PCCW Ltd. (NYSE: PCW; Hong Kong: 0008) has dropped broadband wireless access vendor Navini Networks Inc. as a supplier of its U.K. network rollout.
In May this year PCCW’s local subsidiary, U.K. Broadband, announced plans to launch a 3.4GHz wireless broadband service in the Thames Valley area, using kit from both IPWireless Inc. and Navini. The network can potentially cover approximately 300,000 homes in west London (see PCCW Fixes UK Wireless and IPWireless Powers PCCW).
The company is now attempting to extend the service throughout the U.K., ploughing a reported $40 million into the commercial rollout of up to 60 base stations next year.
“We will be engaging in a phased rollout approach in urban areas starting in 2005,” marketing manager Hannah Williams tells Unstrung. “We have now been given funding for next year because our soft launch in the Thames Valley was successful. We are taking a prudent and balanced approach to that program.”
Despite the earlier partnership, Navini will not be included in such plans. “We were using both IPWireless and Navini Networks in the trial, but will be working with IPWireless as we progressively rollout. The technology [from IPWireless] was more in fitting with what we wanted to do,” says Williams.
IPWireless is attempting to court carriers with its high-speed time-division duplex (TDD) data system, which conforms to universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) standards but -- unlike standard cellular systems -- uses unpaired spectrum, sending and receiving data on one channel rather than two (see IPWireless Flies the TDD Flag and IPWireless Fattens Its Wallet for more detail on the vendor’s offering).
In contrast, Navini Networks is one of a glut of startups now talking up the nascent 802.16 market (see WiMax Gets 'Smart').
Navini is still listed as a partner in a statement on U.K. Broadband’s Website. The same blurb also notes the service provider will in the future “support the emerging WiMax standard for portable wireless broadband.”
Such a move now seems a distant venture. “The IPWireless technology we are using is based on UMTS-TDD and has the same future technology roadmap as 3G,” adds Williams. “It possesses the same qualities as the WiMax standard, ie portable, non-line-of-sight, broadband access. The difference is it is available and up and running today, whereas WiMax seems to be some time away. That is the reason for our decision.”
Navini could not be reached for comment by press time.
Does anyone have any feedback on power requirement of OFDM based wireless systems? I have heared that the power backoff and APR in OFDM systems can increase the cost of RF components e.g. amplifiers, etc. considerably. I guess if this is true then using a lower grade RF components with OFDM systems will reduce performance e.g bandwidth, reach, etc.
Any feedback from actual in field system deployment compared to lab experiments will be of great value.
UMTS board should sue IPWIRELESS for misleading the industry. How can IPWIRELESS claim that their technology is complying to 3GPP UMTS standards when their products are working in odd spectrums like 2053 MHz (Woosh), 3.4 GHz (PCCW) and now in the 800 MHz and 450 MHz.
This seems to fit into the pattern of all their other announcements. Just look what they are doing in the newly announced 450MHz product. As far from UMTS standards as Flarion or any other proprietary airlink technology. And this rumored deal in Czech in some strange 800 band adds one more "non-standards-based" notch to their belt.
UTSTARCOM and IPWIRESS are claiming that their radio equipment are complying to 3GPP UMTS standards but they can only provide us with only two references.
i) UK Broadband: which has a system running on 3.5 ghz
ii) WOOSH: which has a system running on odd spectrum of 2050 mhz (UTSTARCOM said to us that WOOSH network operates on 3G spectrum, this is unbelievable!!!!!)
They don’t have any network running on 3G spectrums.
To me, the only advantage that UTSTARCOM/IPWIRELESS has is 3GPP standard compliant but I think this is another misleading information from these two vendors.
My conclusion: TD-CDMA is another proprietary technology, just like iBurst or Navini. But iBurst and Navini can provide much better spectrum efficiency, latency and radio coverage. And I think their voice capacity is higher than TD-CDMA.
Woosh paid next to nothing for the odd spectrum (2050 mhz) that they are using for their wireless broadband network so they can afford to buy many more base stations; but it would be wiser for them to buy 802.11 Access Point instead of investing into IPWIRELESS gears. 802.11 Access Point works much better than IPWIRELESS base station for a small fraction of the cost.
IPWIRELESS is the only company on this planet manufacture 2050 mhz products for WOOSH. (It beats me when IPWIRELESS claims that their gears are complied with 3GPP UMTS standards when they are selling products working in the odd 2050 mhz spectrum.
WOOSH needs IPWIRELESS and vice versa. They need to support each other until they go bankrupt in few months time.
Woosh paid next to nothing for the odd spectrum (2050 mhz) that they are using for their wireless broadband network so they can afford to buy many more base stations; but it would be wiser for them to buy 802.11 Access Point instead of investing into IPWIRELESS gears. 802.11 Access Point works much better than IPWIRELESS base station for a small fraction of the cost.
IPWIRELESS is the only company on this planet manufacture 2050 mhz products for WOOSH. (It beats me when IPWIRELESS claims that their gears are complied with 3GPP UMTS standards when they are selling products working in the odd 2050 mhz spectrum.
WOOSH needs IPWIRELESS and vice versa. They need to support each other until they go bankrupt in few months time.
Dear Toshi, Please send the test report to ravkumar@yahoo.co.in Someone mentioned earlier the Whoosh network can provide only few voice users per sector. Do you have any voice capacity data on IP WIRELESS network? With the latency of 250-600 ms I dont know how they can provide good voice quality.
Dear Mr. Toshi, I assume that you have hands on experience with IP Wireless TD-CDMA equipment. Please share with me the experience that you have with latency, spectrum efficiency, uplink throughput and downlink data throughput. Currently we are evaluating IP Wireless and other wireless broadband technologies and just want to make sure that we select the right one.
UTSTARCOM who is IP WIRELESS reseller has presented to us some performance index but we find it's difficult to believe them. Especially when we hear many complaints about IP Wireless products.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Unstrung. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Unstrung content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit