This Is Not The WiMax Miracle We Were Promised'Most important thing since the Internet itself' was always just niche player... 03:03PM Friday Aug 21 2009 by Karl Bodetags: competition · business · wireless · alternativesWe've been watching WiMax backer Intel's marketing department drum up deafening hype about the technology for running on five years, initially calling WiMax "the most important thing since the Internet itself." This resulted in a lot of unskeptical but bubbly news reports, starting in 2004, proclaiming that WiMax was a cable and DSL competitor before it had even really left the development gate. Half a decade later finds Clearwire as the only major U.S. player in the Mobile WiMax space, with barely a handful of major launch markets under their belt. In response, Intel has spent a lot of time in 2009 in damage control mode, claiming that those critical of Mobile Wimax's slow deployment weren't noticing the extraordinary success the technology was having overseas. But a number of analysts have been seeing storm clouds on the horizon: In the USA, Sprint is rolling out a national WiMAX network through its majority shareholding in Clearwire, but the growth in number of subscribers has been disappointing. Google and Intel, among others, have already written off billions of dollars they had invested in Clearwire. This does not look good for WiMAX. Also, it appears that the North American CDMA operators may move to LTE, rather than to WiMAX. But overseas things are rosy, just like Intel said, right? Not so much: In developed European markets, operators are almost certainly upgrading their 3G technologies to 4G LTE in order to match the rising demand for data. Analysys Mason’s Research division recently carried out an extensive series of interviews with the leading MNOs in Europe: none of the operators interviewed hinted that they might adopt WiMAX, now that LTE is imminent. They see WiMAX as a technology to be deployed in an ad hoc fashion in developing countries. Of course if you were paying attention back in 2004, you knew that Mobile WiMax's best bet was as a niche solution, and not the major alternative pipe revolution Intel promised. Even when you set the technology aside, it's hard to bet against the combined might of both AT&T and Verizon in the LTE wireless space.
Related:- Clearwire Promises Late Year Growth Explosion
- Clearwire Launches In Ten New Markets
- AT&T's 'Blogger Guy' Faces Public Backlash
- Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
- Analyst: Apple Will Stick With AT&T Exclusivity
- Clearwire Launching In Chicago October 6
- AT&T 'Sets The Record Straight' On Verizon Ads
- Deutsche Telekom Looking For U.S. T-Mobile Partner
|
 |  | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: WiMAX has a definite niche, and IMO it's alive and well Wimax has the best chances as a rural fixed wireless product. It covers wider distances than WiFi and will support a wide array of devices designed for WiMax/WiFi and even Wimax/Wifi/LTE eventually. In places where wired broadband is just cost prohibitive, Wimax will have a chance to provide service for reasonable rates.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: WiMAX has a definite niche, and IMO it's alive and well My points exactly. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I agree... many rural areas with POTS should actually look into abandoning it for some form of fixed wireless / WLL.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Well put.
IDK if it has much of a future as a mobile(I would be shocked if it had none thou) but I think it has a lot of potential as a fixed especially in rural areas. | |
| | Automate
join:2001-06-26
Atlanta, GA | This report seems as though it was written at the beginning of the year. Clear's stock is up almost 300% since its lows in late Feb. early March. | |
| neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
| maybe because there is no competition? overseas there are Multple wi-max providers.... why is it only clearwire doing this in the usa? why is everyone partnering with them? why not have other carriers start their own up? heck if comcast put a wimax tower at every head end, that would be a start... maybe verizon have one at every CO... | |
| | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: maybe because Because partnering with another company is cheaper and quicker. Also, companies don't want to invest lots of money in a technology they aren't sure will take off. Better to partner with another company and let them take the risk. If the conecpt proves successful, then build a network. | |
| | | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: maybe because Interesting that you use that analogy, since MS announced this week that they're working on a way for devices that would white space spectrum to determine if they would interfere with an existing service and avoid those frequencies. Interesting that MS is seemingly on the same side of an issue as Google, which is also pushing hard for the use of these frequencies for unlicensed access. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by en102  :This comes somewhat down to Microsoft vs Linux. LTE = Microsoft (backed by big mega corp/lobbiests/global telcos/patent holders/equipment vendors) WiMAX = Linux (IEEE standards, more 'open' to development, lower cost, backed by chip vendors) And WiMAX will never get out of being a proprietary (by not being mainstream, not by IP sense), embedded/niche/enterprise product. Expect WiMAX to power your local police department's cruiser data terminals on "public safety" 4.9 ghz band, not your daughter's phone. | |
| | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: maybe because said by patcat88 :And WiMAX will never get out of being a proprietary (by not being mainstream, not by IP sense), embedded/niche/enterprise product. Expect WiMAX to power your local police department's cruiser data terminals on "public safety" 4.9 ghz band, not your daughter's phone. Come on patcat, you know that's not what 'proprietary' means. WiMAX is already cheaper and better performing than 3G.
