classify Internet access as a telecommunications service.
When it first looked at this issue back in 1998, the FCC (under then-Chairman Bill Kennard) said that “classifying Internet access services as telecommunications services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet. We recognize the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.”
The FCC reached the same conclusions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 when it likewise classified cable broadband, DSL, powerline broadband and wireless broadband as information services. And when this information service classification was challenged, the FCC defended it all the way to the United States Supreme Court… and won.
If you want a detailed legal explanation of why broadband was never classified as a Title II telecommunications service, read this.
The bottom line is that this idea that broadband Internet access was once in the Eden of Title II, only to have paradise lost by putting it under Title I is revisionist history. The reality is that if the Commission decides to classify any Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II, it would be doing so for the first time. And that would be unprecedented.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Backhaul and the National Broadband Plan
by Joseph M. Sandri, Jr., Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Government, FiberTower
Reprinted from Converge! Network Digest
On March 16, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission released the nation’s first ever National Broadband Plan (NBP). One of the key elements addressed in the NBP is backhaul which is generally considered as the transport of voice, video and data traffic from a wireless carrier’s or public safety network’s base station (or cell site) to its mobile switching center (MSC). Backhaul is present in the NBP in some obvious and also subtle ways.
What is the National Broadband Plan (NBP)?
In early 2009, Congress directed the FCC to develop a NBP to restore the U.S. to a global leadership position in telecommunications and to utilize the broadband sector to drive economic development. It includes 198 formal recommendations. Half of the recommendations are offered to the FCC and the remaining half are offered to the Executive Branch, Congress, and state and local governments. The next 2-to-24 months will see a vigorous attempt to implement the recommendations. There are no guarantees that the recommendations will all be implemented.
The FCC will soon publish a timeline of proceedings to implement the plan recommendations within its authority, and related hearings before Congress will include recommended schedules for pursuing the recommendations with the other arms of government.
The 198 NBP recommendations seek specific steps to implement the elements and goals mentioned above, some of which directly address backhaul and middle mile issues. Other recommendations (such as making 500 MHz of spectrum available for mobile networks) create more demand for backhaul. The entire plan can be located at www.broadband.gov .
Backhaul Rides In
The NBP represents a sizeable “shift” toward supporting competition and making day-to-day broadband deployment tasks easier. The FCC repeatedly recognized that an effective NBP must recognize and support the role that backhaul plays in supporting end-user networks.
During the comment period leading to the NBP release, the FCC reviewed thousands of comments, held numerous workshops, and conducted its own hearings and also reported progress to Congress. Pro-backhaul advocacy centered around the following points:
The NBP recommendations support the following policy positions:
1. Re-enforce existing tools to speed wireless deployments
The FCC noted that even prior to the NBP it started moving to “reduce costs by expediting processes and decreasing the risks and complexities that companies face as they deploy broadband network infrastructure.” The FCC “shot clock” ruling offers a prime example for how the FCC plans to use its considerable discretionary powers to “speed the deployment of wireless equipment on towers.” [NBP at page 110.]
2. Build an enforceable, national policy that removes delays and expense from the wireless siting and fiber deployment process
The NBP makes clear that the FCC possesses and will use its statutory authority (§224) over access to conduits, ducts, rights-of-way and poles to improve both the wireless and fiber deployment process. This includes:
Set uniformly low access rates to conduits, ducts, rights-of-way and poles (as regulated by §224 of the Communications Act). [Recommendations 6.1, 6.2.]
Establish a comprehensive timeline for resolving disputes regarding the §224 infrastructure access process. [Recommendation 6.3].
3. Make available data or maps about the structures, ducts and conduits available to backhaul carriers
The NBP seeks a Congressional amendment to §224 to provide the FCC authority to “compile and update a comprehensive database of physical infrastructure assets” and to set rules, rates and timelines for their access. [Recommendation 6.5]
4. Specifically designate spectrum for wireless backhaul
The NBP devotes a whole section to “Increasing the Flexibility, Capacity and Cost-Effectiveness of Spectrum for Point-to-Point Wireless Backhaul Services.” Supporting recommendations exist in other areas of the NBP. The FCC is asked to revise its rules to allow for reducing backhaul costs and for increased spectrum sharing among compatible point-to-point microwave services. The NBP notes this could include:
Opening TV “white spaces” spectrum for backhaul in very rural areas.
