Or, use a bunch of 3.5 MHz and 7 MHz channels to distribute data to end users, particularly for 802.16-2004 (and the eventual, 802.16e) users.
Then use 5.8 GHz (and hopefully 5.4 GHz when the FCC gets around to unleashing that) for backhaul.
At 64 QAM, with 3/4 FEC, you can get 9 Mbps aggregate in a sector, and with a decent oversubscription rate, that's 14 non-overlapping channels (at 3.5 MHz). 4 or 6 sector base stations, and you can get pretty good coverage in a small city. Building penetration isn't great for 3.5 GHz, but you could provide true mobile coverage for a downtown environment, or decent coverage to residential users (with outdoor antennas).
Slashdot Mirror
Or, use a bunch of 3.5 MHz and 7 MHz channels to distribute data to end users, particularly for 802.16-2004 (and the eventual, 802.16e) users. Then use 5.8 GHz (and hopefully 5.4 GHz when the FCC gets around to unleashing that) for backhaul. At 64 QAM, with 3/4 FEC, you can get 9 Mbps aggregate in a sector, and with a decent oversubscription rate, that's 14 non-overlapping channels (at 3.5 MHz). 4 or 6 sector base stations, and you can get pretty good coverage in a small city. Building penetration isn't great for 3.5 GHz, but you could provide true mobile coverage for a downtown environment, or decent coverage to residential users (with outdoor antennas).