TERM PAPER

OF

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

NAME: ANKIT RAJPAL MR.ANKUR SODHI

CLASS: BTECH (H) MBA-CSE

SEC: 147

ROLLNO: 147A14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I am highly indebted to (Mr.ANKUR SODHI) for providing me necessary

guidance and inspirational support throughout this work, without which this
work would not have been in present shape.
I am also thankful to (Mr.ANKUR SODHI ) for providing their full
support, at all the times whole heartedly, without which it was impossible to
complete this work.
I also extend my thanks to other staff of the my college for their
corporation.

And I would also like to thank all my teachers who have helped me
directly or indirectly during my work.
 STUDY OF WIMAX

INTRODUCTION:

What is Wimax?

Ans: WiMAX is a wireless digital communications system i.e. intended for

wireless ". WiMAX can provide broadband wireless access for fixed
stations . In contrast, the WiFi wireless local area network standard is
limited in most cases to only 100 - 300 feet (30 - 100m).

With WiMAX, WiFi-like data rates are easily supported, but the issue of
interference is lessened. WiMAX operates on both licensed and non-
licensed frequencies, providing a regulated environment and viable
economic model for wireless carriers.

WiMAX can be used for wireless networking in much the same way as the
more common WiFi protocol. WiMAX is a second-generation protocol that
allows for more efficient bandwidth use, interference avoidance, and is
intended to allow higher data rates over longer distances.

The IEEE 802.16 standard defines the technical features of the

communications protocol. The WiMAX Forum offers a means of testing
manufacturer's equipment for compatibility, as well as an industry group
dedicated to fostering the development and commercialization of the
technology.
WiMax.com provides a focal point for consumers, service providers,
manufacturers, analysts, and researchers who are interested in WiMAX
technology, services, and products. Soon, WiMAX will be a very well
recognized term to describe wireless Internet access throughout the wor

Skills of Wimax:

WiMAX services will generate $53 billion in mobile revenue in 2011 and
will generate $65 billion in mobile capital expenditures between these
periods. TelecomView's new report Broadband Strategies for the Mobile
Market analyzes the market for 3G .WiMAX mobile networks with
forecasts through 2011 along with a business case, which illustrates the
benefits of WiMAX architecture in high-speed mobile networks.

"We forecast that WiMAX will account for at least half of the broadband
mobile service revenues in North America. "They also believe that it will be
a key technology in Asia, and think that it will lag behind 3G technologies in
Europe given the investment being made in 3G and HSDPA."

They show that the ROI for WiMAX is two to three times better than 3G
technologies," This report is available and identifies the strategies of major
wireless carriers and systems companies. It covers new mobile broadband
wireless developments and technologies.It discusses regulatory issues, and
the business case for both green field and incumbent mobile carriers. The
forecast is segmented into four regions globally and includes charts for both
WiMAX and 3G in mobile networks and a set of detailed country forecasts.

This is the next in a series of reports from TelecomView on the broadband

wireless market..

About TelecomView:TelecomView provides strategic analysis of the

telecommunications industry in its reports .They can through private
consulting engagements. It focuses on the needs of service providers,
manufacturers, and investors concerned about wireline and wireless access
switching and routing technologies and markets.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this research is to investigate for the possibility of a

Femtocell based on WiMAX technology, particularly in the home
environment. The comparison to the proposed 3G Femtocell will be done.
Cost, performance and implantation difficulties are the main concerns. The
feasibility study will also identify the technical areas that need further
research that could improve/enhance the implementation.
The research outcomes of the proposed project will ultimately benefit the
consumers as well as the service providers. The research is in the
telecommunication sector, but consequently it affects to our daily life in
terms of socialising, entertaining and learning at home. The research will
also benefit the operators in the way of extending their network coverage,
and retaining existing subscribers with low prices and good service is the
only way to maintain the market share.

WiMAX.com is the leading community portal for the worldwide WiMAX

community.
It consists of two integrated components:

• The WiMAX.com Web site, which is a comprehensive news and

information resource on all things WiMAX.
• The WiMAX 360 forum, which is a Web 2.0 community site where
WiMAX engineers, developers and implementers congregate to share
information and experiences in developing and deploying WiMAX
technologies and services.

WiMAX.com is an independent organization, with no affiliation to the

WiMAX Forum. Our goal is to be the most trusted, unbiased,
comprehensive source of news, information, opinion, analysis and
community for WiMAX decision-makers worldwide.

What does WiMAX.com do?

