Does The New Ultra-Mega Clearwire Have Enough Dough? Company says yes, analysts don't seem quite as sure... The folks behind the new ultra-mega-Clearwire claim that for the rock bottom price of $5 billion, they'll be able to offer mobile WiMax via 140 million POPs in fifty U.S. markets. But I've noticed that some analysts aren't so sure, and think the real price tag could more than double those estimates. One analyst thinks it will cost $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion per quarter for at least 18 months to reach 50 markets. Including backhaul costs, that could bring the total to more like $12 billion. Hogwash and poppycock, Clearwire exec Perry Satterlee tells Unstrung: "We believe the evolution of wireless broadband technology and a pure IP network are driving cost efficiencies for Clearwire," said the company's president Perry Satterlee. He claims the company will only need $2 billion to $2.3 billion extra funding, in addition to the $3.2 billion being pumped in by investors, to complete the network -- far less than a traditional cellular deployment would cost. I've been doing this long enough to know I'll probably be re-quoting those projections in two years when the project runs out of cash, but perhaps they have access to some dark telecom magic that obliterates deployment snags, overspending and human incompetence. Of course sugar daddies like Google, Intel and Comcast won't want to leave the project half-finished. Comcast wants to offer wireless broadband, Google wants to use the network to become an even larger advertising god, and Intel just wants their decade of relentless WiMax hype to pan out. Meanwhile, the creation of the new ultra-mega-Clearwire isn't official until regulators give their ok. In the interim, Sprint and Clearwire are continuing their existing, independent deployment plans. Clearwire this week announced that after they're done launching mobile WiMax in Portland, they'll be taking aim at Atlanta, Los Angeles and Grand Rapids. So far, it looks like those of you in launch cities will pay $60 or less for around 3-4Mbps.
|
 | | Should we care? What kind of latency do we get over Wimax? What kind of bandwidth will be available? | |
|  |
4 edits | Re: Should we care? Clearwire is the shining star in the world of Telecommunications.
Back when everyone was saying Google would bid on the 700mhz spectrum, they failed to talk about the merits of 2.5Ghz which provided more bandwidth and higher speeds.
With a combination of the Montevina Intel chips due out soon, Wimax will now be provided for national usage.
For years the MMDS spectrum laid unused and unable to be funded especially in my MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) of New York City. Technology back in the old days was very primative and also not that great which required alot of line of sight equipment.
With the new notebooks and Intel Wimax, that all changes now. A true national network for mobile computing which is everywhere and anywhere will be on the horizon. Just like the expansion of the cellular networks which took man years to build out, now the national wimax network will hit the show on the road.
For me: I get my Time Warner Cable broadband for wired along with 802.11N for inhome usage for my laptop. Then when I go outside range, I move on the Wimax enabled network. This product is a win win. It also can be used as a VoIP phone and use any carrier over the network I choose for voice communications. I am sure even wimax enabled headsets will come out as well.
I think this is perfect platform for Android and Powered by Google as well as anything else and will drive down cost efficiency and provide a robust network for usage anywhere and everywhere. All the players involved are top notch, from Time Warner to Google to Intel. The wildcard which actually owns 51% is Sprint, however Sprint has had its huge share of problems with its network. It is very possible for the other investors to raise their stake and/or for Sprint to leave the scene.
But for the customers this network promises to provide a FAT mobile nationwide internet pipeline with 2-4Mbps and will likely evolve to higher speeds. 2-4Mbps for mobile is like having a DSL connection while you are on the go.
All the carriers involved have enough dough to fund this thing to its entirety. There could be some changes in investment by the firms and changes in power or control.
For me this means computing everywhere and anywhere over 2.5mhz wireless at 2-4Mbps speeds which is faster than competing networks such as the Cellphone carriers like Verizon. Verizon gets the 700mhz spectrum while Clearwire has the better 2.5Mhz spectrum. And to boot this network is native Wimax not some CDMA or Qualcomm owned technology (which is actually Broadcom as Qualcomm was a marketting based company while Broadcom did the actual engineering work which actually sued Qualcomm and won in court)
So this is a win win for all consumers. My hope and guess is that Wimax over this network would be very price competitive because of competition in this space as well as the standardization on the Intel chipset which is essentially the fully dominant platform on mobile computing these days leading to built in Wimax on all the notebook computers with Intel right there and fully ready for usage just like with Wifi which is also built in.
For me Wimax is the best cause of the backing of the investment partners and the higher speed tiers offered combined with the fact that I do not have to plug in a phone or buy a proprietary mobile card in as all new Intel Mobile notebooks will have Wimax as standard.