WiMAX will likely eventually dominate the 4.9 GHz Public Safety band, because it's a solid, standardized product/solution with multiple vendors, for a market currently dominated by Motorola's proprietary products/solutions.
Sprint has said they will offer a tri-mode CDMA/EvDO, WiMAX, and WiFi smartphone in 2010. The scuttlebutt is it's an Android phone from Samsung. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
2 edits | Re: maybe because said by Samsonian :Sprint has said they will offer a tri-mode CDMA/EvDO, WiMAX, and WiFi smartphone in 2010. The scuttlebutt is it's an Android phone from Samsung. Thats the problem. Its a smartphone. Its just 1. And its Android which doesn't have mainstream acceptance. Your teenage daughter won't be using one. Neither will the corporate suit (unless their CIO is a FOSS geek and the corp runs off FOSS intranet apps), or the soccer mom who wants to play mp3s and check entertainment gossip and record amateur vids and pics occasionally. The sheeple/joe six pack want an simple, low options, premade experience, idiot proof, walled garden iPhone*, not a full blown, all the options, open (egh, poor FOSS culture, but you can load your own apps out of the box), geek OS like Windows Mobile phones. I'm not sure where Android falls between the 2.
Also, I'm not sure if Android is OS Standard, like POSIX or LSB or freedesktop, plus API for 3rd party user loaded apps, and a standard OS layout and core tools, plus a Reference Implementation of the standard made by Google as a live OS,
or, Android is just an OS with no real ability to cleanroom rewrite it as closed source, or under another license? (AKA, as practical and feasible as to write a closed source interpreter for Perl, as a compliment to perl, since Perl makes no effort to be a standard, and the standard is whatever the perl source does) Can you write a closed source OS to run FOSS Android apps? Also does Android include human interface design guidlines/one GUI theme/one widget set, or is that left up to the phone maker and app developer independently?
*Look at how many people still watch walled garden TV, or use walled garden non-smartphone OS phones, or never leave their carrier's WAP deck, even though there are real alternatives (WWW IPTV, and WM/Android/Symbian/Palm(?)). | |
| | | | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: maybe because said by patcat88 :Thats the problem. Its a smartphone. Its just 1. Sprint has been vague on this front. But as a major carrier, it's a safe bet that they're working behind the scenes. They did get the Palm Pre after all. I'm sure they're working with HTC, Motorola, Palm, Samsung, and others to get the most competitive line up of phones possible. They probably won't announce anything until it's relatively concrete and near ready to go.
And its Android which doesn't have mainstream acceptance.
The Android platform and the first Android phone only came in October 2008, it's still very young. Despite this, it's come a long way, and has a lot of development and momentum behind it. You should take another look at it, you might be surprised and see the potential it has.
Google expects ~18 Android phones by end of the year, maybe 50+ next year. HTC, Moto, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and others have announced phones and plans for more.
'»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/2···ars-end/'
'»community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,100···b,00.htm'
'»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(o···_system)'
Your teenage daughter won't be using one. Neither will the corporate suit (unless their CIO is a FOSS geek and the corp runs off FOSS intranet apps), or the soccer mom who wants to play mp3s and check entertainment gossip and record amateur vids and pics occasionally.
'»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(o···Features'
The Android platform supports MMS/SMS, MS Exchange ActiveSync (EAS), a full web browser (WebKit-based like Chrome and Safari), 3D graphics for games, A/V support (MPEG 4 A/SP / H.263, MPEG 4 AVC / H.264, MP3, AAC, etc.), image support (JPEG, GIF, PNG), 3rd party app support (including a 'Market' with OTA dl's), support for hardware features like: touchscreens, still/video cameras, accelerometers, etc.
Considering all that, why wouldn't corporate types, moms, and teenagers, or anyone else want a sleek, easy to use, affordable phone that can do those things?
The sheeple/joe six pack want an simple, low options, premade experience, idiot proof, walled garden iPhone*, not a full blown, all the options, open (egh, poor FOSS culture, but you can load your own apps out of the box), geek OS like Windows Mobile phones. I'm not sure where Android falls between the 2.
I too share your frustration with the FOSS communities' general lack of attention to detail on user interfaces (UI). But, considering we're getting something for free, and it gets better over time, there's no need to take a dump on them. A number of projects like Mozilla Firefox and Apache have done a great job.
Android has also done good job with the GUI. Android may not be competitive with the latest and greatest 'hero phones' from Apple, Palm, and RIM, but most people can't afford those phones (with their crazy expensive service plans).
If you can afford it, go ahead and get one of those and be happy. But if you can't, Android based phones will likely be 'good enough' to be the everyman's smartphone.
Also, I'm not sure if Android is OS Standard, like POSIX or LSB or freedesktop, plus API for 3rd party user loaded apps, and a standard OS layout and core tools, plus a Reference Implementation of the standard made by Google as a live OS,
or, Android is just an OS with no real ability to cleanroom rewrite it as closed source, or under another license? (AKA, as practical and feasible as to write a closed source interpreter for Perl, as a compliment to perl, since Perl makes no effort to be a standard, and the standard is whatever the perl source does) Can you write a closed source OS to run FOSS Android apps? Also does Android include human interface design guidlines/one GUI theme/one widget set, or is that left up to the phone maker and app developer independently?
While I'm a technically minded young lad, I'm not a software developer (just don't have the chops for it, I tried years ago =/ ), but here's what I know of the technical details:
Android is a free, open source software (FOSS) project, shepherded by Google, to create an advanced, free mobile platform. It's designed to as friendly and open as possible to handset vendors, software developers, mobile operators, and users.
It's based on a modified Linux kernel, and a modified Java Virtual Machine called Dalvik (technically not Java b/c of that), uses the Java language with more languages being added. A software development kit (SDK) is available to create 3rd party apps.
I was a bit skeptical at first, because it was yet another mobile platform, completely new and thus little to nothing would carry over, and we'd see more fragmentation in the market.
Thankfully that wasn't the case, we've seen a lot coalescing around Android, and it has a lot of momentum going forward. There's a lot of good apps available, and more coming. Take a look, you might be impressed with the results (less than a year since intro):
'»www.android.com/market/'
Keep in mind Google is trying herd a lot of cats (handset vendors, mobile operators, and software developers) and have something end users want.
No small feat.
*Look at how many people still watch walled garden TV, or use walled garden non-smartphone OS phones, or never leave their carrier's WAP deck, even though there are real alternatives (WWW IPTV, and WM/Android/Symbian/Palm(?)).
VCast, MediaFlo, etc. are all pretty lame and expensive. I'm sure the walled garden will fall (if it hasn't already). | |
| | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| said by neufuse :there is no competition? overseas there are Multple wi-max providers.... why is it only clearwire doing this in the usa? Clearwire is definitely the largest and most financially back WiMAX provider, but it's hardly the only WiMAX provider in the USA. There's a whole bunch including: DigitalBridge, Open Range, Towerstream, Nth Air, Xanadoo, and a number of others, including, interestingly enough, AT&T-subsidiary AT&T Alascom serving Alaska. Could it be because WiMAX is cheaper than HSPA? And is deployable now, whereas LTE isn't?