WiMAX.com aims to be the first, and only, stop for anyone seeking any
information on anything related to WiMAX. Every day we cull the most
important WiMAX news and present it, unbiased, on the site. We post
expert content from important leaders and visionaries in the WiMAX
community. We post blogs and feature articles that address critical issues in
deploying and developing WiMAX. We present a comprehensive Learning
Center that provides rich business and technical information, from basic to
advanced levels. We provide a one-stop-shop for individuals looking for
WiMAX white papers, books, research, events, jobs and training.

Beyond all of that, we provide the home and the tools for WiMAX leaders,
developers and decision-makers to communicate among themselves, to share
ideas, to help conquer challenges and to comment daily on WiMAX issues,
trends, technologies and opportunities. There is no other WiMAX-focused
community portal that compares to the WiMAX 360 forum in terms of the
passion, commitment and conversation that it evokes and inspires among
WiMAX decision-makers worldwide.

What does WiMAX.com offer?

Access to the information and community on WiMAX.com and in the

WiMAX 360 forum is available free to anyone in the WiMAX community.
There is no fee for most content, although we do require registration for
some of the information and community. The site is alive with fresh content
and conversation everyday, throughout the day. Beyond the standard
content and community inherent in the site, WiMAX.com also provides:

• A bi-weekly newsletter to registered members of WiMAX.com who

request it. This goes out to more than 19,000 individuals every week
and covers a wide range of content and resources.
• A monthly technical newsletter that goes to registered member. This
goes out to more than 19,000 individuals and highlights 5 industry
specific technical papers and resources.
• Web Seminars that address key issues for the WiMAX community.
• WiMAX-related seminars and executive roundtables.
• A clearinghouse for white papers, jobs, buyer's guides, books,
research and training for everything related to WiMAX. Vendors can
post open jobs for free, individuals can buy books directly off the
WiMAX.com Web site and technical professionals can sign up
directly for training through our own WiMAX University.

What is the WiMAX.com business model?

Because virtually all of our content and community is provided free of
charge, the primary business model for WiMAX.com is sponsor-driven. We
provide sponsors with access to the fastest-growing, most influential
audience of WiMAX decision-makers in the world. Sponsors have a
number of avenues by which to reach this audience, including:

• Banner advertising on the WiMAX.com Web site

• Exclusive advertising on WiMAX 360 forum
• Banner and text advertising in newsletters
• Sole-sponsored Web Seminars
• Targeted e-mail messaging
• Dedicated company profile microsites
• Dedicated white papers
• Sole-sponsored or multi-sponsored seminars or roundtables
• Event participation and promotion at key industry conferences

Who does WiMAX.com reach?

Each month the WiMAX.com web site attracts an average of more than
80,000 unique visitors, generating more than 200,000 page impressions.
These are the world's most active WiMAX buyers and developers, coming
from more than 180 different countries. More than three quarters of them
have the authority to recommend, approve, purchase or influence the
purchase of WiMAX products or services at their company.

The WiMAX 360 forum digs deeper into that population and offers a
membership of more than 5,000 individuals who are extremely active, often
on a daily basis, communicating, interacting and sharing information with
their colleagues and peers. The membership in the WiMAX 360 forum is
growing at a rate of about 100 people per week, a testimony to both the
growing interest in WiMAX and in the growing appeal of the community
Web site.

On both WiMAX.com and WiMAX 360 there are a mix of technical and
business professionals, with a large population of WiMAX engineers and
developers. The best way to learn about the audience and its needs is to
witness the daily comments and activities on the WiMAX 360 forum.
What's the background of WiMAX.com?

WiMAX.com has been providing news, information, analysis and

interaction to the WiMAX community for more than three years. Because of
that we have the largest archive of WiMAX-related material anywhere and
we have a strong understanding of where WiMAX has been and where it is
going.

Where is WiMAX.com going?

In 2008 we revamped our Web site to make it easier to navigate and we are
adding new sources of comment and commentary. We are growing our
blogs and resources and, most important, we are growing our audience and
community. The WiMAX.com 360 forum has been an amazing study in
Web 2.0 community development, growing organically to more than 5,000
members mostly by word-of-mouth, one member inviting another. By the
end of the year, we expect to have more than

For wireless broadband operators, the availability of affordable, clean

spectrum in which they can deploy the most advanced technologies is
critical to their success.

Until recently, operators in the US have faced spectrum restrictions that have
limited the market growth of wireless broadband services. License-exempt
bands in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz frequencies have been successfully used
by many operators, but interference has increasingly become an issue,
especially for Point to Multipoint (PMP) networks. In these bands,
operators face interference not only from other operators, but also from
consumer devices (microwaves, phones, residential Wireless Local Area
Network [WLAN] hardware, etc.) that make it difficult to manage
interference successfully.

