HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| ...
Now if we can only work out some interoperability between the two types of technology this is a win for the customer. No need to worry about which network it will operate on because it can be a LTE/WiMAX hybrid.
At the same time something is just not right about it. |
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| What Fun Is That?
Betamax vs. VHS?
DVD-HD vs. Blu-Ray?
You mean we wouldn't have a long, protracted battle in which competing companies stall technological advancement while they fight it out to become top dog? Where consumers waste money purchasing one technology or the other, then wind up having to reinvest in the new one? How un-American! 
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. |
|
et1212
join:2005-10-23
Mableton, GA | My take on this....
Not a good sign for WiMax (Damn!! I invested in CLWR), I think. If Intel is confident that WiMax is going to dominate the market, he would not be making such a statement. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to DownTheShore
Re: What Fun Is That?
Pretty much.. similar to BlueRay vs. DVD-HD
Both can be incorporated into a single device/chip.
The difference is that...who is going to pay for dual mode devices? I suspect that Intel will push for industry (i.e. everyone else) to adopt it so that they can cash in on WiMAX.
Wireless carriers will most likely not want competing devices.
I.E. Why would Verizon sell a device that can be used on AT&T networks. Verizon's devices that work on GSM are restricted to non-US bands for that reason.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| reply to et1212
Re: My take on this....
I see a opportunity for WiMAX and LTE to enable bridges that previously did not exist and also having hybrid devices simplify the process for users while paying more for hardware up front they have the best of both worlds.
Making technology easy is what sells, you can see that clearly with Apple's example, the problem with the current 4G networks is that in order for them to become successful they must deliver at full peak performance. For the customer if he can pick up a signal such as Verizon or Sprint and although they are completely different technologies all he or she see's is that they have access to either network.
They connect to that network and a web based sign up process begins. The user does not care if he is connected through LTE or WiMAX, all he see's is for example Sprint's data is a bit cheaper than Verizon's price.
But if the customer is getting better coverage with Verizon, then he or she will eat the cost of the service. In the end the technology is transparent to the user, and suppliers can provide both WiMAX and LTE based routers further simplifying the process.
Intel is seeking something more than just competition, and I think that's really more about embedded solutions. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| So Says...
So says the company that stands to lose since Sprint is the only customer. AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon are all going with LTE. Of course I cannot see any reason why they need to merge LTE into WiMax other than to have to pay royalties to Intel for their part of the technology. If the GSM Association ignores WiMax, only Sprint and their customers would appear to suffer. The rest of the world as well as the above named U.S. carriers would be fine.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Competition
Is better than multiple entities merging into a duoply or monoply. |
|
DarnellP
join:2004-10-12
Las Vegas, NV
1 edit | reply to n2jtx
Re: So Says...
said by n2jtx  :So says the company that stands to lose since Sprint is the only customer. AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon are all going with LTE. While it seems likely that they would go the LTE route, T-Mobile USA has not made any 4G announcement AFAIK. Hell they barely have their 3G network going.
If the GSM Association ignores WiMax, only Sprint and their customers would appear to suffer. The rest of the world as well as the above named U.S. carriers would be fine.
There are several areas in the where wimax has been deployed: »www.dailywireless.org/2008/02/28···nt-maps/ |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| reply to et1212
Re: My take on this....
said by et1212 :Not a good sign for WiMax (Damn!! I invested in CLWR), I think. If Intel is confident that WiMax is going to dominate the market, he would not be making such a statement. Maybe, but certainly not necessarily. Technologically, if they could synergize (I mean actually, not some Wall Street MBA lie), then it could help both.
That synergizing would have to be doable. Usually, strong synergy opportunities exist in communications technologies. However, where they exist must be actually resolved for them to actually synergize, so some MBA can't just delcare it to be (unless it was already established as possible and it got properly arranged and that MBA was the last button push). |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to n2jtx
Re: So Says...
How many LTE deployments have their been around the world so far? Zilch, nada. WiMax? It's already available in parts of the US, and many countries abroad. LTE is and will continue to lag behind WiMax in terms of deployment and subscriber figures. Also, WiMax aims at an entirely different goal than LTE. LTE wants customer control (the old game of locked in handsets, different frequencies, etc.), while WiMax will be more like WiFi, (if Intel succeeds in its plan; heck, Centrino laptops might come built in with WiMax chipsets, just like they come with WiFi today.) Bottom line, WiMax is an IEEE standard, not a proprietary licensed technology, so it has a much greater chance of proliferating faster. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to en102
Re: What Fun Is That?
Verizon and AT&T have voted to go with LTE so they will align with the rest of the world. American businesses have demanded interoperability when they go overseas and dual mode devices were never cutting it. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Well, when you have a global market of 3 billion subs, the economics are in favor of it.
3 million subs with a direct upgrade path, roaming agreements and fallback service.