'»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de···networks'
'»www.wimaxmaps.org/'
why is everyone partnering with them? why not have other carriers start their own up?
As ISurfTooMuch said, "partnering with another company is cheaper and quicker."
It should be noted that cablecos: Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House are significant equity partners in the "new" Clearwire, having invested $1.05 Billion, $550 million, and $100 million respectively. They have the right to operate as an Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) on Clearwire's network on a wholesale basis. Clearly, they intend to use this as their wireless play. This is a relatively cheap way to get into the national wireless game, which has enormous barriers to entry now.
Cox is taking a different route: deploying a CDMA/EvDO network its AWS spectrum, roaming on Sprint's 3G network, and deploying LTE in its 700 MHz spectrum. Clearly this is a more costly, difficult, and risky proposition, but they feel its worth it to own that pipe to their customers.
heck if comcast put a wimax tower at every head end, that would be a start... maybe verizon have one at every CO...
5 MHz of Clearwire's spectrum is reserved for WiMAX femtocells. Comcast has said they intend to eventually deploy a lot of them, possibly by having them integrated in cable modems and set top boxes (STBs).
Cablecos definitely need to provide more (fiber) backhaul to Clearwire. Unfortunately, I've heard almost nothing on that front. | |
| | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: maybe because Comcast *could* have a company like Cisco integrate femtocells into wireless router/gateways or cable modems (Cisco supplies both to Comcast today, through their Linksys and Scientific Atlanta subsidiaries). Problem: Cisco's Linksys subsid has a deal with Vonage. (Can you say *noncompete clause*? Cisco is also in the VoIP business itself, albeit enterprise-level VoIP, it isa deals like the one with Vonage that are *all* about keeping Cisco out of consumer VoIP.)
Comcast owns a lot of fiber; however, some of it is not wholly Comcast-owned (such as the joint expansion with Level 3). Both Comcast and TWC are customers of Level 3 (which also has a backhaul-supplier deal itself with Clear). The buildout is taking a while because there are some *physical* operations that have to be done (whether by the cablecos or Clear), and permitting chews up time. | |
| 
SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA
| Bring on the revolution133; In the US most, if not all of the spectrum needed is already taken. Comcast can’t get into the game because the time requirements and cost of entry is incredible. Remember Verizon and ATT spent multiple billions on acquiring a little over 22 MHz of spectrum. And that’s not counting the multiple billions it’s going to take to design, build and run a next gen network. It took Mccaw over ten years to peace together the 2.5-2.7 educational band into a nation wide power house. So I don’t look at Wimax as a technology that is doomed to fail I look at it as one of the last and best hopes to disrupt the status quo (3GPP). | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Bring on the revolution133; said by SHABAZZ :In the US most, if not all of the spectrum needed is already taken. Comcast can’t get into the game because the time requirements and cost of entry is incredible. Remember Verizon and ATT spent multiple billions on acquiring a little over 22 MHz of spectrum. And that’s not counting the multiple billions it’s going to take to design, build and run a next gen network. It took Mccaw over ten years to peace together the 2.5-2.7 educational band into a nation wide power house. So I don’t look at Wimax as a technology that is doomed to fail I look at it as one of the last and best hopes to disrupt the status quo (3GPP). Its time for the FCC to be replaced and start invalidating licenses. All analog must die. All SCADA must go digital, or modern digital. If you don't use it, you loose it. Same with IANA and their IP addresses. I know corporations that give all their LAN machines non-routable PUBLIC IP addresses. The LAN machines use a proxy server to get to the internet. If you don't see data on the band, its time to seize it. How many 100s or 1000s of MHZ are allocated to radar machines that don't exist anymore, but the military will never give up those bands? | |
| | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: Bring on the revolution133; said by patcat88 :said by SHABAZZ :In the US most, if not all of the spectrum needed is already taken. Comcast can’t get into the game because the time requirements and cost of entry is incredible. Remember Verizon and ATT spent multiple billions on acquiring a little over 22 MHz of spectrum. And that’s not counting the multiple billions it’s going to take to design, build and run a next gen network. It took Mccaw over ten years to peace together the 2.5-2.7 educational band into a nation wide power house. So I don’t look at Wimax as a technology that is doomed to fail I look at it as one of the last and best hopes to disrupt the status quo (3GPP). Its time for the FCC to be replaced and start invalidating licenses. All analog must die. All SCADA must go digital, or modern digital. If you don't use it, you loose it. Same with IANA and their IP addresses. I know corporations that give all their LAN machines non-routable PUBLIC IP addresses. The LAN machines use a proxy server to get to the internet. If you don't see data on the band, its time to seize it. How many 100s or 1000s of MHZ are allocated to radar machines that don't exist anymore, but the military will never give up those bands? SHABAZZ just hit the nail on the head. I also agree that WiMAX is the last best hope to challenge the telco hegemony.