The other two bands that are available in many markets are 2.5GHz and
3.5GHz. The 2.5GHz band is available in the US, but it is largely controlled
by large operators-mostly by Clearwire, Sprint, and AT&T. In most
countries, wireless broadband operators have access to licensed spectrum in
the 3.5-3.7GHz band-along with a large choice of commercial equipment,
because this is the licensed band most widely used for fixed broadband
services. In the US, wireless operators were not able to use this band until
the end of 2007.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognized the spectrum

limitations that US operators faced, and introduced an innovative licensing
scheme in the 3.65GHz band. It is designed to unlock the market potential
for wireless services and widen the availability of broadband to underserved
areas in the country. The newly available spectrum is subject to light
licensing: licenses are not exclusive, and they are easy and inexpensive to
obtain. In many ways, the 3.65GHz band promises to combine most of the
advantages of unlicensed bands with substantially lower, manageable levels
of interference

While the light-licensing scheme used for the 3.65GHz band is still largely
untested because of its recent introduction, the results so far are very
encouraging. Commercial equipment based on Worldwide Interoperability
for Microwave Access (WiMAX) with the necessary FCC approval is now
available from multiple vendors. In some cases where vendors have
invested in Interoperability Testing (IOT), operators can use interoperable
gear from different vendors within the same network. As of September
2008, 420 operators nationwide have applied for or received a license, and
some of them have launched commercial services using WiMAX-based
equipment.

Wireless operators have welcomed the availability of the spectrum in the

3.65GHz band because it allows them to better serve their existing and
prospective clients, to extend coverage, or to start new deployments in a
cost-effective way. This is possible because, in addition to the low levels of
interference, the 3.65GHz band has good propagation characteristics that
enable Non-Line-Of-Sight (NLOS) operations. This results in lower
deployment costs and better coverage.

The additional benefit of the 3.65GHz band is that it brings wireless

operators access to WiMAX-based technology, which before now was
available only for licensed spectrum. WiMAX supports improved spectral
efficiency, lower per-bit costs, and Quality of Service (QoS) for carrier-
grade voice services and enterprise Service Level Agreements (SLAs). As
WiMAX equipment is deployed worldwide, operators can expect to reap the
advantages of economies of scale-lower equipment prices and wider choice
of vendors and products-even though equipment for the US market has to be
slightly modified to meet the domestic regulatory requirements.

The FCC regulatory framework for the 3.65GHz band:

Licensing in the 3.65GHz band and FCC product certification both started in
2007, with the first commercial deployments announced in 2008.

WiMAX gets a jump on mobile broadband high-speed uplink video

streaming applications.

Live video capture and streaming from mobile devices sets the highest bar of
performance testing for emerging mobile broadband systems, including
WiMAX and LTE. Livecast announced that it has been selected by WiMAX
Forum to partner with the WiMAX Forum's Applications Lab Task Group
(ALTG) and their two sanctioned testing facilities located at the Maxwell
Lab (University of Maryland) and M-Taiwan Applications Lab (Taiwan).
The objective of the partnership is to provide a hands-on testing environment
where real-world applications can be exercised on WiMAX technologies.

Livecast combines real-time video from mobile devices with location based
services (LBS) and GPS technologies. This results in dynamic mapping of
live video feeds. The company was invited by WiMAX Forum to ensure that
live video could be demonstrated to global operators while also helping to
drive customer adoption. "WiMAX's enhanced uplink speeds enable the
Livecast platform to provide high bit rate encoding," said William Mutual,
Livecast CEO. "The resulting Livecast video will have a higher frame rate,
better resolution, in a more stable and robust environment." Additionally,
Livecast's end-to-end WiMAX solution is optimized for use by the latest
mobile internet devices (MIDs), internet tablets, netbooks and laptops.

WiMAX is seen as a mobile broadband platform well-suited for uplink

video performance (the speed at which data moves from the mobile device
to the operator's network); necessary for real-time transmission of audio and
video to a streaming media server. A recent Livecast demonstration during
the Sprint XOHM launch in the United States captured driving scenes in
various cities from autos with Livecast-ready mobile devices placed on
dashboards. Real-time video of the streets, buildings and billboards
broadcasted over the Internet at the same time individual drivers experience
it themselves.

WiMAX Forum has established independent testing labs in Maryland, USA

and Hsinchu, Taiwan to showcase mobile broadband applications. Operators
can experience real-world examples of advanced services, evaluating
configurations and performance before committing to operational readine

The FCC's goal was to create a band with low entry costs and minimal
regulatory delays to enable multiple wireless operators to roll out services,
while keeping interference at a minimum. In trying to find a compromise
between expensive, difficult-to-obtain licensed spectrum and interference-
prone unlicensed spectrum, the FCC decided to adopt a nonexclusive
licensing scheme with a contention protocol requirement.

