Talk:IBurst/Archive 1

iBurst versus Wimax versus IPWireless versus UMTS TDD/HSDPA
This whole industrial area is a bit like arguing who has the best religion. Only differrence is that their are clear nationalities and companies behind each of the suporters.

1. iBurst is offered by humble Kyocera and Arraycom of Japan and the US. 2. Wimax is supported by aggresssive, world dominating chip maker Intel of the US. 3. IPwireless and Flarion is owned by Qualcomm who also happens to own most of the chipset rights for GSM/UMTS phones and CDMA phones. 4. UMTS is supported by the GSM association, a 450 strong telecom organisation, which is European in origin and still has Ericsson, Alcatel, Siemens as its main suppliers.

Now for some of the bias and incentives of these various camps:

1. iBurst: they just want to make return on a system which is about years ahead of UMTS+HSDPA+HSUPA and 7 years ahead of Wimax in terms of commercial deployements, performance, cost, base station capacity and range and finally QOS for mobile VOIP. Currently about 260 million people live in a country where iBurst is commercially deployed. 2. Wimax: Intel has invested in numerocvcvcvcvus tech companies along with Motorola. They all need to have good financial prospects for these startups and ofcourse they will also sell additional kit to the wimax operators and their customers. The fact that Intel goes to the extent of investing in avery Wimax operators smells like the 2003 broadband bubble. Samsung and Alvarion also have their own brand of Wimax and Korea politicians have given Samsung a great ride, probably as they also get other financial benefits from Samsung. 3. IPWireless+Flarion: Qualcom is simply defending its turf against everyone else. They will also try to keep their mobile operator clients happy with 2010+ upgrades to really good broadband at really good prices. 4. UMTS 3.5 and all the next releases: the GSM association does not want to see its oligopolistic mobile voice margin (along with ARPU) plumet as it should have 15 years after the launch (cf broadband ARPU, long distance fixed call ARPU). They have an incentive to see slow progress of any mobile VOIP sevice and also made a huge technical error with UMTS license cost using a technology about 100 times more expensive than the first 3 listed here.

Who will win? 3G has bought a lot of governments openly through 3G licenses and remain the richest of all. They will probably buy the winners in the IP broadband battle and keep or snuff out some of the new technologies. The power is also shifting to the fixed ISPs and that will shift the mobile power base.

Between the first 3 technologies, my bet is that they'll go on for a while with Wimax doing well in the US. In Europe Wimax got dealt bad 3.5Ghz spectrum (used for radar systems!) and is struggling to become a mobile solution as the initial fixed broadband wireless seems a non starterjudging from PCCW failure in UK and lack of roll-out progress elsewhere in Europe.

For the other 2, it's a bit early but Qualcomm may have some surprise and iBurst is doing very well in Asia and Africa. The new iBurst launch in Europe is also a positive start. No Intel support here to skew the reality so it's likely to be a serious contender.


 * I have been using iBurst in Moncton, Canada (redballinternet.ca) for a week now, using the desktop Kyocera modem, under average conditions. Works great! I get 50 to 100KB/s, videos stream without pausing, software is downloaded in seconds. In other words, its true broadband. Emmanuelm 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The IEEE 802.20 standard has not been ratified, unlike the WiMAX IEEE 802.16 standard.

The comment "iBurst's unprecedented capacity allow offers wireless broadband access throughout an entire city at a fraction of the cost of any other technology" is disupted as WiMAX technology is arguably cheaper to deploy and there are more and larger successful commercial deployments worldwide from several manufacturers of WiMAX-compatible equipment.

Copyright violation
Dear All, I am going to ask you, what's different kinds among Wimax and Iburst. What's advantage and disadvantage from this technology ? Need your advised for this issue..

Thanx and regards, -- The unprecedented capacity stems from iBurst's ultra-efficient use of spectrum. A system with only 5MHz of assigned spectrum will deliver in excess of 30Mbits per second from each base station. All base stations operate on the same frequencies - there is no frequency planning, and each frequency is re-used multiple times within a single cell by virtue of spatial division. Additionally it uses unpaired TDD spectrum, of which there is a great deal available in ideal small blocks in most countries. This makes acquisition of spectrum very cheap, it makes planning very cheap and even upgrading capacity is simply a matter of instering a new base station - there is no replanning of frequencies to be done. Additionally the iBurst system operates deep into buildings because it makes use of multipath propagation as an asset, as well as maintaining its performance into moving vehicles. The ability to operate in conditions of deep Rayleigh fading mean that the operating range of a base station is greater than the equivalent system without the multipath DSP. These are the factors that make it very cheap to deploy compared to other systems that do not enjoy these benefits. I think this answers both of the above.

Aiee
This is the first talk page I ever wanted to what with bias... 68.39.174.238 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Past tense?
Seems like it was big in 2007-2009 but we need to update to modern era, making it clear what happened when instead of using present tense. W Nowicki (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)