Integration of WiFi and WiMAX Services: Bandwidth Optimization and Traffic

Combination

Juwita Mohd Sultan, Garik Markarian, Phillip Benachour

InfoLab21, School of Computing and Communications
Lancaster University, Lancashire, United Kingdom
j.mohdsultan,g.markarian,[email protected]

ABSTRACT: The integration of WiFi and WiMAX will allow seamless connection between users from both systems with a
greater capacity, higher bit rates and mobility access. To enable interoperability between WiFi and WiMAX a special
gateway is required known as WiFi/WiMAX router. In this paper, we investigate, through the use of OPNET simulation
tools, number of WiFi users or hotspots could accommodated by a WiFi/WiMAX router and a WiMAX Base Station. Further,
we evaluate the use of suitable applications and network traffic combinations for all WiFi users in order to fully optimize
the network within a constrained bandwidth. On top of that, subsequently to investigate more about the hybrid network,
the quantity of nodes is supported to 200 users based on the same situation. This type of integration will solves many of the
difficulties in last-mile implementations, which also will benefit both users and service providers.

Keywords: Integration, Optimized, WiFi, WiMAX

Received: 1 June 2015, Revised 3 July 2015, Accepted 9 July 2015

© 2015 DLINE. All Rights Reserved

1. Introduction

The integration of WiFi-WiMAX as one of the architecture’s aims for the next generation of wireless networks has become
increasingly conventional especially in urban areas. The main purpose of such connectivity is to provide users with a variety
of applications with higher speed, larger coverage and mobility access. Although several studies have shown the integration
of 2.5 and 3G cellular networks combined with WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network), they do not provide Internet connections
same as the broadband speeds which is offered by WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access)[1]. The
arrival of WiMAX technology has met the user’s demand for broadband wireless access since its’ ability to provide higher
speed connection, with a large area coverage alongside with the quality of service assurance [2].

WiFi (wireless fidelity) which also used generally as a synonym for WLAN has a variable data rate depending on the
standard, however, mainly the coverage area starts with a minimum of 20 meters up to maximum 100 meters. In order to extend
the coverage, the WLANs need to integrate with WMANs technology as the backhaul or a last mile solution[3].The
coverage areas of WiMAX cover up to 50km and data rate up to 70 Mbps which is likely suitable apply in a metropolitan area
by connecting houses, buildings or cities [4].

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 95

The most practical options for internet access in metropolitan networks are WiFi and WiMAX [5]. Currently, there are a
number of cities in the world known as “wireless cities” such as Taiwan that could provide the people’s to access the wireless
internet throughout their entire metropolitan areas [6]. In connection with that, integrating WiFi and WiMAX is the most
suitable way to deploy large-scale wireless networks. Besides of the coverage extension, the amount of needed bandwidth
is also another issue. The reason is as network applications become greater, bandwidth becomes critical to network efficiency[7].
However, with the WiFi-WiMAX integration, multiple applications can be supported, especially voice and video
communications.

To allow the interoperability between WiFi and WiMAX as a hybrid network, a special gateway is needed known as WiFi/
WiMAX gateway [8]. The main use of this gateway is to connect the users of both technologies seamlessly with greater gain
access as shown in Figure 1. For this type of combination, the WiFi users connect to the Internet through a WiMAX core
network using the WiFi/WiMAX gateway[9]. The WiMAX base station sees the gateway as another WiMAX subscriber
station. Since each WiFi/WiMAX gateway can accommodate many WiFi users, the average traffic generated by the gateway
is higher compared to WiMAX subscriber stations. As a result, a controlled resource allocation is required between WiFi/
WiMAX gateway and WiMAX base station to optimize the available bandwidth [10].

Figure 1. WiFi-WiMAX coexistence topology [6]

1.1 Overview of Paper
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 an overview about WiFi and WiMAX is explained. In
Section 3, we discuss about the interoperability of WiFi and WiMAX based on limitations or shortcomings of the wireless
technologies that are used as well as on their benefits to fulfill certain demands. Part 4 includes the simulation parameters and
contexts for the scenario. The performance rating of applications allotted for the WiFi users is presented in Section 5. Finally,
conclusion appear in Section 6.

2. WiFi and WiMAX

WLAN or also known as 802.11 standards is a technology that allows any electronic device to exchange and transfer data
wirelessly in a high speed internet connection within a short range area. The network can support data rates up to 54 Mbps
at a range of about 30 to 300 meters [11]. There are five main WLAN specifications: IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11e,
IEEE 802.11g and IEEE 802.11n[12]. Formerly, IEEE802.11a/b/g was utilized widely, however, now the popular usage is for

96 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

802.11n standard that operates in the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands [13]. WiMAX is designed for a long range communication
which created by the companies Intel and Alvarion in 2002 and ratified by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) under the name IEEE-802.16 [14] [15].

3. Integration of WiFi and WiMAX

WiFi is an implementation of wireless local area network within a short range area such as an office, a college or a university
campus. WiMAX on the other hand covers a metropolitan area by connecting houses, buildings or cities. WiMAX is
different from WiFi in many respects; coverage distances, and data rate[16]. One of the main reasons why WiFi unable to
operate at greater distances as WiMAX is that radios operating in the unlicensed frequencies are not allowed to be as
powerful as those operated with licenses [17]. Since the power is less, the same effects happen to the distance.

Secondly, the WiFi MAC layer uses contention access, whereas WiMAX uses a scheduling algorithm. Using a contention
mode algorithm, users have to compete for data throughput to the access point[18]. In the meantime, by scheduling mode
algorithm, it allows the user to only compete once to the access point. As the result, WiMAX outstrip WiFi in terms of
throughput, latency, and spectral efficiency [19].

Both WiFi and WiMAX standards are designed for the Internet protocol applications. However, by combining these two
technologies, WiMAX can be functioning as a backhaul while WiFi connected directly to the subscriber [20]. The most
interesting part is network providers are able to deploy wireless broadband connections to areas not currently served in a
short time and cost-effectively since only little or no disruption to existing infrastructures is needed. On top of that by
combining WiFi and WiMAX technologies, a more complete suite of broadband services can be offered by service providers.
It is because Wi-Fi is known for its high speed connectivity meanwhile high speed and large range connectivity for WiMAX
[21].

Although, both the technology the WiMAX and the WiFi provide a wireless connection to last mile problem, their working
mechanism is technically different [22]. One of the primary reasons why WiFi unable to work at greater distances as WiMAX
is that radios operating in the unlicensed frequencies are not admitted to be equally potent as those operated with licenses
[23]. Since the power is less, the same effects happen to the distance. Secondly, the Wi-Fi MAC layer uses contention access,
whereas WiMAX uses a scheduling algorithm. Using a contention mode algorithm, users have to compete for data throughput
to the access level. In the interim, by scheduling mode algorithm, it lets the user to only compete once to the access level. As
the result, WiMAX outstrip WiFi in terms of throughput, latency, and spectral efficiency [24].

4. Simulation Environment

For our system model, we proposed a number of WiFi users that can accommodate a WiMAX base station. On top of that we
also proposed the traffic combinations that can fully utilize for the same topology before another base station is needed in
the network.

The model consists of 40 WiFi users connected to 1 Base Station through a special access point (AP) namely as WiFi/
WiMAX router. For this type of router, the WiMAX interface is used for communicating with the BS, and WiFi interface for
communicating with WLAN stations. This router will convert the WiMAX packets to WiFi packets and route them to the
WiFi clients. It also works as WiMAX clients which contain of a number of WiFi nodes. In terms of coverage, since the range
of WiFi users is much smaller than WiMAX, this router will act as a link for WiFi users to reach the WiMAX BS. Therefore,
in each location the service provider has installed a WiFi/WiMAX router or Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) to establish
wireless connectivity from the customer site to the service provider’s network.The WiFi clients are placed in circular fashion
which surrounds their respective AP or router. The traffic from WiFi/WiMAX router from WiFi hotspots are referred to as
WiFi traffic.