Under the nonexclusive licensing scheme, there is no limit to the number of

operators that can obtain a nationwide license. The implicit expectation is
that each operator will focus on selected geographical areas and that this will
prevent spectrum overcrowding. Obtaining a license in the 3.65GHz
spectrum is a fast and straightforward process that can be completed at any
time with minimal cost (210 USD).

To manage interference, the FCC uses two tools: a requirement that

operators "make any effort" necessary to minimize harmful interference, and
the adoption of a contention protocol. All operators with a license are
required to register their base station locations with the ULS (Universal
Licensing System) prior to deployment, and to appropriately coordinate
operations to minimize interference. Operators that deploy first in a given
area do not enjoy any first-to-market advantage over operators coming on
later. They are all required to collaborate to find a solution that enables
multiple operators to coexist.

Furthermore, base station registration allows new entrants in a market to

evaluate spectrum availability-as well as market potential-based on the base
stations already installed. This may turn out to be the most effective tool in
preventing spectrum (and market) overcrowding. In most markets, there is
effectively room for only one or two operators to roll out services profitably
in the band. In this sense, early operators enjoy a substantial advantage and
may effectively stop others from entering the market, unless they are not
successful at attracting or retaining customers.
The adoption of a contention protocol to manage interference has attracted a
lot of criticism from operators and vendors alike, especially as the FCC
initially had not defined what the contention protocol was. In 2007, the FCC
issued a clarification that opened the door to equipment certification, but
there is still considerable uncertainty about which contention protocols will
be allowed by the FCC.

The FCC has defined two types. A restricted contention protocol manages
interference among devices using the same wireless interface. WiMAX
qualifies as implementing a restricted contention protocol, as multiple
subscriber devices can coexist within the same network, and multiple
networks can coordinate operations to minimize interference. All products
certified by the FCC to date support restricted contention protocols.

Unrestricted contention protocols work across multiple wireless air

interfaces. The FCC defines such a protocol as one that "can avoid co-
frequency interference with devices using all other types of contention-based
protocols."

The "listen-before-you-talk" protocol used by Wi-Fi is the most commonly

cited example of an unrestricted contention protocol. While a listen-before-
you-talk protocol can limit the impact of interference, it carries significant
overhead requirements that can dramatically affect the spectral efficiency of
the technology. For the end user, the difference in performance between
interference and network congestion may be difficult to see. As of
September 2008, the FCC had not yet certified any equipment that supports
an unrestricted contention protocol, but the IEEE 802.11y Amendment was
defined to develop equipment that meets the FCC requirements using Wi-Fi
technology.

The FCC has reserved the upper half of the spectrum (3.675-3.700 GHz) for
equipment using only unrestricted contention protocols, to encourage their
development. The lower half of the band (3.650-3.675 GHz) is available to
equipment that implements both types of contention protocols.

The FCC has also taken into account the fact that the band was already
allocated to FSS licensees and to radiolocation services. As a result,
wireless operators are not allowed to operate in areas surrounding
grandfathered satellite earth stations and radiolocation stations.
The Market Impact:

The availability of the 3.65GHz band on a nonexclusive licensed basis

greatly expands the market opportunity for wireless broadband services in
the US. It will widen the availability of broadband in digital-divide,
underserved areas, and it will provide more choice to broadband subscribers
in competitive markets.

It is still unclear whether the contention protocol and frequency coordination

mandated by the FCC will be effective in controlling the impact of
interference. The new licensing scheme adopted for the 3.65GHz band may
prove effective and usher in further innovation in licensing frameworks in
the US and abroad. If its effectiveness is limited, operators will still benefit
from affordable access to the 3.65GHz band and from the ability to finally
deploy WiMAX-based solutions in the US, even if they do not have access
to the much more expensive and difficult-to-obtain 2.5GHz spectrum.

All types of fixed wireless operators in the US can benefit from the
availability of the 3.65GHz spectrum-although, realistically, in each market
the number of operators that will be able to successfully operate side by side
within the band will be limited. This may have the positive effect of
containing interference within manageable levels.
Established wireless broadband operators have already started to deploy
3.65GHz equipment to expand their reach to new market segments, to offer
new services, or to improve the performance or capacity of their network.