patcat is also right, the FCC has been a terrible steward of the nation's spectrum. Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOm had a decent piece that partly covered this issue. A 2009 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report said there was only a little over 400 MHz of spectrum (even less for wireless broadband specifically) assigned for commercial wireless services in the U.S., and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) estimates that the U.S. needs to have 800 MHz available.
Keep in mind, ~85% of the U.S. population uses wireless services delivered from that tiny sliver of 400 MHz of available spectrum, and pay significant sums of money to receive them.
Meanwhile, ~5%-10% of the U.S. population receives broadcast Over the Air (OTA) television from ~800 MHz of total spectrum in beachfront, low frequencies (everyone else gets TV from cable, sat., DVD, and/or the web). These broadcasters were simply assigned prime spectrum licenses decades ago, and never paid the exorbitant prices any new entrant needs to.
Even more egregious, the U.S. Government (via the military and the alphabet soup of federal entities) controls thousands of MHz of underutilized and even unused spectrum, and no federal entity wants to give it up. And we still don't have an advanced National Public Safety Network.
Ridiculous. | |
| | | | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| Re: Bring on the revolution133; I had a related post in another topic, but it's worth reposting here:
I was doing some thinking, on what would be a better system of spectrum licensing, besides a spectrum auction.
Instead of a straight auctioning, which is designed to extract the highest price possible (instead of the best service possible at the lowest cost, the real objective), the FCC could issue a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for new spectrum becoming available. I've heard India is doing something similar to bring wireless to its rural areas, I think they call it a reverse auction or a service auction.
Companies/Consortiums would bid their proposal for use of that spectrum. They would detail what they would use it for (broadband most likely), build out, financing secured, experience, etc. Or the FCC could detail the minimum requirements.
The FCC would then select the winners based on the best proposals, and could take other things into account such whether bidder is a new entrant, a big incumbent, or somewhere in between.
There's certainly more that can go wrong here, compared to a straight auction system. But, as long the process is done openly and transparently, the metrics are clearly defined (e.g. build-out, financing, etc.), picking winners are based purely on what's best for the market (the customers, ordinary people and businesses), and that the winning companies are strictly held to the standards that they agreed to. Penalties for noncompliance could include fines, to as severe as repossession of the spectrum licenses, if need be.
Anyone thoughts? | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Bring on the revolution133; Lets just put up most if not all spectrum for auction every year or couple of years. People who warehouse spectrum will be fix the national debt if they want to continue to warehouse. The military can compete with the private sector to determine who is more important (yes, the money giving money to itself is a bit comical, but that money the military paid will be reused by the govt for something, but first the govt had to obtain that money some way, taxes are limited by population revolt/unelection, debt is limited by interest and who buys it).