We evaluate the idea of planning about the network using a network simulator tool; OPNET Modeler [25] [26]. The OPNET
Modeler enables users to create customized models and to simulate various communication networks [27]. It supports
friendly graphical user interfaces to capture the specifications of deployed networks, equipment, and protocols. The traffics
assign in the network are VoIP (Voice over IP), video conferencing, HTTP browsing and file transfer. The simulation topology
is shown in Fig.2 meanwhile the parameters used for WiMAX and WLAN described in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 97

 Figure 2. Simulation Topology

Operating Frequency 2.5 GHz

Bandwidth 10 MHz, 1024 (subcarrier)

Maximum Transmission Power 0.5 to 3 W

Antenna Gain 15 to 18 dBi

Receiver Sensitivity -200 dBm

Min Reserved Traffic Rate (rtPS) 140 kbps

Max Sustained Reserve Traffic Rate (rtPS) 50 Mbps

Table 1. WiMAX Simulation Parameters

Data Rate 54 Mbps

Maximum Transmission Power 0.05 to 0.04 W

Buffer Size (bits) 265 000

Packet Reception Power Threshold -95 dBm

AP beacon Interval 0.02 sec

Table 2. WiFi Simulation Parameters

98 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

5. Results and Discussion

The simulation runs for 10 minutes (600 seconds) and for the purpose of results analysis, a throughput, delay and packet
dropped graph will be used. The throughput graph will determine the total data traffic successfully received and forwarded
to the higher layer by the WiMAX MAC for WiMAX and WLAN MAC for WLAN connection. On top of that a packet
dropped graph for WiMAX is to determine the higher layer data traffic dropped in bits/sec by the WiMAX MAC due to data
buffer overflow. Meanwhile packet dropped in WLAN is due to full higher layer data buffer or the size of the higher layer
packet, which is greater than the maximum allowed data size defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard.

We conduct several simulation scenarios to evaluate the proposed algorithm. The first scenario evaluates the number ofWiFi
users that be accommodated for a single base station. The second scenario evaluates the optimized traffic that be generated
based on the same topology[28].The last scenario investigate the network performance when the number of WiFi users
increase to 200.

5.1Scenario 1
In this scenario, there are 20 WiFi users on each CPE that connects to a WiMAX Base Station. To optimize the network, we
add another CPE that connects to another 20 WiFi users. For this scenario, we investigate the maximum number of WiFi users
or hotspots that can accommodate a single WiMAX Base Station. We begin with a minuscule number of users and measure
the network operation to recover out the restrictions. Since our primary aim is to make sure that each user will acquire the
requested data rate, thus the most important parameter is this scenario is throughput.

Some observations we made are as follows: In Fig. 3 and 4, the throughput of WLAN and WiMAX produced almost the same
result measured on either side of WiMAX-WiFi AP.

Figure 3. Throughput for WiMAX link(bits/sec)

Based on Figure 3, throughput measured at CPE 1 and CPE 3 for a WiMAX link which is between the CPEs and Base Station
is ranged between 2 Mbit/s and 2.8 Mbit/s.

On the other side, throughput measured at CPE 1 and CPE 3 for a WLAN link which is between the CPEs and WiFi users is
stabilized at 2 Mbit/s as shown in Figure 4.

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 99

 Figure 4. Throughput for WiFi link (bits/sec)

In comparison, that there is not much throughput differentiation for both link which shows that traffic requested by WiFi
users are mostly successful received. Next to examine deeply on the differentiation, we measured the packet dropped for both
connections.

Further, as depicted in Figure 5, it shows that, there are some packet dropped and lost occurred in WLAN link. However it
happened due to data buffer overflow. The buffer acts as a temporary memory to keep data for a while time have several sizes.
Nevertheless, to avoid the packet dropped, we tried to increase the buffer size, however it will also increase the delay
performance and therefore after a number of experiments, the suitable buffer size is chosen which will optimize the network.
Opposite tothat, there is no loss of the WiMAX link as all the data is successfully transmitted and received.

