One-piece WiFi/WiMAX box - maybe not good idea
Sam Churchill
that the WiFi tends to kill the sensitivity of the WiMAX backhaul.
A PC Express Card inserted in a mobile router would be convenient - I
could pull it out of the mobile router and put it in a laptop,
Unfortunately seems technically crippled. Now I'm thinking I should
pursue a similar strategey -- using a WiMAX USB client on a long USB
cable.
I still think there could be room for a PTP/DD-WRT box with captive portal.
Michael Weinberg
>
> That one-piece WiFi/WiMAX box? It's probably not a good idea. I read
> that the WiFi tends to kill the sensitivity of the WiMAX backhaul.
Where did you read it, and which WiMAX band was it refering to? There
are a lot of WiFi/WiMAX gear that has 5.8 mesh backhaul with WiFi for
local access. I would think that if interference were an issue, those
would not be as popular as they are. I would expect that any licensed
WiMAX would avoid that by design.
--
Michael Weinberg
President
Personal Telco Project, Inc.
A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit
Sam Churchill
>> that the WiFi tends to kill the sensitivity of the WiMAX backhaul.
>
> Where did you read it, and which WiMAX band was it refering to? There
> are a lot of WiFi/WiMAX gear that has 5.8 mesh backhaul with WiFi for
> local access. I would think that if interference were an issue, those
> would not be as popular as they are. I would expect that any licensed
> WiMAX would avoid that by design.
>
> --
> Michael Weinberg
> President
> Personal Telco Project, Inc.
I'm not talking about 5.8 and 2.4. I'm talking about operating
on two closer channels (2.4 Ghz and 2.6 GHz) for backhaul and local access.
On page 26 & 27 of the flash-based WiMax Digital mag said WiFi could
interfere with WiMAX. It was by Intel's own Wireless CTO, Siavash Alamouti.
(http://cde.cerosmedia.com/1C470261080749a012.cde)
------------
"The next leap is with a cellular internet,"
explains Siavash Alamouti, the CTO of Intel's
Mobile Wireless Group, the man responsible
for developing Intel's wireless silicon.
The cellular internet is, of course, 802.16e
mobile WiMAX, but why WiMAX? Why wireless,
indeed? Not so long ago Intel's idea of ubiquitous
internet was fibre to the home.
"The business model necessities a low IPR
regime [but] the cellular regime is eff ectively
controlled by one or two companies. WiMAX IPR
is well distributed."
With Qualcomm, Ericsson and Nokia taking their
cut, Intel could never dominate 3G in the way it has
PCs, and so WiMAX is a better way to sell chipsets.
Furthermore, there are elements common to wifi and
WiMAX (both OFDM-based) Intel can reuse.
Consequently the incremental cost of adding
WiMAX to a laptop is "less than half the price
of 3G," according to Alamouti, who nevertheless
acknowledges that adding another radio creates
challenges and costs.
"They are in close frequencies and when one radio
is transmitting it shuts down the other receiver.
It is an RF problem of transmit power, a challenge
in the placement of antennas," he explains.
-----------
I hadn't thought of this. I was planning to buy an Express Card
for my mobile router. But maybe it would require special enginnering.
However, if WiFi can successfully operate on two 2.4 Ghz channels
(for backhaul and local access), I'm sure that would function okay at
2.4/2.6GHz.
What I'm now looking for is a USB WiMAX client with external antenna jacks.
A long USB cable plugged into directional WiMAX panels
- like a Nanostation2 without the radios - is what I have in mind.
- Sam
Sam Churchill
(1) Take two Nanostation 2s (one for WiMAX backhaul, one for local access).
(2) Strip out their radios.
(3) Install a mini ITX board with Open Wrt for PTP access on one NS2.
(4) Plug in the WiMAX usb and plug into the backhaul NS2.
(5) The whole thing runs outdoors on 12 watts and needs no DSL.
(6) Mount it behind acrylic (changeable) picture frame for aesthetics
and revenue.
Is that doable?
Rick Lindahl
I believe the interference they are referring to is when using the same
integrated antenna in a laptop and also when operating RF chipsets in close
proximity within the laptop. Interference would need to be blocked at the
chipset by shielding with any common antenna introducing an entirely
different problem. Not sure how Intel would handle that but this wouldn't be
a problem for your project, as I understand it. Intel is simply trying to
keep costs and space down on their chips.
When using separate radios, this problem is not an issue but you still need
to use some kind of shielding and separate antennas to mitigate the problem
that might occur if all encased in one box.
Rick Lindahl
"Your Wireless Solution Partner"
Invictus Networks, LLC
503-635-2562, f503-635-9207
www.invictusnetworks.com
Tyler van Houwelingen
2.5 (wimax backhaul) and 2.4 (wifi repeater) simultaneously. I have played
around with the ones from Samsung and Zyxel and they are pretty cool.
tyler
Tyler Booth
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
Portland OR 97205
Sam Churchill
- Sam
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Tyler Booth <ty...@stephouse.net> wrote:
> The NS2 runs OpenWRT out of the box, no reason to replace the board.
> Tyler Booth // President
> ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002
> 921 SW Washington St, Suite 224
> Portland OR 97205
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Sam Churchill wrote:
>
> Okay, here's another idea:
>
> (1) Take two Nanostation 2s (one for WiMAX backhaul, one for local access).
> (2) Strip out their radios.
> (3) Install a mini ITX board with Open Wrt for PTP access on one NS2.
> (4) Plug in the WiMAX usb and plug into the backhaul NS2.
> (5) The whole thing runs outdoors on 12 watts and needs no DSL.
> (6) Mount it behind acrylic (changeable) picture frame for aesthetics
> and revenue.
>
> Is that doable?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Sam Churchill
(www.dailywireless.org)
Thomas Fitzgerald
with bluetooth and WiFi, basically how it worked was the the WiFi radio
would tell the bluetooth radio what freq it was on, then the BT radio
would stay away from that channel.
It made a HUGE difference in both radios, the noise levels were minimal
in comparison to "non-Intel" chipsets. I am unaware if anyone else did
this in other laptops/devices (usually not)
The problem starts to happen when you mix multiple vendors' radios
together.
http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/wireless/prowireless_mobile.htm
Performance
With throughput up to 54 Mbps at 5 GHz (802.11a) and 2.4 GHz (802.11g),
the Intel® PRO/Wireless network connection family enables fast network
connections. The Intel® Wireless Coexistence System helps reduce
interference with certain Bluetooth* devices.