The availability of WiMAX technology for the 3.65GHz band will give both
new and established operators the ability to roll out carrier-grade networks
with improved performance, NLOS capabilities, and QoS support, which
can support voice and data services on the basis of a compelling business.
broadband mesh topologies (i.e. 1 hop or 2 hop) that deliver high speed data
services to residential, SOHO, and large enterprises by a competitive local
exchange carrier based on future WiMAX certified products. Regardless of
fixed or mobile broadband wireless, the service offered should be affordable
to all classes of the society. There are many new solutions, new income
opportunities and sometimes-complicated business models for each type of
mesh architecture. The different architectures of broadband wireless have
been examined and we propose a cost effective infrastructure for deploying
WiMAX systems. WiMAX, worldwide interoperability for microwave
access, is an emerging wireless communication system that can provide
broadband access with large-scale coverage. As a cost-effective solution,
multihop communication is becoming more and more important to WiMAX
systems. To successfully deploy multihop WiMAX networks, security is one
of the major challenges that must be addressed. Another crucial issue is how
to support different services and applications in WiMAX networks. Since
WiMAX is a relatively new standard, very little work has been presented in
the literature. In this article we propose a secure and service-oriented
network control framework for WiMAX networks. In the design of this
framework we consider both the security requirements of the
communications and the requirements of potential WiMAX applications that
have not been fully addressed previously in the network layer design. The
proposed framework consists of two basic components: a service-aware
control framework and a unified routing scheme. Besides the design of the
framework, we further study a number of key enabling technologies that are
important to a practical WiMAX network. Our study can provide a guideline
for the design of a more secure and practical WiMAX network. Choosing a
Network Irish Broadband’s research clearly demonstrated that building a
broadband wireless access (BWA) network would be the fastest, least
expensive, and most flexible way to cover the underserved areas of Ireland
and meet the rising demand for reliable broadband services in the country.
With limited initial capital required and low network operating costs —
proportional to customer base and capacity — Irish Broadband was attracted
to BWA, since it would enable it to provide full broadband services, without
needing an expensive fiber or satellite network or having to rely on the
copper infrastructure of its competitor, the incumbent operator. Also, BWA
would allow reaching areas not yet serviced by existing infrastructures and,
once the network was established, to connect new customers within hours.
BWA networks are easy to upgrade, grow and expand. As BWA base
stations all share the same frequency spectrum, if a base station needs more
capacity, additional bandwidth is simply allocated on the backhaul link.

Choosing a BWA Vendor:

Convinced of the value of deploying a BWA network, Irish Broadband then
had to look for a credible and reliable equipment vendor. As a market leader
with installations in over 150 countries, Alvarion’s pedigree impressed Irish
Broadband, as did the performance of its equipment in multiple trials and the
staff expertise, making the decision to use Alvarion’s BreezeACCESS base
stations and CPEs easy.
Irish Broadband’s Network:
In May 2003, less than one year after getting its license, Irish Broadband
began offering service using the license-free 2.4GHz frequency band in
Dublin with Alvarion base stations in seven locations around the city. Irish
Broadband’s network was a success from the start, with customers queuing
up to get broadband connectivity at prices starting from €35 a month for
home users and €45 per month for businesses.

Evolution:

IEEE 802.16 was originally design to be a radio standard for cost-effective

last-mile broadband connectivity to users not served by wired broadband
such as DSL or cable. By now, this WMAN (Wireless Metropolitan Area
Network) standard is addressing a broader market for mobile, low-cost,
high-speed broadband connections. It is optimized for high, bursty data-
rates, but can simultaneously support real-time multimedia and isochronous
applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP).

802.16 standards and deployment evolution.

(Source: Intel Technology Journal, Volume 8, Issue 3, 20 August 2004)

The frequency band between 10 and 66 GHz is provided for line-of-sight

(LOS) solutions for a variety of licensed frequencies (10.5, 25, 26, 31, 38
and 39 GHz), the 2 to 11 GHz frequency band for non-line of sight (NLOS)
solutions over both licensed and license-exempt frequencies. The minimum
channel bandwidth for WiMAX is 1.75 MHz per channel, 10 MHz being
considered as optimum. It remains to be seen what impact potential
interference may have, especially on QoS commitments.
The current 802.16-2004 standard is the base standard and will be amended
in 2005 by 802.16e, adding primarily some mobility support.

Different kinds of WiMAX products will be offered, likely covering the

following areas:

• Fixed wireless solutions using outdoor antennas (based on 802.16-

2004), which can be used for cellular and hotspot backhaul, high-
speed enterprise connectivity, and premium residential Internet
services (e.g. high-speed Internet access, VoIP); available by mid
2005.
• Smaller indoor antennas for fixed connections (based on 802.16-
2004), for a broader residential high-speed Internet coverage, allowing
for installation by the consumer; available by end of 2005.
• Products for mobile terminals, supporting mobility and movement
between different WiMAX service areas (based on 802.16e); available
in the course of 2006.
• Meshed networking or multi-hop (based on 802.16f ), where every
Subscriber Station (SS) can also function as Base Station (BS),
forwarding traffic from one SS to the next until it arrives finally at the
BS.

