Clearwire: 688,000 Subscribers Houston the next market to see 4G launch Clearwire today posted their fourth quarter 2009 earnings report, which indicates that the WiMax carrier set a quarterly growth record with 87,000 new subscribers on the quarter, for a total of 688,000 subscribers. The company says they added 46,000 wholesale subscribers from their Mobile WiMax partnerships with Comcast, Sprint, and Time Warner Cable. Clearwire reported a loss of $98.7 million, down from $118 million one year earlier, while revenue jumped 34% to $79.9 million. As we've repeatedly noted, Clearwire hopes their coverage area will blanket 120 million potential customers by the end of 2010. Clearwire currently offers service in 27 markets across the country, and while many of them are major markets (Chicago, Las Vegas, Dallas), many of them are smaller markets in Texas. According to Clearwire, 2010 will see launches in New York, Boston, DC, Houston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Denver, Minneapolis and Kansas City. Indications are that users in the mega-markets of New York, The Bay Area, and Boston will have to wait until much later in 2010 for service. According to Clearwire, Houston appears to be the next launch market on deck, with the company indicating a launch within several weeks. Obviously after Clearwire launches service in a market, Comcast, Sprint, and Time Warner Cable (with some variation) follow up behind with their own wireless broadband services.
|
 | | And in Other Parts of the World I was in India for the last three weeks, and I read BSNL is planning on offering 2 mbit WIMAX for ~$5/month, to a bunch of super low-tech, underdeveloped farming villages.
WIMAX certainly is an amazing technology.
Unfortunately the insanely high special access rates pffered by the duopoly of Verizon and AT&T in America are preventing Clearwire from making a profit. With regulated, sane special access prices Clearwire could lower their prices, expand their subscriber base, and make a significant profit.
Too bad the Obama-appointed Genachowski is too chicken to do anything other than send letters and make worthless proclamations about the benefits of internet access.
We should have voted in Hillary. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: And in Other Parts of the World We would have this here but to keep Clear from stealing customers from ATT and VZ (in a price war) everyone here decided to use LTE and let WiMax die out. By doiing so it kills one more provider.
I can't wait until Clear is here! they're hiring right now for the CLE market.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.twopugsbrand.com | |
| | ditka_bPremium
join:2001-10-05
Barrington, IL | Im paying 50.00 a month(for life) for home and travel access.
1 USB laptop card and a home router.
4-6/1 on road and 6/1 at home where's that HUGE cost compared to cable??
Blows 3G out of the water low latency and fast speeds and cost alot less. | |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Competition is good As long as they don't all of a sudden merge with Comcast or AT&T. But their partnership seems to be varied enough perhaps that they wouldn't side with any one partner hopefully.
Not sure how good their service is though, as by reading the forums, some people seem to have rock solid service and others have spotty service all the time.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Competition is good said by knightmb:As long as they don't all of a sudden merge with Comcast or AT&T. But their partnership seems to be varied enough perhaps that they wouldn't side with any one partner hopefully. Not sure how good their service is though, as by reading the forums, some people seem to have rock solid service and others have spotty service all the time. Competition is GREAT and cities with mulitiple choices can tell you that.
I have FiOS and told them Comcast is also installed in my building and got nearly 1/4th my bill chopped off for 6 months.
You also read stories from Karl all the time about cities with their local groups starting up internet service and seeing the companies (AT&T or whoever) upgrade their service AND slash prices.
It's amazing what a little pressure can do.
It's pathetic we have so many laws restricting competition in so many areas of this country. Absolutely pathetic. | |
|
| | What happened to Baltimore??? Wasn't Baltimore Xohm/Clear's first city? Why do they claim to have no network there? | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: What happened to Baltimore??? said by SuperELX :
Wasn't Baltimore Xohm/Clear's first city? Why do they claim to have no network there?
It is in Baltimore - since 2008
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2359139,00.asp | |
|
| | What a joke How about instead of adding more cities you work on improving coverage in places like portland. Your coverage map says you cover the entire metro area and our suburbs, but when you check an address it says NO. It's not just one part of town, it's all over. Swiss cheese coverage. | |
| | | how about skipping straight to white space broadband? who needs this crappy clear that takes decades to come to new york...i will just take white spaces internet once it comes around my side of the woods.. | |
| |  w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR | Re: how about skipping straight to white space broadband? For one, white space broadband isn't the future. There's very little bandwidth in the white space realm compared to WiMAX and other wireless technologies, and before you say something about white space having better range, that's all remedied with the use of MIMO and beam forming that are part of WiMAX (although not being used entirely at this time). At best each white space channel is 20MHz and how many of those channels are they even going to allow to be used? WiMAX has 100's of MHz if not GHz available to it.