Another idea, just mandate all spectrum have a minimum bits/hz or statutory revocation of license, except for unlicensed bands. Require all license holders submit yearly reports about how much data/bytes they pumped through their band, and when, and whether they are using the most efficient protocol for their usage class, and perform a feasibility study about sharing the spectrum with like usage classes, other spectrum users can sue the licensee in federal court if their feasibility studies are BS. Require all existing license holders submit why wireline can't be used for P2P links. Charge a yearly license fee that is 50% of 10 year landline construction cost amortization (oh come on, anyone can get a telecom license from the state and start building regional fiber themselves) for the P2P link. Its a moral hazard any other way.
Military, umm, 2-3 radar systems. Must be active and manned 24/7. Must submit yearly report of activity and use of that radar. Radar bands in international waters are not to be used in the USA and must be non-military usage. Or international radar bands are the only ones permitted in the USA. Every military license must include Multiple Access protocols/use encryption/authentication, not assumption of exclusivity for the channel. All SCADA artillery talk gets one band, not 1 100 khz channel for each generation of artillery. | |
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | The US "They see WiMAX as a technology to be deployed in an ad hoc fashion in developing countries."
And this is exactly what the US is when it comes to broadband and mobile. | |
| | bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO
·Comcast
| Re: The US Yeah, we just have the most HSDPA subscribers in the world and will be one of the first countries to have broad LTE deployment.
And we're terribly 'developing' when it comes to broadband. About the only countries we're ahead of are countries like Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. And Australia. And Spain, Portugal, and New Zealand. And most of the rest of the world.
Yes, we lose to Korea and Japan, and parts of Europe. And, no, the fact that we have low population density doesn't excuse our performance (we lose to Canada, too). But we're hardly 'developing', unless you consider 'developing' to be everyone but Japan. | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| WiMAX=Motorola Canopy Yep, I've been right. WiMAX is going to be nothing more than an "open" competitor to Motorola Canopy. Fixed wireless only, its dead as mobile wireless, it will be a niche, like iDEN is today. I think the reason Sprint went with WiMAX instead of LTE was that Qualcomm was making special deals with Verizon for cheap CDMA2000/IS-95 equipment, and was giving Sprint the short end of the stick. I'm not sure who owns the Intellectual Property for LTE, I know UTMS/HSDPA is owned by Qualcomm (CDMA the multiple access method patents). | |
| | DarnellP
join:2004-10-12
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: WiMAX=Motorola Canopy said by patcat88 :Yep, I've been right. WiMAX is going to be nothing more than an "open" competitor to Motorola Canopy. Fixed wireless only, its dead as mobile wireless, it will be a niche, like iDEN is today. You shouldn't break your arm patting yourself on the back just yet. Wimax is here now and it works. It's much ballyhooed competitor is still MIA in terms of commercial deployments.
I think the reason Sprint went with WiMAX instead of LTE was that Qualcomm was making special deals with Verizon for cheap CDMA2000/IS-95 equipment, and was giving Sprint the short end of the stick.
No, the reason that Sprint chose Wimax was to fulfill one of the FCC's requirements regarding their merger with Nextel. That condition was that they would not divest any of their 2.5 Ghz holdings but they would deploy a broadband network on that spectrum which would cover 15 million POPS by the end of 2009 and 30 million POPS by the end of 2011. Wimax was ready to be utilized to help Sprint achieve that goal. LTE was not and still is not.
»www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3625361 | |
| | Samsonian
join:2007-06-15
| said by patcat88 :Yep, I've been right. WiMAX is going to be nothing more than an "open" competitor to Motorola Canopy. Fixed wireless only, its dead as mobile wireless, it will be a niche, like iDEN is today. For all the reasons we've talked about endlessly, I'm confidant that WiMAX will be more that just a cheaper, faster, open version of Moto's Canopy.
I'm not sure who owns the Intellectual Property for LTE, I know UTMS/HSDPA is owned by Qualcomm (CDMA the multiple access method patents).
That's just it, nobody fully knows the patent licensing situation for LTE.
If it's anything like 3G patent licensing morass, and it looks like it could very well be, then it will be a world of hurt.
