I don't think anyone thinks you are being disrespectful. We appreciate direct communication. Your points are understood and well received. I am glad that you understand the differences. However, someone who does not, may misinterpret your point. I appreciate AJ's post to help differentiate for anyone else who comes along in the future. The internet is forever.
Samuel, the Ball State WiMax sounds great. However, there are likely some key differences between the Muncie protection site and the Ball State deployment that you may not have considered.
1. Protection Sites, as AJ references, are designed to maximize coverage to inflate POP numbers to satisfy a FCC coverage requirement. They have zero, or very little downtilt. Those panels often stick out 90° from the towers. This is the worst way to try to get 2600 to penetrate anything. I am sure Ball State has engineered downtilt to be useful. This is also why you are getting such a great signal higher off the ground. The Muncie protection site WiMax signal is pointed at you, not the ground. I get a better signal/faster speeds from the Santa Fe protection site on a hill side 4 miles away than I do next to the tower.
2. Ball State likely has small cells and users are much closer to the signal. In traditional Clearwire WiMax cells that are well engineered, users within a 1/2 mile usually can receive signal indoors just fine. I imagine the Ball State WiMax network is designed where users are never more than a half mile away either.
3. Beamforming. Some schools that use WiMax deploy it with beamforming. This offers a penetration boost as well. I have no idea if Ball State employs this.
As you can see, Protection Sites are just not an apples to apples performance comparison to standard WiMax deployments. They are hastily installed, under engineered islands of WiMax signals. And their usefulness is highly variable.
Robert via NOVO7PALADIN Tablet using Forum Runner