Lack of competition, licences undermine WiMAX -:

Delays in awarding WiMAX licences and a lack of competition in the sector

had undermined the rollout of high-speed broadband wireless services. This
was the conclusion of a new study by World Wide Worx, released today.

The report, WiMAX in SA 2008: Year Zero shows that only those
companies that have already deployed WiMAX have appreciated its impact.

However, the report points out that these companies are all using Telkom’s
scaled down version of WiMAX, which is provided only where its ADSL
fixed line service is not available, and only at ADSL-type speeds. WiMAX
can theoretically offer speeds of up to 70Mbps, as opposed to ADSLs fastest
option in South Africa of 4Mbps.
Even at far lower speeds, however, the potential offered by WiMAX is not
yet on the horizon, since no serious competition exists to spur its roll-out,
says Arthur Goldstuck, MD of World Wide Worx.

The impact of such low roll-out is that expectations for WiMAX are being
kept artificially low, he adds. The long wait for the availability of the
technology has resulted in both frustration and suspicion that it cannot
deliver.

The WiMAX in SA 2008 study reveals that a just 8 percent of corporations

had adopted WiMAX options as part of their connectivity mix in 2007.
However, they did not use WiMAX as a preferred or only form of
connectivity, but deployed it where no other options were available, such as
in rural areas or areas with rough terrain that made fixed line connectivity
impossible or uneconomical.

Goldstuck says that a number of factors, such as lower cost, smaller base
stations and easier deployment, mean that WiMAX is an ideal solution for
providing broadband data and even telephone services to rural and remote
areas. It is also seen as a powerful technology for bringing affordable yet
quality Internet access to isolated communities. In addition, it is regarded as
an ideal technology for connecting corporate networks at high speed, and it
is already playing a small role in this regard.

He says that projections for 2008 indicate a significant increase in WiMAX

deployment, with an expected 20 percent of corporations deploying it as an
element of their connectivity solutions. Once again, it is not yet a primary
form of connectivity, but rather being deployed where fixed line and digital
line options are not available.

The fact that only those companies deploying WiMAX had appreciated its
impact and importance, said Goldstuck, pointed to the damage that
regulatory delays had inflicted on the WiMAX cause. Although WiMAX
trial licences had been issued to a number of operators more than a year ago,
and these licences had officially expired in January this year, the trial
networks were being allowed to continue operating in pilot status until full
licences are awarded.

However, this means that commercial services still cannot be offered by

these licence holders, he said.

While Vodacom has announced it will include WiMAX among its new
access services, it has not yet announced pricing or performance options.
Meanwhile, it is already able to sell such services through a loophole
provided by its shareholding in iBurst. The wireless broadband network has
a licence that technically allows it to offer WiMAX, although it is not
specified in its licence.

This adds to the confusion rather than supports the WiMAX case, says
Goldstuck.

Another consequence of delayed roll-out is that few corporate customers, let

alone consumers, are aware of who the appropriate suppliers will be further
limiting their ability to include WiMAX options in their budgeting and
infrastructure plans.

Even when WiMAXs importance is rated as an emerging technology over

the next five years, from 2008 to 2012, its significance is not recognised
outside those companies that have already deployed it, according to the
research.

The WiMAX in South Africa 2008 study comprised face-to-face interviews

with network and IT decision-makers in 100 South African corporations.

A STUDY IN MOBILE MESSAGING: Wimax

The Evolution of Messaging in Mobile Networks, and How to Efficiently
and Effectively Manage the Growing Messaging Traffic
Mobile messaging technology is evolving rapidly to provide multiple
services and applications to today's subscribers. With the continued delay of
third-generation (3G) deployments and migration to fully packet-switched
networks, coupled with the demand for fast-to-market data applications over
existing wireless networks, mobile operators look more than ever at their
short messaging systems to fill the gap.

Existing Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Code

Division Multiple Access (CDMA) mobile networks use Short Message
Service (SMS) as a multipurpose data service that enables rapid deployment
of data applications without the need for 3G bandwidth capabilities. In fact,
SMS traffic is growing exponentially, straining existing mobile operators'
signaling networks and infrastructure. The original intention of the SMS
protocol was to provide the mobile subscriber with information about the
mobile network condition. SMS has recently become a popular protocol for
text messaging over the airways.