Wimax latency CAN be 10MS or under (Note CAN, it all depends on the carrier since a poor implementation could see really high ping times).
Speed as for now on Wimax is slower than Cablemodem at 2-4Mbps downstream.
Wimax should be more competitive and better than competing cell carrier networks in terms of speed and latency and even pricing if all goes well.
Wimax has potential to be the defacto standard for mobile wireless.
It is all good news for the consumer and forces an openhand in the mobile wireless networks of the future.
I am looking forward to the Lenovo T61 replacement with Montevina and Wimax which is on the top of my radar list right now when it comes out. | |
| | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Should we care? WiMax's success I think depends on how it does in a critical period from their initial deployments until VZW starts deploying LTE. If Clearwire can't catch on in America by then, then there's a chance they could get bulldozed by Big Telco, or at best become just another competing standard rather than the dominant one. If they can assure themselves the dominant position, though, LTE-networks will be marginalized and Big Telco will be found scrambling for their own WiMax at a huge time disadvantage... it'll be interesting to see what happens. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Gog123:Clearwire is the shining star in the world of Telecommunications. Back when everyone was saying Google would bid on the 700mhz spectrum, they failed to talk about the merits of 2.5Ghz which provided more bandwidth and higher speeds. With a combination of the Montevina Intel chips due out soon, Wimax will now be provided for national usage. For years the MMDS spectrum laid unused and unable to be funded especially in my MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) of New York City. Technology back in the old days was very primative and also not that great which required alot of line of sight equipment. With the new notebooks and Intel Wimax, that all changes now. A true national network for mobile computing which is everywhere and anywhere will be on the horizon. Just like the expansion of the cellular networks which took man years to build out, now the national wimax network will hit the show on the road ............................. For me this means computing everywhere and anywhere over 2.5mhz wireless at 2-4Mbps speeds which is faster than competing networks such as the Cellphone carriers like Verizon. Verizon gets the 700mhz spectrum while Clearwire has the better 2.5Mhz spectrum. And to boot this network is native Wimax not some CDMA or Qualcomm owned technology (which is actually Broadcom as Qualcomm was a marketting based company while Broadcom did the actual engineering work which actually sued Qualcomm and won in court) So this is a win win for all consumers. My hope and guess is that Wimax over this network would be very price competitive because of competition in this space as well as the standardization on the Intel chipset which is essentially the fully dominant platform on mobile computing these days leading to built in Wimax on all the notebook computers with Intel right there and fully ready for usage just like with Wifi which is also built in. For me Wimax is the best cause of the backing of the investment partners and the higher speed tiers offered combined with the fact that I do not have to plug in a phone or buy a proprietary mobile card in as all new Intel Mobile notebooks will have Wimax as standard. Wimax latency CAN be 10MS or under (Note CAN, it all depends on the carrier since a poor implementation could see really high ping times). ............................... I am looking forward to the Lenovo T61 replacement with Montevina and Wimax which is on the top of my radar list right now when it comes out. Keep drinking your WiMAX koolaid. If WiMAX is ment to be something real mainstream network, why hasn't your beloved Intel released WiMAX laptops yet? The sitting user base is obvious, and if Intel hasn't taken advantage of it, someone needs to go back to school and get a MBA.
Next issue, the reason MMDS failed was the FCC. Speculators bought it all up and NEVER offered service and just sat on the spectrum. The FCC never put buildout requirements or a requirement to have service on the spectrum, and when the speculators sat on it the FCC quietly looked away.
Note the requirements of offering service only exist for AWS and WCS bands. Not BRS (what MMDS's frequencies are now called).
»ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te···&idno=47
EBS is a damn joke. I've never heard of any of these licensees using it (this is a search for Queens County NY (NYC)). And most of them cashed out big by leasing it. Did I mention there is no requirement to actually use the band?
»wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSear···rintable
»wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSear···rintable
»wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSear···rintable
»wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSear···rintable
Regarding MMDS/BRS. Sprint is the only license holder for the NYC market.
»wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSear···=2593563
Thats 24 mhz of spectrum, with no usage requirement. FCC is a joke. In the PCS C block auction, same area (BTA321), for 15 mhz of bandwidth, was sold for $1.3 billion. And the FCC just gave it away.
WiMAX is not an open standard. It runs/proposed to run on 30 different bands around the world. You think 1 manufacturer will make a part that talk on all of them? We can't even get a world 3G HSDPA phone, what makes you think we will get a multi country/multi provider WiMAX device? What WiMAX provider will want to subsidize world WiMAX cards that can be used on its competitors? Different bands for different carriers is the new Subsidy Locking.
