A comparison of wi-fi and wimax with case studies - Florida State ...

auxiliary of extending the ADSL to end users in short range. Unless there is a unique application
that only WiFly can do; otherwise keep seeking new service to increase users is still no help.
ADSL and WiFly are like roads and bridges, but if WISP tries to use bridges to replace roads;
then there is no future for WiFly. Taipei’s city government and Q-ware now are trying to use
new VoIP service (Taipei easy call) and WiFly cube to attract more users. [76] – [78][85]
However the fundamental problem is why WiFly. There are other choices for indoor wireless
internet service, such as Hinet-WLAN and 3G wireless.
It is like selling a game station without games and the price is also way too high. For
temporary users, $3.20 for one day access is too expensive; not to mention carrying the NB and
looking for signal. WiFly’s unique feature is its ubiquitous connection, but if the feature cannot
be used stably and conveniently; then it is still useless.
5.2.4. Conclusion
WiFly tries to provide make people’s lives more convenient. However, it still has
fundamental problems to be conquered. How to provide end users more stable connection and
higher speed should be the current mission of WiFly. And the customers have to find out
whether they need WiFly or not. Taiwanese network market is already saturated and has many
competitors, so if WiFly wants to take the market share it will be not easy. Since Wi-Fi has some
limitations and the original design is for home use; thus it is difficult to use as the last mile of the
network and the city-wide coverage. Since the mother company of WiFly, FAREASTONE, has
gotten the operation license of WiMax; the next step of WiFly should be the WiMax
infrastructure installation. By adopting WiMax, WiFly may be able to have much better
performance and show its real value.
5.3. Wibro in South Korea
5.3.1. Introduction
WiBro (Wireless Broadband Access Service) is a WBA technology. It is a standard extended
from 802.16-2004 and 802.16 2005 and uses many techniques the same with them. Figure 5-
14[79]. It has better coverage and stronger mobility than WLAN and higher data rate than 3G.
However, 3G has better coverage than WiBro and WLAN has higher data rate than 3G.
Therefore WiBro’s position is just in the middle. It can fix their weaknesses, but cannot replace
them. This standard was developed by KT (Korean Telecoms Industry) and standardized by TTA
(Telecommunications Technology Association) later on.
The manufacturers who are contracted to produce WiBro devices are Samsung, LG,
POSDATA and so on. For extending transmission range and decreasing dead spot, the TDD
86