Providing faster link activation on additional channels in the 23 GHz band.
Greater special reuse of microwave frequencies, particularly in urban areas.
Modifying minimum throughput rules, particularly in rural areas.
Ease restrictions on antenna size where the economic benefits are clear.
Continue to promote use of higher frequencies where technological innovations make it attractive.
The FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are also asked to develop a joint roadmap to identify additional federal and non-federal spectrum that can be made accessible for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.
5. Shift Universal Service Fund (USF) availability from voice services to high-capacity broadband networks (including middle mile)
The NBP notes that FY2010 USF disbursements, which exist in four funds, are projected to reach $8.7 Billion and that those funds should be redirected from legacy telephone systems to high-capacity broadband networks.[1] Recommendation 8.2 asks the FCC to create the Connect America Fund (CAF) with funds from the currently $4.6 Billion per year High-Cost program, and that CAF funds should be spent on building and maintaining (i.e., Capex and Opex), “including middle mile,” in areas where no private sector business case provides the needed service.
See also Recommendation 8.8 (p. 148) which asks the FCC to examine middle mile costs and pricing in concert with the comprehensive USF/ICC reform program.
6. Set the conditions for National Emergency Backhaul Network (NEBN)
Recommendation 12.1 seeks for the FCC to establish a rulemaking for network redundancy and resiliency standards for commercial broadband networks (p. 251). Recommendation 16.1 asks Congress for $12-16 billion for the creation of a national public safety broadband network that promotes “sharing federal infrastructure, working with utilities, or use of state and local tower sites” (p.319).
Federal agencies are asked to act as broadband anchor tenants for multiple use networks in unserved or underserved communities. [Recommendation 14.1]. State and local governments expressed a strong desire to share broadband infrastructure with federal agencies. “In response to Section 414 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies and General Government Appropriations Act of 2005, the President directed the federal departments and agencies to deploy redundant communications links for all facilities.” P. 284.
7. Expand the GSA Networx contract to allow state and local governments to order backhaul and other services
Recommendation 14.2 asks Congress to “consider allowing state and local government to take advantage of [GSA] Networx and other [federal] communications contracts to enable cost savings and encourage broadband deployment.”
Are there areas of concern in the NBP?
Yes. The FCC was clear that the NBP is always in “beta”, and thus will be constantly tinkered with and its priorities may shift. Also, the NBP may create too much optimism and key recommendations may never be implemented. The pro-backhaul and other related recommendations generally need to be defended and promoted to make them a reality. Other recommendations may cause concern, if implemented improperly.
Overall though, Congress should be commended for requesting the NBP and the FCC deserves substantial credit for putting together this significant, detailed and cohesive plan, and for recognizing the central role that backhaul plays.
Reprinted from Converge! Network Digest
On March 16, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission released the nation’s first ever National Broadband Plan (NBP). One of the key elements addressed in the NBP is backhaul which is generally considered as the transport of voice, video and data traffic from a wireless carrier’s or public safety network’s base station (or cell site) to its mobile switching center (MSC). Backhaul is present in the NBP in some obvious and also subtle ways.
What is the National Broadband Plan (NBP)?
In early 2009, Congress directed the FCC to develop a NBP to restore the U.S. to a global leadership position in telecommunications and to utilize the broadband sector to drive economic development. It includes 198 formal recommendations. Half of the recommendations are offered to the FCC and the remaining half are offered to the Executive Branch, Congress, and state and local governments. The next 2-to-24 months will see a vigorous attempt to implement the recommendations. There are no guarantees that the recommendations will all be implemented.
The FCC will soon publish a timeline of proceedings to implement the plan recommendations within its authority, and related hearings before Congress will include recommended schedules for pursuing the recommendations with the other arms of government.
The 198 NBP recommendations seek specific steps to implement the elements and goals mentioned above, some of which directly address backhaul and middle mile issues. Other recommendations (such as making 500 MHz of spectrum available for mobile networks) create more demand for backhaul. The entire plan can be located at www.broadband.gov .
Backhaul Rides In
The NBP represents a sizeable “shift” toward supporting competition and making day-to-day broadband deployment tasks easier. The FCC repeatedly recognized that an effective NBP must recognize and support the role that backhaul plays in supporting end-user networks.