Also 2.5ghz will NOT enable rural coverage. Its more shitty than PCS. If you don't like Sprint or TMobile's coverage today, you sure won't like WiMAX, since its guarenteed to be less. Building penetration will suck too. Walk through 5 doors inside an apt building and you'll get zero bars, yet stand on the street and get full bars. *pulls out my Verizon and sees 3 bars*
Also think of your logic.
quote:
For years the MMDS spectrum laid unused and unable to be funded especially in my MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) of New York City. Technology back in the old days was very primative and also not that great which required alot of line of sight equipment.
So how is WiMAX going to not need line of sight when its the same spectrum with the same radiation limits? Keep shilling brother. | |
| | | | | | Re: Should we care? Why hasn't Intel released WiMax laptops? maybe because Intel doesnt make Laptops? but you can get WiMax laptops from other Mfg's right now... Dell and IBM for one | |
|
|  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Yo me again :
What kind of latency do we get over Wimax? What kind of bandwidth will be available?
The latency is pretty good actually. It was in the 50-75ms range for almost all the sites I tested. I can get 1.5Mbps from them now, but they want almost $60/month for it with a 2-year contract. They also limit pretty much anything but web/email. | |
| |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by Yo me again :
What kind of latency do we get over Wimax? What kind of bandwidth will be available?
I tested one here, and the tower was within sight, so I was getting the strongest possible signal.
In speed test, the 2.0 service does about 1.6 Mbps at best and about 189 kbps on the upload test. Latency is really all over the place, sometimes sub 50 ms pings, other times it timeouts or hits 2000 ms. The service is also very unstable around other clearwire access points, as in you need to keep some distance or the interference actually knocks you offline as I experienced in front of the sales guys (who was probably not happy about that inside their own store).
Other than that, it sure beats the heck out of dial up, but I'm not going to sign a 2 year contract and dish out a lot money for the hardware just to test it. Doing a simple test right next to the tower and still running into issues would only be multiplied once you get further away from the coverage areas I believe. | |
| | | | | Re: Should we care? Are you guys talking about the new mobile WiMAX or the pre-WiMAX. The pre-WiMAX doesn't perform as well and only Portland, OR has mobile WiMAX (from Clearwire). | |
| | | | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: Should we care? said by prewimax :
Are you guys talking about the new mobile WiMAX or the pre-WiMAX. The pre-WiMAX doesn't perform as well and only Portland, OR has mobile WiMAX (from Clearwire).
That I'm not sure, it certainly wasn't the WiMax though I know that for certain. It's the same as what the cell phones use as what the sales manager told me. | |
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by prewimax :
Are you guys talking about the new mobile WiMAX or the pre-WiMAX. The pre-WiMAX doesn't perform as well and only Portland, OR has mobile WiMAX (from Clearwire).
My area is definitely pre-WiMAX. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Should we care? Not really appropriate to post pre-WiMAX results in this thread, which is about 'mobile' WiMAX. Word is, mobile WiMAX can average 2-4Mbps and there are reports of 6Mbps or more. Technically, devices are spec'd to go to 15Mbps but the backhaul probably won't be there to do it.
Latency is typically 50-60ms but can be much much lower if very near the tower with LOS, as low as 10ms has been demonstrated. Will obviously be higher with lots of obstructions and more distance. | |
| | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Should we care? said by xenophon:Not really appropriate to post pre-WiMAX results in this thread, which is about 'mobile' WiMAX. Word is, mobile WiMAX can average 2-4Mbps and there are reports of 6Mbps or more. Technically, devices are spec'd to go to 15Mbps but the backhaul probably won't be there to do it. Latency is typically 50-60ms but can be much much lower if very near the tower with LOS, as low as 10ms has been demonstrated. Will obviously be higher with lots of obstructions and more distance. What is the difference? | |
|
| |
Test99Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
kudos:1 | Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented One place in a WiMax network where there should be some savings is back at the central office. WiMax is a packet-oriented protocol, in contrast to the connection-oriented protocols used in conventional switches. According to reports, a conventional switch can easily cost a million dollars. The routers for WiMax should cost substantially less.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| | | | Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented How can it take 140 Million POPs to cover the US? Did Clearwire state earlier (or someone else did) on BroadbandReports that it only took 4 towers to cover the entire NYC area? That means may 2 towers per average city (sorry I'm small time 100,000 population, maybe I'm mis-directed). Are there even that many cell towers out there for 700 million population (in the us roughly I think)? Or am I mis-interpreting the article? | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented 4-5 mile Non line of sight range or 10 Mile line of sight range for Wimax. | |
| | | | | 140 population coverage, not point of presence. | |
|
|  tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | said by Test99:One place in a WiMax network where there should be some savings is back at the central office. WiMax is a packet-oriented protocol, in contrast to the connection-oriented protocols used in conventional switches. According to reports, a conventional switch can easily cost a million dollars. The routers for WiMax should cost substantially less. So, what's the stop these "conventional" switches from installing new IP based switches like the Nortel Session switches? Knowing some contractors who work in these CO's, these "conventional" switches are already being offloaded to the newer systems. Give the telco's a little credit. They have been handling IP traffic for a few years now with most of it from VoIP providers who didn't have that connectivity to the rest of the world.  | |
| | | Test99Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented said by tc1uscg:So, what's the stop these "conventional" switches from installing new IP based switches like the Nortel Session switches? Nothing at all. I imagine Sprint will choose something like that.