WiMAX shouldn't be anything bad... just I don't expect it to be initially a handset market player unless they have a good handoff between another technology.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
LearnedOne
@comcast.net | Hmm
I didn't think LTE was even a REAL stamped and approved technical standard yet? Just a name for a yet un-approved/un-finished standard? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to a333
Re: So Says...
There's more to it than that.
Sure, WiMAX has many countries deployed, but how big of a footprint are those WiMAX deployments ? Until WiMAX has a footprint that covers that of cellular (even the prepaid MetroPCS), it will be more of a niche, or used in other devices (more likely). I don't disagree on the locked handset piece, however, handset locking is more of a North America item.
I can purchase unlocked directly from the manufacturers, and even carrier locked from the manufacturers at a better rate than carriers 'list' them for (eg. AT&T V3xx 'lists' as $349, and becomes discounted with service, Motorola 'lists' is at $229 w/o service, and $50 with).
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
·Insight Communicat..
| Intel's eggs are in the wrong basket.
After reading this.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_···volution
It looks as if LTE is going to be the dominate player in the mobile wireless arena.
So isn't this just Intel trying to save a sinking ship? Or is the WiFi industry just going to keep the mobile wireless and home/office wireless separate like they are now. Makes sense to me if they keep the wireless segments separate. I mean I don't want my companies wifi interfering or seeing Verizon's towers.
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. |
|
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
·Insight Communicat..
1 edit | Long Shot
How many here think that in the not too distant future. That most people will be getting their internet, hdtv and phone/VoIP all through this technology. I mean if you can achieve speeds of 1GB via wireless why the need for FTTH or copper. Some how I can see the cable and land line phone companies dieing a slow death.
Personally I hope cable(comcast) companies die a slow death.
If they do, it might be a good idea to invest in the copper recycling business. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to NOCMan
Re: What Fun Is That?
said by NOCMan :Verizon and AT&T have voted to go with LTE so they will align with the rest of the world. American businesses have demanded interoperability when they go overseas and dual mode devices were never cutting it. No offense but you make it sound like EVERY one wants to go overseas. So, if that's the drive, why doesn't the top 3 just dump all it's almost 200 million customers and ONLY go with what works in India? I doubt there is enough companies who have a need to have wireless service in Africa, Europe or some other far away place? When I shopped for a LCD TV, I didn't care I could get one that works in Brazil. I just wanted it to work at my home in Michigan. Going by the mindset that American Businesses DEMAND (and will get) interoperability is a pipe dream and will pretty much kill competition (higher prices for all) and I'm just courious what data your using to back up your reasoning. There are devices from some providers that work overseas. Sprint has one, AT&T, VZ.. and I'm sure there are others. Maybe the issue you failed to mention is, it's not the type of service but it's the provider they are using. Sprint, AT&T, VZW.. and maybe a few others have devices that pretty much work well enough for "American Business travelers". But off the beaten path, your SOL. Sorta like now in the U.S... My choice, just get a friggin Satellite phone if you want service just about anywhere you travel. |
|
old_dawg
"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD
| reply to Ulmo
Re: My take on this....
said by Ulmo :said by et1212 :Not a good sign for WiMax (Damn!! I invested in CLWR), I think. If Intel is confident that WiMax is going to dominate the market, he would not be making such a statement. Maybe, but certainly not necessarily. Technologically, if they could synergize (I mean actually, not some Wall Street MBA lie), then it could help both. That synergizing would have to be doable. Usually, strong synergy opportunities exist in communications technologies. However, where they exist must be actually resolved for them to actually synergize, so some MBA can't just delcare it to be (unless it was already established as possible and it got properly arranged and that MBA was the last button push). How many frackin' times ya gonna use the word synergy
and its variations. You must be a marketing tool! 
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." |
|
comcast_customer
@accelnet.net
| reply to a333
Re: So Says...
Verizon Wireless declared their intention of providing an 'any apps/any device' network last October. They do intend on continuing with the 'walled garden' model (e.g. lock-in, as you suggested) for customers who could care less about having the ultimate choice in what rests on their device, but you will also be able to buy devices that work on CDMA2000 EVDO as well as LTE in the future, that aren't sold (or supported) by Verizon Wireless.
Now, if you have a problem trusting Verizon Wireless' word - that's something you have to resolve for yourself and get to the root of where that "healthy" skepticism is emanating from (e.g. most likely, your past experiences). |
|
comcast_customer
@accelnet.net
| reply to spamd
Re: Long Shot
Your long shot is correct, insofar as you don't say "ONLY". Why can't I get my data fix from /both/, wireless and wired? More choice - lower prices. Less choice - higher prices/monopolization.
You _want_ more choice. You don't want an "only" choice, even if it's the "best" (technologically or however-wise) choice.
But I'm with you - I want wireless too. It's the ultimate freedom! Literally, _no strings_ attached  . |
|