During the comment period leading to the NBP release, the FCC reviewed thousands of comments, held numerous workshops, and conducted its own hearings and also reported progress to Congress. Pro-backhaul advocacy centered around the following points:
- Re-enforce existing federal preemptions and “shot clocks” to reduce burdensome zoning and permitting restrictions for fixed wireless antenna placements,
- Establish an enforceable, national policy whose net effect is to remove delays and expense from the fiber deployment and wireless siting process,
- Make available data or maps about the structures, ducts and conduits available to broadband carriers in order to deploy multiple-use shared access systems that support last mile commercial and government networks,
- Set aside spectrum specifically designated for wireless backhaul,
- Reform the Universal Service Fund (USF) funding eligibility policy to shift the emphasis from bringing voice services to rural America, to bringing broadband (including funding eligibility for middle mile deployments), and
- Put in place the conditions to allow for building a physically-diverse National Emergency Backhaul Network (NEBN) to support multiple public safety, government, carrier-class commercial, and other mission-critical broadband services throughout the United States.
The NBP recommendations support the following policy positions:
1. Re-enforce existing tools to speed wireless deployments
The FCC noted that even prior to the NBP it started moving to “reduce costs by expediting processes and decreasing the risks and complexities that companies face as they deploy broadband network infrastructure.” The FCC “shot clock” ruling offers a prime example for how the FCC plans to use its considerable discretionary powers to “speed the deployment of wireless equipment on towers.” [NBP at page 110.]
2. Build an enforceable, national policy that removes delays and expense from the wireless siting and fiber deployment process
The NBP makes clear that the FCC possesses and will use its statutory authority (§224) over access to conduits, ducts, rights-of-way and poles to improve both the wireless and fiber deployment process. This includes:
Set uniformly low access rates to conduits, ducts, rights-of-way and poles (as regulated by §224 of the Communications Act). [Recommendations 6.1, 6.2.]
Establish a comprehensive timeline for resolving disputes regarding the §224 infrastructure access process. [Recommendation 6.3].
- Currently access disputes can “drag on for months if not years.” The FCC should establish a federal timeline for all forms of communications attachments and for certifying wireless equipment for attachment.
- Awarding compensation that dates from denial of access could encourage swifter dispute resolution.
3. Make available data or maps about the structures, ducts and conduits available to backhaul carriers
The NBP seeks a Congressional amendment to §224 to provide the FCC authority to “compile and update a comprehensive database of physical infrastructure assets” and to set rules, rates and timelines for their access. [Recommendation 6.5]
4. Specifically designate spectrum for wireless backhaul
The NBP devotes a whole section to “Increasing the Flexibility, Capacity and Cost-Effectiveness of Spectrum for Point-to-Point Wireless Backhaul Services.” Supporting recommendations exist in other areas of the NBP. The FCC is asked to revise its rules to allow for reducing backhaul costs and for increased spectrum sharing among compatible point-to-point microwave services. The NBP notes this could include:
Opening TV “white spaces” spectrum for backhaul in very rural areas.
- Recommendation 5.17 also requests that the FCC proceed with higher powered fixed use for white spaces in tribal lands.
Providing faster link activation on additional channels in the 23 GHz band.
Greater special reuse of microwave frequencies, particularly in urban areas.
Modifying minimum throughput rules, particularly in rural areas.
Ease restrictions on antenna size where the economic benefits are clear.
Continue to promote use of higher frequencies where technological innovations make it attractive.
The FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are also asked to develop a joint roadmap to identify additional federal and non-federal spectrum that can be made accessible for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.
5. Shift Universal Service Fund (USF) availability from voice services to high-capacity broadband networks (including middle mile)
The NBP notes that FY2010 USF disbursements, which exist in four funds, are projected to reach $8.7 Billion and that those funds should be redirected from legacy telephone systems to high-capacity broadband networks.[1] Recommendation 8.2 asks the FCC to create the Connect America Fund (CAF) with funds from the currently $4.6 Billion per year High-Cost program, and that CAF funds should be spent on building and maintaining (i.e., Capex and Opex), “including middle mile,” in areas where no private sector business case provides the needed service.
See also Recommendation 8.8 (p. 148) which asks the FCC to examine middle mile costs and pricing in concert with the comprehensive USF/ICC reform program.