Number of WiFi users Traffic combinations (application)

6 VoIP

1 Video Conferencing (Skype)

7 File Transfer Protocol

6 Web Browsing

Table 3. Traffic Combination for 20 WiFi Users

100 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

 Figure 5. Data dropped (buffer overflow) for WiFi link

5.2 Scenario 2
In the second scenario, the optimized traffic that be generated based on the previous topology is evaluated. Since we have
evaluated the optimum WiFi user can accommodate in a single CPE, therefore in this scenario we investigate the effect on the
traffic/application assigned to the users. For this purpose, we include the WiFi users with multi-applications starting with the
heavy traffics as voice and video communication and also the low bit rate traffics such as file transfer and web browsing.
Therefore, in order to fully utilize the network, each WiFi users with their application is guaranteed with minimal or acceptable
packet loss. The proposed traffic for 20 WiFi users used in this scenario is described in Table 3.

Since voice is the most highly delay sensitive for real-time applications, the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) value and jitter are
investigated in this scenario as illustrated in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 respectively. MOS is the measurement of the quality of human
speech at the end of the destination. Besides dictating the quality in voice and video communication, whether it is a good
or bad experience, MOS gives a numerical indication of the perceived quality of the media received after being sent and
eventually compressed using codecs. MOS is expressed in one number, from 1 to 5, 1 being the worst and 5 the best. The
details of MOS number are as follows: 5-Perfect. Like face-to-face conversation or radio reception, 4-Fair. Imperfections can
be perceived, but the sound still clear, 3–Annoying, 2-Very annoying and nearly impossible to communicate, 1- Impossible
to communicate.

Figure 6 shows the MOS value for all the WiFi users with a VOIP application which is ranged between 3.85 to 4.05 and based
on the MOS table [29], it is defined as good and excellent in quality.

Another important implication of this investigation is the jitter value as described in Fig. 7, which shows zero reading. Jitter
is defined as the time difference in packet inter-arrival time to their destination. In VOIP communication, for example, when a
frame is sent every 10 ms, some of the packets can immobilize somewhere in between inside the packet network and not arrive
at expected regular peace to the destined station. This is because one of the packets encounters some delay on its path and

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 101

it is received little later than it was seized. The problem encounters to jitter and also mitigate to packet delay. Therefore, for
VOIP, it is important the system to experienced zero jitter to have a successful communication network.

Figure 6. MOS value for WiFi users with VoIP application

Figure 7. Average jitter for WiFi users with VoIP application

102 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

5.3Scenario 3

The third scenario settings is the same as in the previous, however the quantity of users is expanded to 200. In this scenario,
there are 5 CPEs which each CPE comprises of 20 WiFi users. The covered area is 500m x 500m allowing for simple placement
of the WiMAX CPE and WiFi users and providing minimal drop in data rates or potential interference. The CPE is place a few
hundred meters from the base station around the area or central site area. Each device acts as a WiFi AP (Access Point) with
a bridged connection to the closest WiMAX base station. The WiFi coverage is aimed at the main area as the effective range
is limited to a 2m to 60m radius dependent on obstacles and RF interference from other terminals or devices and wireless
equipment. The technical configuration for each WiMAX base station, WiFi/WiMAX router and WiFi user in the simulation
is shown in the table IV, V, VI respectively;

Operating Frequency 2.5 GHz

Bandwidth 10 MHz, 1024 (subcarrier)

Transmitter Power 2W

Antenna Gain 18 dBi

Table 4. WiMAX Base Station

WLAN Standard HT PHY 5.0GHz (802.11n)

Data rate 6.5Mbps to 60Mbps

Antenna Gain 18 dBi

Modulation OFDM

Max TX Power 3W

Table 5. WiFi/WiMAX router (CPE)

Standard

Data rate 6.5Mbps to 60Mbps

Antenna Gain 18 dBi

Modulation OFDM

Max TX Power 40mW

Buffer size 32 000Bytes

Table 6. WiFi User

Figure 8 indicates throughput of WiMAX links for all 5CPEs declined, which is contrasted as in Figure 3. Previously the
throughput for all CPEs are is higher than 2.2 Mbps while now it has dropped to the most minimal of 1.3 Mbps. This is because
since more users are sharing the same bandwidth in the same channel. Further on, we explore the throughput for WiFi link as
represented in Figure 9.