Traditional messaging deployments are based on a centralized model where

all messages sent and received by the mobile user are typically directed to
messaging centers within the operators' networks. This model is becoming
less effective due to the increased traffic and usage levels of messaging in
the mobile networks today. The centralized model causes excessive
messaging loads on the SMS centers (SMSCs) as well as irregular bursts of
messaging traffic that is typically sent over the traditional signaling links,
such as Signaling System 7 (SS7), originally designed to handle voice
signaling and not the bearer data traffic. A more efficient architecture is
necessary to alleviate this problem. Today, there are two different yet
complimentary approaches to enhancing the mobile messaging
environments:

• The first approach is to provide a reliable and efficient offload of

signaling traffic to the more cost-efficient and easier-to-manage IP network.
The next-generation architecture proposed by both the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) and 3GPP2 call for the use of Signaling
Transport (SIGTRAN) technology in the future deployments of such mobile
networks. SIGTRAN uses translation protocol layers to take traditional SS7
traffic from a circuit-based network to a packet-based network, essentially
the IP network.
• The second approach is to provide a simple message-handling function,
usually referred to as first delivery attempt (FDA), at the edge of the mobile
network. This is essentially a messaging-center function designed to
intercept and attempt the delivery of the message.

These two approaches complement each other by providing improved

messaging-traffic handling and efficient offload and delivery of message.

Historical Overview: A Quick Look at Existing Messaging Architecture

In today's GSM and CDMA networks, messaging is based on basic SMS or

the enhanced Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS). Of these, SMS is the
most prevalent in mobile networks because of its ease of use, earlier
adoption, and its availability on older mobile stations (handsets) such as
second- and 2.5-generation handsets. Both of these technologies are
implemented in a centralized architecture where the mobile device or
application sends a message to the messaging center. The messaging center
then locates the mobile device and delivers the message to that device. This
store-and-forward approach helps ensure the mobile device will receive the
message even if it was offline at the time the message was sent. Figure 1
illustrates an example of the existing messaging environment.

Figure 1

SMS Delivery—Traditional Model

SMS control and data messages are sent via the traditional circuit-based
voice signaling, or SS7, network. MMS, however, uses the packet network
introduced in 2.5G and 3G environments by delivering the content over the
bearer network (General Packet Radio Service [GPRS] or Code Division
Multiple Access CDMA2000). Note that in MMS, some of the control
messages still traverse the signaling network.

Current architecture enables mobile operators to scale their messaging

capacity by increasing the capacity of the messaging center. Capacity is also
increased by using more or larger messaging center platforms as well as by
adding signaling bandwidth in the network (circuit and packet).

The majority of messaging traffic can be classified into three categories:

1. Mobile originated-mobile terminated

2. Mobile originated-application terminated

3. Application originated-mobile terminated

The messaging services and applications deployed over any mobile network
today can be classified into one or more of these categories. A television
voting campaign is an example of mobile originated-application terminated
traffic. A sound clip or animation sent from one mobile network to the other
is a mobile originated-mobile terminated type of message.

All traffic in the above categories must traverse the messaging center. Peak
application use, as might occur during an interactive TV program, for
example, can cause a traffic spike that results in serious consequences for
wireless networks as messaging centers reach their capacity limitations.
Other events, such as sporting events or holidays, can have similar effects on
wireless networks.

Messaging Evolution in 3G Systems: SMS, MMS, and SIP :

3G promises enhanced services and much higher bandwidth for end users.
However 3G deployments continue to be delayed. To date, there has been no
significant deployment of many promised multimedia services—such as
videoconferencing, interactive multimedia sessions, and streaming content—
in the mobile world. With this continued delay, operators with 2.5G systems
look to existing messaging infrastructure for solutions.
SMS and MMS are being used as bearers for some of the applications that
don't require the 3G level of bandwidth. Voting, instant messaging, gaming,
and other applications are being used today over SMS. Short messages with
animated multimedia are often transferred over MMS.

The evolution toward an all IP-based infrastructure remains the ultimate goal
of both operators and vendors. The obvious benefits of such migration
include reduced capital and operational costs, as well as enhanced services
for the end user.

However, the 3G evolution is exactly that—an evolution. This means that

reaching the all-IP architecture may take longer than initially anticipated.
Most operators will migrate slowly toward this architecture.

From a messaging point of view, client-to-client environments will be more

prevalent in 3G systems. Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) provides this
environment. With clients registered at a centralized server, other clients can
request a location resolution to establish an SIP session with each other. SIP
can carry voice, video, and messaging traffic, thus providing a flexible
transport layer over IP that results in better end-user services and experience.

Simply because of the efficient architecture that makes SIP a better

messaging bearer than SMS (which is SS7-based), or even MMS, SIP-based
messaging will eventually become more mainstream than SMS or MMS.

The Need for a More Efficient Architecture :

The preceding observations outline a single commonality among the

different messaging technologies: that is, the centralized model used in most
messaging implementations. A more efficient and enhanced architecture
may use a hybrid model that combines a centralized model with a distributed
function.