6. Set the conditions for National Emergency Backhaul Network (NEBN)
Recommendation 12.1 seeks for the FCC to establish a rulemaking for network redundancy and resiliency standards for commercial broadband networks (p. 251). Recommendation 16.1 asks Congress for $12-16 billion for the creation of a national public safety broadband network that promotes “sharing federal infrastructure, working with utilities, or use of state and local tower sites” (p.319).
Federal agencies are asked to act as broadband anchor tenants for multiple use networks in unserved or underserved communities. [Recommendation 14.1]. State and local governments expressed a strong desire to share broadband infrastructure with federal agencies. “In response to Section 414 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies and General Government Appropriations Act of 2005, the President directed the federal departments and agencies to deploy redundant communications links for all facilities.” P. 284.
7. Expand the GSA Networx contract to allow state and local governments to order backhaul and other services
Recommendation 14.2 asks Congress to “consider allowing state and local government to take advantage of [GSA] Networx and other [federal] communications contracts to enable cost savings and encourage broadband deployment.”
Are there areas of concern in the NBP?
Yes. The FCC was clear that the NBP is always in “beta”, and thus will be constantly tinkered with and its priorities may shift. Also, the NBP may create too much optimism and key recommendations may never be implemented. The pro-backhaul and other related recommendations generally need to be defended and promoted to make them a reality. Other recommendations may cause concern, if implemented improperly.
Overall though, Congress should be commended for requesting the NBP and the FCC deserves substantial credit for putting together this significant, detailed and cohesive plan, and for recognizing the central role that backhaul plays.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
WCAI to Hold a Webinar on Spectrum Challenges and Availability for IMT in the Middle East
As the ITU is moving closer to finalizing its work on IMT-Advanced designation, regulators around the world are looking at the potential spectrum bands and working on the rules for these true 4G technologies. WCAI and its Global Development Committee (GDC) will hold a webinar on Wednesday, April 14 at 10 am (U.S. Eastern Time) to examine spectrum challenges, allocations and availability for the IMT and IMT-Advanced services in the Middle East. The webinar will feature Hasan Sharif, Senior Manager Spectrum Strategy at the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This webinar is free of charge and open to all. Register Now!
Monday, March 22, 2010
WCAI Members Invited to Attend a Webinar on FCC National Broadband Plan
The FCC this month delivered to Congress a massive, 360-page-long National Broadband Plan setting a U.S. broadband agenda for the next decade and beyond. The Plan outlines dozens of policy recommendations to achieve the ambitious goals of extending low-cost, high-speed Internet service to all Americans by 2020 and transforming the U.S. into a world leader in mobile broadband use and innovation. Mandated by last year's stimulus legislation, the Plan is widely expected to set the FCC's agenda for years to come.
Join the WCAI members-only virtual meeting on Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 2pm EDT and learn from Paul Sinderbrand, WCAI Counsel and a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, what this Plan means for the wireless broadband industry in general and for your business in particular.
This event is organized by the WCAI's Emerging Markets Committee and is open to WCAI members only. Register Now!
Join the WCAI members-only virtual meeting on Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 2pm EDT and learn from Paul Sinderbrand, WCAI Counsel and a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, what this Plan means for the wireless broadband industry in general and for your business in particular.
This event is organized by the WCAI's Emerging Markets Committee and is open to WCAI members only. Register Now!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Leveraging 802.16e WiMAX Technology in License-Exempt Bands
By Ashish Sharma, VP, Corporate Communications, Alvarion Ltd.
License-exempt spectrum bands make it possible for operators who do not have access to licensed spectrum to deploy wireless broadband networks. With Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.16e WiMAX technologies, license-exempt operators have access to the most advanced wireless broadband products on the market today and can take advantage of performance, ecosystem and volume of scale benefits in the same way incumbent, nationwide wireless operators (with spectrum licenses) do.
Today, 802.16e WiMAX supports fixed and nomadic services, and vertical applications in a range of license-exempt frequencies up to 6 GHz, including the 5.x GHz band. As 802.16e WiMAX products for license-exempt bands are introduced in the market, operators need to understand the value proposition of using these global standards-based wireless broadband solutions compared to alternatives. And, how do operators stand to gain from a proven license-exempt technology that was developed to support mobility? Finally, what are the extra features that 802.16e WiMAX offers that are key for operators to leverage?