The people who say Sprint has underestimated the cost of the new network are arguing that it will cost more because it cost more to install the original cellular networks. But that is an apples-and-oranges comparison, because IP switches are less expensive.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| | | | tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | Re: Packet-oriented versus Connection-oriented They do..  | |
|
| | the value of Clearwire ...lies not in the replacement of any existing connection, but in the enabling of wireless in equipment and devices that to not have it today. when was the last time you plugged your mobile broadband card into your car? Your camera? Your DVR? Security cameras? Now integrate into the rest of the electronics in these devices.
There has to be a first mover advantage here. If I were Ford, this would be the ticket to retaking Toyota. Or, in Toyota's case, the ability to send Ford into the Stone Age.
The cable companies are smart to try. It's low cost and high return. It will save their High Speed Internet revenues and allow them to build aggregation value throughout all parts of the bundle (IF the content deals can be signed, soon). | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: the value of Clearwire said by wildcat man:...lies not in the replacement of any existing connection, but in the enabling of wireless in equipment and devices that to not have it today. when was the last time you plugged your mobile broadband card into your car? Your camera? Your DVR? Security cameras? Now integrate into the rest of the electronics in these devices. And if there was market demand it would have been done by now. Laptops regularly come with 3G cards, and cars have OnStar. There is no technical difference between WiMAX and any existing cellphone standard, the only difference is what company execs want. | |
| | | | | Re: the value of Clearwire The argument of "it would have been done by now" a.k.a. "there is nothing new under the sun" completely ignores the role of consumer marketing. How long did we have Napster + Walkmans/ Discmans + recorded music prior to the iPod? At least five years. I agree that if Clearwire or others fail to take advantage of Intel, Google, Comcast and Sprint's abilities to change the market perception of mobility, they will struggle to reach market share. But to say that video over WiMax is dead because Verizon, at&t and Sprint have TV over mobile is preposterous. I would expect this from the companies who brought us ISDN, and ADSL but not those who brought us gmail and Centrino. | |
|
kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA | VC Book "How to supress minority shareholders" Well, this sure sounds like it came out of the VC playbook "how to suppress minority shareholders".
A VC finances some entity, but, with less money than the VC feels will be needed to bring the product online.
When the entity burns through the existing cash, the VC supplies the needed cash but takes most of the company equity in doing the deal as the entity is stuck. | |
|  DestBoloPremium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL
 ·Sprint Broadband..
1 edit | speculation speculation
I have a friend who work in motorola on the WiMax stuff, and he's been deploying winmax for clearwire.
no concerete evidence, but he say that part of the google investment would be to use their dark fiber for backhaul.
that will lower the estimated backhaul cost no? | |
| | | What gives!? I don't get why we here in Chicago are not one of the first to get this...I mean this is the first test site and, on top of that, wasn't this the city where they pretty much invented the damn thing (I may be wrong on this!).
Why is it that they always implement the technology in either small cities or rural towns? Wouldn't it be better served in a big city, especially one where they already started some of the infrastructure, and also where they can maximize their financial gain?
Maybe I am just not getting it...someone please explain it too me as if I were a six year old. | |
| | | | Re: What gives!? Sprint has the majority of spectrum in larger cities. Clearwire has some large markets but also has spectrum allocated in many small markets.
Clearwire initially wanted to go mostly after markets that don't have landline broadband. Sprint wanted the big markets off the bat and compete head-head with landline. Now that they plan to combine and have the cable companies involved, they'll be supplementing cable as well as competing.
Sprint is doing Chicago and will be rolling out once they figure out backhaul issues and billing. Chicago already has the infrastructure in place, it's just not quite ready to rollout to consumers.
Keep in mind that Sprint and Clearwire are still separate companies and need fed approval. Once they join, they'll be able to combine resources and hit pretty much all the largest 100 markets and a bunch of small markets. | |
|
| |
|
|