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 103

 Figure 8. Throughput for WiMAX link(bits/sec)

Figure 9. Throughput for WiFi link (bits/sec)

104 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

As notice before, since there are 200 users in the current scenario, the throughput for each WiFi user is relied upon to fall
which is described in Fig. 9. Throughput of WiFi link at each CPE isbelow2 Mbps and even two’s of the CPE are low as 1.2
Mbps. In view of throughput at WiMAX and WiFi link for each CPE at scenario1, the data rate gain for both links are
distinctive and it shows that there is packet dropped experienced in the channel. Along these, we examine this behavior by
measuring the packet loss as depicted in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Data dropped (buffer overflow) for WiFi link

As shown in Fig.10, there is a large difference of data dropped for WiFi link compared to the results obtained in Scenario 1.
This is due to the increase number of users which some of the WiFi users experienced lower throughput since the network are
fully occupied.Another parameter than we quantified in this scenario is jitter. Since in the first scenario we measured jitter for
VOIP users, therefore in this scenario, we investigate the same quality of jitter.

Since there are more than 20 users are appointed to VOIP application in this scenario, we only show users with the most
astounding average jitter as depicted in Fig.11. Comparing with the previous result, jitter increased from zero to 0.19 seconds.
Since more users are added in this scenario, create a higher delay for each user and also increases the latency for both
systems.

6. Results and Discussion

In this paper, a research has been explored on the cross system network optimization which involves WiFi and WiMAX
particularly in our scenario. The first part of the research covers the number of WiFi hot spots that could accommodate by
one WiFi/WiMAX router or also known as CPE. In further, another set of WiFi hotspot and CPE is added to optimized a single

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 105

WiMAX base station. The second part proposes the optimized traffic combinations for each WiFi user based on the first
scenario. The results are presented in the throughput, delay, packet dropped, MOS and also jitter graphs to evaluate the
performance of each scenario. The third part demonstrates the results as the quantity of users in the network is occupied five
times more than in the first scenario. Simulation results reveal that the throughput for WiFi users were slightly lower, data
dropped was expanded to a certain value which likewise expanded the average jitter in the network.

6.1 Remaining Work

The next stage of this work is the production of an integration of WLAN and LTE (Long Term Evolution) networ

Figure 11. Average jitter for WiFi users with VoIP application
References

[1] Ahmed, S., Sherif, W., Qusay, S. (2010). Dealing with quality of service in hybrid wired-wireless networks, In: Proceedings
2nd Int. Conf. Netw. Appl. Protoc. Serv. NETAPPS 2010, 105–109.