Evaluating Performance Requirements
Now more than ever, wireless broadband operators are under intense pressure to achieve profitability rapidly and to provide data and voice services that can successfully compete with wireline services. To achieve these goals, operators need to clearly define their requirements and carefully select the technology that is best suited to meet them.
While some requirements depend on specific applications and services, there are a key common requirements that are independent of the applications and services supported and are crucial to all operators in license-exempt bands, including:
Alvarion’s BreezeMAX® Extreme 5000 is the industry’s first license-exempt WiMAX solution to meet operators requirements and enable the applications such as voice, broadband data and video surveillance. The BreezeMAX was designed to help speed up the deployment of broadband infrastructure into multiple market segments such as public safety, municipality operations and services, smart power grids, and government.
The case for deploying 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment
Over the last three years, 802.16e WiMAX technology has reached a point where there is a well-established evolution roadmap, with strong industry backing and a rapidly expanding ecosystemof more than 500 technology providers. The 802.16e WiMAX has a path toward the next generation in the soon to be ratified IEEE 802.16m version, which 802.16d TDD WiMAX lacks. Operators with 802.16e WiMAX-based networks will be able to seemlessly upgrade their infrastructure to 802.16m WiMAX when the equipment becomes available.
Operators using 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment in license-exempt bands can take advantage of the economies of scale achieved in licensed bands because vendors can modify the existing network equipment and devices to operate in license-exempt bands. Furthermore, having launched commercial products in the licensed WiMAX bands (i.e., 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, and 3.5 GHz), some vendors are expected to extend their produce line to license-exempt bands rapidly.
Support for mobility is another major benefit of 802.16e WiMAX. The prevailing attitude among operators is that mobility is a ‘nice-to-have’ feature that gives them additional flexibility in how they market their services. From a business model perspective, operators in license-exempt bands have so far been focused on fixed services and applications. From a technology perspective, full mobility in high-frequency license-exempt bands has been a challenge.
The interest from wireless operators and vertical market players is mostly tied to the potential to offer nomadic access or limited mobility, which can be easily tied to the service currently available as an add-on service. Mobility will also enable operators to expand the range of services they offer their vertical customers within their coverage area, and to include applications that require, for instance, support for the mobile workforce or in-vehicle connectivity (e.g., for safety and security, government, utilities and transportation applications).
Finally, 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment supports advanced functionality that is conducive to improved performance compared to 802.16d WiMAX and other wireless broadband technologies. The spectral efficiency of the air interface in the two versions of WiMAX in their basic configurations is comparable, but several features that are available or required in 802.16e WiMAX are not implemented in 802.16d TDD WiMAX equipment. For example, QoS is available in both versions of WiMAX, but 802.16e WiMAX can provide better support for voice services though an additional QoS level that makes it possible to dynamically allocate capacity to voice traffic only when needed.
WiMAX deployed in license-exempt bands today
Towerstream
This operator has been providing symmetric dedicated connections to businesses in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. since 2001, accumulating deep experience in many pre-WiMAX wireless broadband technologies.
An early supporter of WiMAX, Towerstream has been conducting trials of WiMAX solutions for the last three to four years, but it was only when 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment became available that the operator decided to make the transition. Any 802.16d WiMAX-based solution would have been a temporary one, eventually requiring a forklift upgrade—most likely before the initial investment could be recouped.
Business considerations were the major drivers to select 802.16e WiMAX-based technology, but performance was also carefully assessed. QoS, for instance, is crucial to provide robust voice services. Advanced antenna technologies including MIMO A and MIMO B bring a substantial improvement in the signal strength in challenging environments.
Adam Internet
Australian operator Adam Internetis the first ISP to deploy a wireless network in partnership with the South Australian Government, which is providing partial funding for the infrastructure development costs. Adam Internet provides both broadband connectivity and VoIP services to its WiMAX subscribers at fees comparable to those for metropolitan ADSL services, which are still the core of the operator’s service offerings.
With no access to licensed spectrum at this time, Adam Internet has chosen to use license-exempt spectrum equipment. When 802.16e WiMAX-based products operating in the 5 GHz band became available, Adam Internet was eager to trial them, and has become one of the first operators to deploy a 5 GHz 802.16e WiMAX-based network, launching in Adelaide in November 2009. The network rollout is done in close collaboration between Adam Internet network engineers, who have experience in point-to-point links used to connect business users and Alvarion engineers. A combination of wireless links and fiber provide the backhaul to the Adam Internet network.
