Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 17:32 UTC

WiMAX-dedicated wireless VLAN  

WiMAX communications is a type of the broadband communications so that it is vulnerable to collisions between signals from two different antennas or two different mobiles or two different signals from a mobile and an antenna. The coordination between antennas and mobiles is the best way to avoid the collision because no signals of similar frequencies will be emitted at the same time.

The WiMAX antennas coordinate between eacg other over the terrestrial network. A specified VLAN can be dedicated for the coordination between WiMAX antenna to avoid emitting signals of similar frequencies to avoid the occurance of collisions and intereferences. However, the alternative is very helpful in the application of technology and this dedicated terrestrial VLAN may be haulted or supposed to a glitch. Another wireless VLAN should be dedicated between the mobiles theirselves. This wireless VLAN will be independent of the terrestrial VLAN and even it will be supervised by a different server.

The question here is that if a collision already occurs between mobile signals. How will this wireless VLAN operate ? The answer is that this collision is occasional and intermittent and it is enough for this wireless VLAN to be connected for short periods to achieve its required task.

Jan 24, 17 / Aqu 24, 01 11:22 UTC

The question I have is why intentionally adopt a proprietry technology with licence requirements?

Building something to perform the same purpose from scratch, but leveraging diferent technologies IMHO would be a "better" approach

Jan 24, 17 / Aqu 24, 01 18:00 UTC

I t is not a supposed technology from scratch. It's totally a networking issue as a specified VLAN will be dedicated for mobiles already connected to the internet. This VLAN may be dedicted by a cellular communication company for its hosts and servers for this VLAN will be dedicted for it by the company too. Even though this aim may be achieved by the antannas over the terrestrial network, providing alternatives, such as another dedicated wireless VLAN for mobiles, will be very helpful.

Jan 25, 17 / Aqu 25, 01 09:19 UTC

I was under the impression that operation on such a scale would be requiring license. In most regions. The idea of going from scratch is to possibly leverage something unthought of and thusly not restricted. Preferably something not so easy to interfere with.

I'm all for alternate networks - but why not, say, a 2.4Ghz meshnet? it'd be easier to distribute and operate. I'd thought of buying up all the old 3G equipment, as the 4G overhaul has left much of this for sale at a semi reasonable price - but again there's licensing restrictions in most areas, and it opens up a whole range of headaches. People clippling a small unit with a solar panel charging an 18650 powering a boosted ESP8266 can be difficult to prevent. Mostly because that can be rendered cheap enough to put it in more places than can be stopped. It could provide an alternate access mesh for incredibly wide areas of populated regions - but continental links would still require to traverse the "traditional" networks. Until we have satellite capacity.

Feb 3, 17 / Pis 06, 01 20:13 UTC

If he's talking about what I think he's talking about, WiMax operates the same frequency range as a common wireless router. It's just a router on steroids with a directional antenna.

And the problem there is power output specs are limited by national governments.

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 17:55 UTC

I was under the impression it requires a license to operate, just like LTE. Seems there is some unlicensed up in the 5.3Ghz and 5.8Ghz bands, and no these are not "common wireless router" frequency ranges. 802.16 might share some spectrum with "wireless routers"(ie: 802.11X) but it's completely different - hence having it's own specification.