Each time a user sends an SMS message, for example, that message must
route to the SMSC. Today this causes a bottleneck scenario during high-
volume use of SMS, as occurs when audience interaction, voting, and
gaming applications are used, or during seasonal events and holidays, which
can cause tremendous spikes in messaging traffic. In certain cases, some
operators experience loss of service for extended periods of time simply
because there is not sufficient capacity in the messaging centers to handle
the traffic. Figure 2 illustrates today's voting environments.
Figure 2

Voting Traffic—Traditional Model

A more efficient architecture can be realized in which a centralized

messaging center is used in conjunction with distributed messaging
intelligence at the edge of the network. A basic message-handling function
must be installed at the remote MSC sites, intercepting the messaging traffic
and making intelligent routing decisions to send the message. For example,
if two people are located in a city served by a single MSC and one sends a
message to the other, the message will be intercepted at the local MSC site
and delivered without having to go through a centralized server. This
capability can be used to enhance numerous types of other services as well.

Following is a list of different types of SMS traffic with descriptions of how

the distributed messaging function helps enhance the delivery of such traffic:

• Voting, gaming, and audience interaction—This is usually referred to as

mobile originated-application terminated. In this scenario, the voting or
gaming traffic is sent directly from the distributed messaging function to the
voting server or the gaming server, thus bypassing the message center. This
results in more efficient delivery of the voting traffic without overloading
the SMSC.

• Push service, location-based service—This is typically application

originated-mobile terminated. Currently such traffic would have to be sent to
the SMSC before delivery to the mobile device. This can be enhanced by
sending the traffic directly to the remote messaging function for delivery.
• Mobile-to-mobile traffic, or mobile originated-mobile terminated traffic
—In this scenario, the messaging traffic would be isolated in the remote site
(a metropolitan area, a state, etc.) without having to traverse the core WAN
to reach the messaging center.

The preceding examples list different types of traffic that may be efficiently
handled and routed at the edge of the network without having to traverse the
core network or reach the messaging center.

A distributed, intelligent message-handling function would, however, have

some limitations. These may include limited disk space, limited processing
power, and limited logic and processing capability. Therefore, such
capability is typically used for a simple delivery attempt called First
Delivery Attempt (FDA) to keep the requirements to a minimum. This
means that if the destination of the message is not available to receive the
message, the FDA server would then deliver the message to the centralized
server for deferred delivery. However, more than 60 percent of mobile-
terminated messaging is successfully delivered on the first attempt. The
benefits of this approach far exceed any limitations. Figure 3 illustrates the
FDA function distributed to the MSC locations.

Figure 3

Efficient Messaging Architecture

A distributed messaging function performing FDA clearly provides an
efficient enhancement for handling messaging traffic. Additionally, this
capability may provide core-capacity savings by offloading SMS traffic
from the SS7 network. This could be accomplished by using IP-based
messaging technology and protocols such as Short Message Peer-to-Peer
Protocol (SMPP) between the FDA function and the messaging application
servers. Undelivered traffic may also be sent to the messaging center for
deferred delivery via such protocols or via SIGTRAN-based connectivity.
SIGTRAN provides efficient and reliable SS7 transfer over IP. 3GPP and
3GPP2 both call for the use of SIGTRAN technologies in 3G+ networks.

Market Trends :

Operators today are actively searching for network enhancements and cost-
savings measures to increase profitability. As messaging becomes an
important form of communication in mobile networks, mobile operators
need more efficient ways to manage their messaging traffic. Most operators
are seeing tremendous benefits by deploying an FDA function at the edge of
the network.

Many operators are migrating to a SIGTRAN-based messaging offload as

well as a full SIGTRAN-based signaling network. This trend will continue
as the benefits of SIGTRAN technologies accelerates their continued
deployment in mobile operator environments worldwide.
CONCLUSION:

Existing mobile networks usually include a centralized messaging

architecture. In such an architecture, all messages are routed to a messaging
center for delivery to their destination. This places a strain on the costly
messaging center and on the core network transporting the messaging traffic.
As more applications are deployed using SMS and MMS as bearers, and as
users become more accustomed to using such applications, operators need a
way to offload the traffic from the core network and messaging server.

Distributed messaging intelligence achieves more efficient message

handling by implementing an FDA function, thus containing a large portion
of the messaging traffic to a specific metropolitan area. Such distributed
intelligence provides two main benefits: offloading messaging traffic and
using IP-based delivery of messaging and other signaling traffic.

IP based messaging and signaling transport architectures provide mobile

operators a more flexible and efficient model resulting in lower capital and
operating expenses, as well as increased capacity and performance.
BIBLOGRAPHY:

GOOGLE

WWW.ANSWERS.COM

WIKIPEDIA