802.16e WiMAX: A Clear Technology of Choice
Whether it’s a wireless operators plan to expand their residential or business service or seeking to grow their vertical market applications, or looking for a future-proof technology, 802.16e WiMAX is becoming an increasingly compelling option for license-exempt bands. Equipment based on 802.16e WiMAX supports full mobile access, but it also supports high-performance fixed networks. Today, Alvarion’s BreezeMAX Extreme 5000 is becoming the solution of choice because of its ability to lower the cost of high-bandwidth, carrier-class broadband connectivity for a variety of applications that fit market’s specific needs.
Thanks to the wide industry support for the 802.16e version of the standard, operators using 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment will be able to rely on a stronger ecosystem than available based on limited 802.16d TDD solutions, which in turn will translate into more robust interoperability and the availability of a wider range of affordable subscriber devices.
License-exempt spectrum bands make it possible for operators who do not have access to licensed spectrum to deploy wireless broadband networks. With Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.16e WiMAX technologies, license-exempt operators have access to the most advanced wireless broadband products on the market today and can take advantage of performance, ecosystem and volume of scale benefits in the same way incumbent, nationwide wireless operators (with spectrum licenses) do.
Today, 802.16e WiMAX supports fixed and nomadic services, and vertical applications in a range of license-exempt frequencies up to 6 GHz, including the 5.x GHz band. As 802.16e WiMAX products for license-exempt bands are introduced in the market, operators need to understand the value proposition of using these global standards-based wireless broadband solutions compared to alternatives. And, how do operators stand to gain from a proven license-exempt technology that was developed to support mobility? Finally, what are the extra features that 802.16e WiMAX offers that are key for operators to leverage?
Evaluating Performance Requirements
Now more than ever, wireless broadband operators are under intense pressure to achieve profitability rapidly and to provide data and voice services that can successfully compete with wireline services. To achieve these goals, operators need to clearly define their requirements and carefully select the technology that is best suited to meet them.
While some requirements depend on specific applications and services, there are a key common requirements that are independent of the applications and services supported and are crucial to all operators in license-exempt bands, including:
- High capacity. The technology used has to support high data rates, which effectively bring down the bit-based cost for the overall network. High data rates allow the operator to support a higher number of subscribers within the same sector, or to provide higher data allowances to subscribers.
- Robust coverage. Operators that deploy equipment in rural or low-density areas or support services requiring only limited bandwidth typically have coverage-driven networks. Establishing good coverage can be especially challenging in license-exempt bands because they typically have lower power allowances and higher frequencies than licensed bands.
- Interference management. While levels of interference vary by area and band used, wireless operators using license-exempt bands need tools to manage existing interference or to defend their investment from interference that may emerge in the future.
- Traffic management. Wireless broadband networks are increasingly used to support voice alongside data services, to serve customers with different service plans, access priority or allowances, and to support multiple types of vertical applications. A brute-force approach of providing more bandwidth than needed to avoid managing traffic is no longer cost effective or sufficient because traffic from individual users keeps growing at a fast pace. Quality of service (QoS) and traffic prioritization and management are needed to provide fair access to all subscribers, to support voice and video data, and, more generally, to provide priority access to those applications or services that require it, on the basis of the service level agreement (SLA) in place.
- Mobility support has not yet become a wide-spread requirement, but is a feature that many operators are interested in addressing today -- even if they do not yet plan to roll out services or vertical applications that require mobile access at launch.
Alvarion’s BreezeMAX® Extreme 5000 is the industry’s first license-exempt WiMAX solution to meet operators requirements and enable the applications such as voice, broadband data and video surveillance. The BreezeMAX was designed to help speed up the deployment of broadband infrastructure into multiple market segments such as public safety, municipality operations and services, smart power grids, and government.
The case for deploying 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment
Over the last three years, 802.16e WiMAX technology has reached a point where there is a well-established evolution roadmap, with strong industry backing and a rapidly expanding ecosystemof more than 500 technology providers. The 802.16e WiMAX has a path toward the next generation in the soon to be ratified IEEE 802.16m version, which 802.16d TDD WiMAX lacks. Operators with 802.16e WiMAX-based networks will be able to seemlessly upgrade their infrastructure to 802.16m WiMAX when the equipment becomes available.