--
www.aimless.us - irc.aimless.us channel #fix | |
|
| | not so fast... white space will use unoccupied TV frequencies...meaning signal will travel a lot further away and travel through walls and obstructions way better than wimax or lte...meaning less towers and less expense to make the build out...so it will be a lot cheaper....and also a lot faster
any first grader will tell you, TV waves travel a lot better than radio waves...so there | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast
3 edits | Re: not so fast... said by vlad1000:white space will use unoccupied TV frequencies...meaning signal will travel a lot further away and travel through walls and obstructions way better than wimax or lte...meaning less towers and less expense to make the build out...so it will be a lot cheaper....and also a lot faster any first grader will tell you, TV waves travel a lot better than radio waves...so there TV waves are a form of radio waves and the higher the frequency, the less interference. Just because a radio wave is unoccupied does not mean that it can pass thru barriers better, it does not work like that. The ability to pass thru barriers are based upon the potential - kinetic energy transformation and the higher the frequency, the more it can pass thru objects. Neutron particles are high accelerates radio waves that can pass thru virtually everything and bond with the water water in organic beings basically water h2o to form another compound killing that host, will not happen with a LFE radio wave. So you are wrong in thinking that in this "white space technology", it will not be popular due to the lower radio Frequency channels. Also it has less potential energy so it can not travel thru infrastructures as easily as a higher frequency such as "gamma" or "neutron" energies. (extreme examples) Even Ultraviolet radio waves A, B and C are high that penetrate the skin and causes neoplasm (the C and A type). Think of the higher forms of the electrical magnetic spectrum and the amount of potential energies it has as opposed to the low frequency energies in the kHz or MHz range.
one more thing: A first grader would not know this, this is advance science but a physicist or an electrical physicist would.
Why do you think cordless phones that started at the 43 KHz spectrum is now 2.9 GHz | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: not so fast... said by floyd007:Why do you think cordless phones that started at the 43 KHz spectrum is now 2.9 GHz I think you mean 43 MHZ cordless phones. The reason they moved the phones to a higher band is because of congestion, and not enough spectrum to do digital FHSS. NOT because of better coverage. Why do satellites use 20 GHZ but not 200 mhz? Since 20 GHZ can't be used on land for anything without flesh cooking power levels. Why do Sprint and Tmobile always have a lower db level than ATT and Verizon? Why does 5.4 ghz wifi always go less than 2.4 ghz wifi?
I'm not sure what you mean by 2.9 ghz cordless phones. No unlicensed or amateur is allowed in 2.9-3.0 ghz band. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast
| Re: not so fast... said by patcat88:said by floyd007:Why do you think cordless phones that started at the 43 KHz spectrum is now 2.9 GHz I think you mean 43 MHZ cordless phones. The reason they moved the phones to a higher band is because of congestion, and not enough spectrum to do digital FHSS. NOT because of better coverage. Why do satellites use 20 GHZ but not 200 mhz? Since 20 GHZ can't be used on land for anything without flesh cooking power levels. Why do Sprint and Tmobile always have a lower db level than ATT and Verizon? Why does 5.4 ghz wifi always go less than 2.4 ghz wifi? I'm not sure what you mean by 2.9 ghz cordless phones. No unlicensed or amateur is allowed in 2.9-3.0 ghz band. Not true. Currently the highest ranges are 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz which minimize static caused by objects and interference by other electrical signals. That is Between 2.4 GHz THRU 5.8 GHZ NOT 2.4 GHZ AND 5.8 GHZ.
Better coverage is always due to "move waves" via frequency. That is a know fact. The point is as the frequency has more energy it gets more dangerous (UV radiation and other radiations from the sun, Gamma, X-Ray, Neutron particles) and those can effect organic matter, hence that is the barrier for increasing the frequency not because of what you said. Microwave (not the ones in a oven, the ones that mobile phone uses to carry data) is a prime example. there is a debate that it can cause cellular abnormalities. normally it does not have sufficient energy to change DNA but long term use, who knows.
Also the old "brick" phones of the early 1990s that never lost a connection used a higher frequency wavelength, problem was that it was deemed too dangerous having that microwave PLUS wavelength to your head all the time plus other logistics issues | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: not so fast... said by floyd007:Not true. Currently the highest ranges are 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz which minimize static caused by objects and interference by other electrical signals. That is Between 2.4 GHz THRU 5.8 GHZ NOT 2.4 GHZ AND 5.8 GHZ. 2.4 was made an unlicensed band since it was already useless for licensing due to leaking microwave ovens and to a smaller extent amateur radio.
