The following was released by Airspan today in defense of Buzz Broadband CEO's attack on WiMAX..
Note: Buzz Broadband used Airspan's MicroMAXd solution which is fixed WiMAX.

Marketing Release
Date: 3/24/2008
Re: Buzz Broadband
Public Statements Concerning WiMAX and Airspan by the CEO of Australian WISP, Buzz Broadband
This week, at a WiMAX conference in Thailand, the CEO Buzz Broadband of Australia railed at the audience that WiMAX was a “disaster”. CEO Garth Freeman made several disparaging remarks about the range of WiMAX systems and their ability to carry VoIP traffic.
Buzz Broadband deployed Airspan MicroMAXd, ProST, and EasyST equipment to around 200 users, the same equipment that is installed in many of the 100 or so other Airspan WiMAX deployments. In addition to broadband services, Buzz Broadband intended also to offer VoIP services to its subscribers. Mr. Freeman’s recent statements highlighted two complaints: the range of the solution, and the quality of service (QoS) capabilities for voice traffic.
With regard to range, although Airspan offers both micro-cell and macro-cell base station solutions, Buzz Broadband opted to go with the less-expensive micro-cell base stations in order to reduce cost. This was a well understood tradeoff of cost vs. range. In support of larger cell radii, particularly in support of indoor desktop CPE devices, Airspan offers the HiperMAX base station, which offers the best link budget in the industry for an 802.16d-2004 solution.
Regarding QoS for VoIP, MicroMAX certainly offers appropriate QoS for wire-line quality voice support, but, as an access technology, can only do so for the portion of the link between the user device and the base station. In the case of Buzz Broadband, we know that there were significant under-provisioning issues in the core network which connected the Airspan equipment to the Internet. Very early in the relationship, Airspan technical services determined that Buzz’ backhaul network was considerably under-dimensioned (again to save cost) and lacked sufficient QoS, and that these factors were the direct cause of VoIP quality issues in the network. Airspan even went so far as to offer to fund a third-party analysis to help Buzz understand these issues. Both Airspan’s help and third party assistance were refused by Mr. Freeman.
At Airspan, we pride ourselves on our customer service and excellent products. In the case of Mr. Freeman’s company Buzz Broadband, we exhausted all avenues to help this customer re-engineer their core network and resolve these service issues. In the end, with Mr. Freeman rejecting help from the outside, the technical and financial resources of Buzz Broadband were not sufficient to deploy a functioning network to the satisfaction of its customers. We regret the distress caused by Buzz’ poor network architecture decisions to the customers in need of Broadband Internet access and VoIP services.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Freeman felt the need to broadcast his difficulties in such a public fashion. WiMAX has proven to be enormously successful from a technical standpoint, and Buzz’ allegations, even when so easily dismissed, are a distraction to the WiMAX industry and ultimately a disservice to the millions of satisfied broadband wireless access consumers worldwide.
If you should have any questions regarding this or any other concern, please don’t hesitate to contact me at Airspan on 561 893-8643 or dbyrne@airspan.com.
Best Regards,
Declan Byrne Chief Marketing Officer Airspan Networks, Inc.

Just an update to my earlier letter. Its become clear since I wrote it
that Buzz Broadband are using fixed WiMAX, as are Internode; My
comments initially referenced a presumption of the use of the mobile
standard due to the way the original report was framed.

There is little material difference in my stance and my view, however;
What I will say is that with any sort of network deployment, there are
a myriad of success factors with this sort of deployment, including
using appropriate antenna systems and mast heights, ensuring that
sufficient backhaul capacity is available, and applying appropriate
QoS for voice services.

As I wrote in my initial letter, practically all of our customers
operate using an external mast and antenna attached to an externally
mounted radio, rather than attempting to make the systems work
'indoors'. We perform a full site survey, including winding up a
portable mast antenna, on each customer site to verify performance
before a professional installation team returns with the appropriate
equipment and installs it for the customer.

We are currently installing WiMAX systems at a rate above 100 per
month in the Yorke Peninsula area in South Australia. We have
sufficient backhaul. Our customers are using, and appreciating, the
services we're providing. For most of them, its their first (and to
date only) access to terrestrial broadband at metro prices. And for
most of our regional customers, using our NodePhone VoIP service saves
them more money than their entire broadband monthly fee - making the
combination of broadband and broadband-delivered voice into a nett
cost saving as well as a huge improvement in their access to Internet
services.

Like all radio systems, WiMAX deployments must be engineered properly.
If its not engineered properly it won't work very well.

I can't say why the service deployed by Buzz Broadband has problems -
but what I can say, definitely, is that ours is working extremely well
- and we have no reason to believe it won't continue to do so. So we
know its entirely possible to deploy these systems with success. And
our deployment is not a trial - its in full production and the
deployment rate is continuing to rise.

Importantly, our service is not a 'trial'; Its a full production
deployment, after months of trials. One presumes that Buzz broadband
also conducted trials, so its hard to understand why equipment that
they obviously accepted after trialling it, and which is continuing to
work as specified, has suddenly failed to work properly. Occams' Razor
suggests that Buzz may have engineering issues in their deployment
that could be fixed, rather than any fundamental failure of the
underlying technology.

Regards,