Operators using 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment in license-exempt bands can take advantage of the economies of scale achieved in licensed bands because vendors can modify the existing network equipment and devices to operate in license-exempt bands. Furthermore, having launched commercial products in the licensed WiMAX bands (i.e., 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, and 3.5 GHz), some vendors are expected to extend their produce line to license-exempt bands rapidly.
Support for mobility is another major benefit of 802.16e WiMAX. The prevailing attitude among operators is that mobility is a ‘nice-to-have’ feature that gives them additional flexibility in how they market their services. From a business model perspective, operators in license-exempt bands have so far been focused on fixed services and applications. From a technology perspective, full mobility in high-frequency license-exempt bands has been a challenge.
The interest from wireless operators and vertical market players is mostly tied to the potential to offer nomadic access or limited mobility, which can be easily tied to the service currently available as an add-on service. Mobility will also enable operators to expand the range of services they offer their vertical customers within their coverage area, and to include applications that require, for instance, support for the mobile workforce or in-vehicle connectivity (e.g., for safety and security, government, utilities and transportation applications).
Finally, 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment supports advanced functionality that is conducive to improved performance compared to 802.16d WiMAX and other wireless broadband technologies. The spectral efficiency of the air interface in the two versions of WiMAX in their basic configurations is comparable, but several features that are available or required in 802.16e WiMAX are not implemented in 802.16d TDD WiMAX equipment. For example, QoS is available in both versions of WiMAX, but 802.16e WiMAX can provide better support for voice services though an additional QoS level that makes it possible to dynamically allocate capacity to voice traffic only when needed.
WiMAX deployed in license-exempt bands today
Towerstream
This operator has been providing symmetric dedicated connections to businesses in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. since 2001, accumulating deep experience in many pre-WiMAX wireless broadband technologies.
An early supporter of WiMAX, Towerstream has been conducting trials of WiMAX solutions for the last three to four years, but it was only when 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment became available that the operator decided to make the transition. Any 802.16d WiMAX-based solution would have been a temporary one, eventually requiring a forklift upgrade—most likely before the initial investment could be recouped.
Business considerations were the major drivers to select 802.16e WiMAX-based technology, but performance was also carefully assessed. QoS, for instance, is crucial to provide robust voice services. Advanced antenna technologies including MIMO A and MIMO B bring a substantial improvement in the signal strength in challenging environments.
Adam Internet
Australian operator Adam Internetis the first ISP to deploy a wireless network in partnership with the South Australian Government, which is providing partial funding for the infrastructure development costs. Adam Internet provides both broadband connectivity and VoIP services to its WiMAX subscribers at fees comparable to those for metropolitan ADSL services, which are still the core of the operator’s service offerings.
With no access to licensed spectrum at this time, Adam Internet has chosen to use license-exempt spectrum equipment. When 802.16e WiMAX-based products operating in the 5 GHz band became available, Adam Internet was eager to trial them, and has become one of the first operators to deploy a 5 GHz 802.16e WiMAX-based network, launching in Adelaide in November 2009. The network rollout is done in close collaboration between Adam Internet network engineers, who have experience in point-to-point links used to connect business users and Alvarion engineers. A combination of wireless links and fiber provide the backhaul to the Adam Internet network.
802.16e WiMAX: A Clear Technology of Choice
Whether it’s a wireless operators plan to expand their residential or business service or seeking to grow their vertical market applications, or looking for a future-proof technology, 802.16e WiMAX is becoming an increasingly compelling option for license-exempt bands. Equipment based on 802.16e WiMAX supports full mobile access, but it also supports high-performance fixed networks. Today, Alvarion’s BreezeMAX Extreme 5000 is becoming the solution of choice because of its ability to lower the cost of high-bandwidth, carrier-class broadband connectivity for a variety of applications that fit market’s specific needs.
Thanks to the wide industry support for the 802.16e version of the standard, operators using 802.16e WiMAX-based equipment will be able to rely on a stronger ecosystem than available based on limited 802.16d TDD solutions, which in turn will translate into more robust interoperability and the availability of a wider range of affordable subscriber devices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