Here is some rational by the FCC »74.125.93.132/search?hl=en&sourc···aql=&oq=
said by floyd007:Better coverage is always due to "move waves" via frequency. That is a know fact. The point is as the frequency has more energy it gets more dangerous (UV radiation and other radiations from the sun, Gamma, X-Ray, Neutron particles) and those can effect organic matter, hence that is the barrier for increasing the frequency not because of what you said. Microwave (not the ones in a oven, the ones that mobile phone uses to carry data) is a prime example. there is a debate that it can cause cellular abnormalities. normally it does not have sufficient energy to change DNA but long term use, who knows. The particle energy of a photon has nothing to do with the RF amplitude. Higher the frequency, the more loss going through an object.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_prop···sorption
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-line-o···pagation
said by floyd007:Also the old "brick" phones of the early 1990s that never lost a connection used a higher frequency wavelength, problem was that it was deemed too dangerous having that microwave PLUS wavelength to your head all the time plus other logistics issues Wrong again. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_M···e_System
The brick cellphones used the exact same band as ATT/VZ cellphones use today. Until 2008, you could still use a Motorola Dynatac with Verizon (registering the ESN of a Dynatac was a bit more of a challenge because of mid 2000s E911 and walled garden rules). | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| said by patcat88:said by floyd007:Why do you think cordless phones that started at the 43 KHz spectrum is now 2.9 GHz I think you mean 43 MHZ cordless phones. The reason they moved the phones to a higher band is because of congestion, and not enough spectrum to do digital FHSS. NOT because of better coverage. Why do satellites use 20 GHZ but not 200 mhz? Since 20 GHZ can't be used on land for anything without flesh cooking power levels. Why do Sprint and Tmobile always have a lower db level than ATT and Verizon? Why does 5.4 ghz wifi always go less than 2.4 ghz wifi? I'm not sure what you mean by 2.9 ghz cordless phones. No unlicensed or amateur is allowed in 2.9-3.0 ghz band. Lower DB is from Sprint and T-Mobile not putting up enough tower's. In part's of the US, AT&T and Verizon have PCS only 1900mhz market's and typically I find the signal level to be better than T-Mobile or Sprint just because AT&T and Verizon typically invest more into their network. A properly engineered 1900mhz network can be as good or better than an 850mhz cell network.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Looking forward to the Denver launch If Denver does indeed get lit by WiMAX this summer or thereabouts, and if the HTC Supersonic comes out around the same time, I will at the very least upgrade my Sprint plan and get that phone. WiMAX FTW.
Heck, I might even end up upgrading my Cocmast internet tier at the same time, going to 20/4 for for fixed-line AND adding the WiMAX + 3G service. That's a little more subject to my finances at the time but having a MBB card that's faster than DSL is a big draw for me.
That said, I'd probably just use PDANet for Android with the Supersonic, or a smiliar phone with a keyboard if one comes out. | |
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Sprint smartphone upgrade to 4G at no cost increase
| |
|  ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Advertising I have noticed ALOT of Clear commercials advertising their WiMax service from a Chicago newstation channel, that my work has turned on.
Me thinks that they just need to focus on expanding their current coverage though. But whatever. | |
| | | Overdrive 3G/4G WiFi router Looks like KC is getting WiMAX this year. I'm more interested now in the 3G/4G Overdrive router. Now that 4G monthly rates are same as 3G on Sprint, even if you don't have 4G today, you can get it while traveling or until it reaches your area - and not pay extra.
»www.evdoinfo.com/content/view/3055/179/
I'm not too excited about getting WiMAX on my phone (Pre) as 3G speeds are pretty good, but it would be nice to tether laptop via WiMAX connection. | |
| | ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Re: Overdrive 3G/4G WiFi router said by xenophon:I'm not too excited about getting WiMAX on my phone (Pre) as 3G speeds are pretty good, but it would be nice to tether laptop via WiMAX connection. lol what? If anything could use a speed boost its mobile cellphone speeds.
I'm getting 400-700kbps down on 3G at its best. This is with me using T Mobile and one of the best smartphone on the market. Granted T Mobile isn't going WiMax, but HSDPA+, but cellphone internet speeds could ALL use a MAJOR speed boost in this country across ALL providers. | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: Overdrive 3G/4G WiFi router said by ztmike:said by xenophon:I'm not too excited about getting WiMAX on my phone (Pre) as 3G speeds are pretty good, but it would be nice to tether laptop via WiMAX connection. lol what? If anything could use a speed boost its mobile cellphone speeds. I'm getting 400-700kbps down on 3G at its best. This is with me using T Mobile and one of the best smartphone on the market. Granted T Mobile isn't going WiMax, but HSDPA+, but cellphone internet speeds could ALL use a MAJOR speed boost in this country across ALL providers. I am seeing over 3000 kbps down here on AT&T wireless 3G on my iPhone.
If AT&T and T-Mobile would just go ahead and fully deploy HSPA+ 21 mbps then it would blow Clear out of the water.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! | |
| | | | | | Re: Overdrive 3G/4G WiFi router said by iLive4Fusion:said by ztmike:said by xenophon:I'm not too excited about getting WiMAX on my phone (Pre) as 3G speeds are pretty good, but it would be nice to tether laptop via WiMAX connection. lol what? If anything could use a speed boost its mobile cellphone speeds. I'm getting 400-700kbps down on 3G at its best. This is with me using T Mobile and one of the best smartphone on the market. Granted T Mobile isn't going WiMax, but HSDPA+, but cellphone internet speeds could ALL use a MAJOR speed boost in this country across ALL providers. I am seeing over 3000 kbps down here on AT&T wireless 3G on my iPhone. If AT&T and T-Mobile would just go ahead and fully deploy HSPA+ 21 mbps then it would blow Clear out of the water. You realize they`re testing HSPA 48 mbps in Sweden, right? | |
| | | | | | | Re: Overdrive 3G/4G WiFi router Yea I do. But this is um the US and we are quite behind in times of broadband, especially wireless.. So 21MBPS is like a OMFG for us.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! | |
|
| |
|
|