106 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015

[2] Malik, G., Singh, A. (2013). International Journal of Advanced Research in Performance Evaluation of WiFi and WiMax
Using Opnet, 3 (6) 571–579.
[3] Lin, H., Lin, Y., Chang, W., Cheng, R. (2009). An Integrated WiMAX / WiFi Architecture with QoS Consistency over
Broadband Wireless Networks, System, 1–7.
[4] Sang, K., Wang, J. X., Modie. (2010). Seamless mobility for WiFi-WiMAX heterogeneous networks using SCTP and DNS,
ICEIT 2010 - 2010 Int. Conf. Educ. Inf. Technol. Proc., 2, ICEIT, 385–389.
[5] Ghazisaidi, N., Kassaei, H., Bohlooli, M. S. (2009). Integration of WiFi and WiMAX-Mesh Networks, 2009 Second Int.
Conf. Adv. Mesh Networks, 6–11.
[6] Song, S., Issac, B. (2014). Analysis of Wifi and Wimax and Wireless Network Coexistence, Int. J. Comput. Networks
Commun., 6 (6) 63–77.
[7] Doulatyari, E., Kohan, P. A., Esmailpour, A., Have, W. (2012). Quality of Service Support for a WiFi-WiMAX Network in a
Test-bed Environment, 316–321.
[8] Andrews, N., Kondareddy, Y., Agrawal, P. (2010). Channel management in collocated WiFi-WiMAX networks, In:
Proceedings Annu. Southeast. Symp. Syst. Theory, 133–137.
[9] Vijayalakshmy, G., Shivaradje, G. (2012). WiMAX and WiFi Convergence Architecture to Achieve QoS, 512–521, 2012.
[10] Hou, L., Miao, K. X. (2009). A pre-authentication architecture in WiFi WiMAX integrated system, Commun. Netw. China,
2009. ChinaCOM 2009. Fourth Int. Conf., 1–5.
[11] Banerji, S., Chowdhury, R. S. (2013). Wi-Fi & WiMAX/ : A Comparative Study, 2.
[12] Zhu, H., Li, M. (2004). A survey of quality of service in IEEE 802.11 networks, IEEE Wirel. Commun., 11 (4) 6–14.
[13] Rivera Ibáñez, S., Aquino Santos, R., Rangel Licea, V., Block, A. E., García Ruiz, M. Á. (2008). Hybrid WiFi-WiMAX
network routing protocol, In: Proceedings - Electron. Robot. Automat. Mech. Conf. CERMA 2008, 87–92.
[14] Ammar, B. A., Mohd, D. B., Muhammad, I. (2012). IEEE 802.21 based vertical handover in WiFi and WiMAX networks,
2012 IEEE Symp. Comput. Informatics, Isc. 140–144.
[15] Samhat, A. E., Abdi, M. (2007). Security and AAA architecture for WiFi-WiMAX mesh network,network environment.
In: Proceedings 4th IEEE Internatilonal Symp. Wirel. Commun. Syst. 2007, ISWCS, 587–591.
[16] Adhicandra, I. ( 2009). Configuration of WiMAX Networks supporting Data and VoIP Traffic, 1–5.
[17] Doulatyari, E., Kohan, P. A., Esmailpour, A., Have, W. (2012). Quality of Service Support for a WiFi-WiMAX Network in
a Test-bed Environment, 316–321.
[18] Park, E. C. (2009). Efficient uplink bandwidth request with delay regulation for real-time service in mobile wimax networks,
IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput., 8 (9) 1235–1249.
[19] Sarma, A., Chakraborty, S., Nandi, S. (2015). Deciding Handover Points based on Context Aware Load Balancing in a
WiFi-WiMAX Heterogeneous Network Environment, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 9545, 1–1, 2015.
[20] Niyato, D., Hossain, E. (2007). Integration of WiMAX and WiFi/ : IEEE Commun. Mag., May, 140–146.
[21] Wang, W., Liu, X., Vicente, J., Mohapatra, P. (2011). Integration gain of heterogeneous WiFi/WiMAX networks, IEEE
Trans. Mob. Comput.,10 (8) 1131–1143.
[22] Hou, L., Miao, K. X. (2009). A pre-authentication architecture in WiFi WiMAX integrated system, Commun. Netw. China,
2009. ChinaCOM 2009. Fourth Int. Conf., 1–5.
[23] Doulatyari, E., Kohan, P. A., Esmailpour, A., Have, W. (2012). Quality of Service Support for a WiFi-WiMAX Network in
a Test-bed Environment, 316–321.
[24] Sarma, A., Chakraborty, S., Nandi, S. (2015). Deciding Handover Points based on Context Aware Load Balancing in a
WiFi-WiMAX Heterogeneous Network Environment, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 9545, 1–1.
[25] Sultan, J. M., Markarian, G., Benachour, P. (2014). WiMAX Quality of Service Deployment in Disaster Management,
International Conf. On Advances in Computing, Communication and Information Technology, CCIT 2014.

International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015 107

[26] Zvikhachevskiy, D., Sultan, J. M., Dimyati, K. (2013). Quality of Service Mapping Over WiFi+WiMAX and WiFi+LTE
Networks, Journal of Telecommunication Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 5 (2).
[27] Garg, N. (2014). Analysis of Black Hole Attack using Different Routing Protocols on WLAN-WiMAX Interface Network,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Performance 4 (8) 1029–
1038.
[28] Sultan, J. M., Markarian, G., Benachour, P. (2014). WiMAX Quality of Service Deployment in Disaster Management, 5 (1)
36–40.
[29] Mean opinion score - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

108 International Journal Web Applications Volume 7 Number 3 September 2015