Qualcomm has basically extorted the industry of billions, and litigation has continued even recently (Qualcomm vs Broadcom, Qualcomm vs Nokia, etc). As much as $50 per 3G device is paid in patent royalties.
WiMAX has a large patent pool and growing as a hedge against this madness. That doesn't guarantee it won't happen, but it's far less likely compared to the 3GPP world. Where patent licensing is done on a bilateral basis, instead of a multi-lateral basis in the CE industry. | |
| 
AD7BK
Premium
join:2000-03-23
Port Orchard, WA
·wavebroadband
| Motorola Only good thing about Motorola, is they created a BPL modem that did not pollute the spectrum and this works as good as the HV lines. Power companies wanted to use the High Voltage lines thinking it would make it faster but it don't. Motorola did the right thing. Now they own WiMax? This is not a good thing. Motorola went down hill once they got into cellphones.
--
The following statement is true...
The preceding statement was false!!--George Carlin | |
| Ligtel
join:2005-12-07
Ligonier, IN | WiMAX We're using WiMAX for 3.65ghz and also in our 700mhz license. So far, I love it! We are using it for fixed wireless in a rural setting and have had great success with it. | |
| | DarnellP
join:2004-10-12
Las Vegas, NV
| Re: WiMAX said by Ligtel :We're using WiMAX for 3.65ghz and also in our 700mhz license. So far, I love it! We are using it for fixed wireless in a rural setting and have had great success with it. Out of curiosity, who is "we"? | |
| 
PDXArgg
@sterling.net
| WiMax....meh Clear in Portland is a joke
"we cover an entire city with fast mobile internet" - Riiigght
3G from cell providers have more coverage than clear.
Only 6Mb/1Mb? (with full signal strength) and latency between DSL and 3G?
Not a true DSL/Cable competitor....yet....if ever
False advertising...I really wish it wasn't. More broadband providers in a metro area the better. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: WiMax....meh TELCO SHILL!!!
Clear wire provides 100% of the rated speed at all times. Its a true wire replacement broadband connection. The coverage is excellent as rated by XXXXXXXXXX Magazine and XXXXXXXXXX Consumer Research Group. Clear is here now and leaves the telephone company and their megabytes in the dirt.
</sarcasm>
Yeah, sure WiMAX is what all the WiMAX investors and their lobbyist groups want. Unless each street intersection has a picotower with fiber backhaul, you won't have wireline performance. Clear is a new network, the cell companies already have fiber or MW to most of their towers, and the cell companies already have real world usage/density figures and the tower locations. It will be years (if ever depending on the CEOs whim) before Clear hammers out its network problems. How many legacy fixed-only proprietary WiMAX markets is Clear still running? | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: WiMax....meh It gives local cable company upload speeds a run for their money. Well, until every P2Per learns Clear is faster and bogs it down till Karl writes "Clear adds caps without informing anyone today". | |
| |
INsano
@clearwire-wmx.net
| I'm in Portland. I now use Clear for my home internet. I get between 4-10mb down, .5-1mb up. $27.50/month.
Because the duopoly in Portland before was Qwest/Comcast, I now no longer have to decide between paying $39.99/month for 1.5mb down Qwest DSL or $52.95/month for Comcast 6mb down with Powerboost.
All I want now is for there to be wimax phones so I can bundle! | |
|
phoneboy3
@shawcable.net
| Telco shill! Who is the Telco shill who wrote this article or provided some of the sources for it. You know, these anti-WiMAX, pro-LTE (non existant LTE I might add) stories seem to be popping up a bit too frequently and regularly. Especially considering LTE is no where in sight and won't be for years! I guess those lobbying groups organizing angry old white neo-cons for the town halls are also busy doing this stuff for the Telco's. | |
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR | Put WiMAX Here and I'll Subscribe
Zip Code: 97463
There is a cell tower at (Datum NAD27):
N43.734
W122.442
| |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| to compete or not to compete with self/others the wireless industry is NOT ready to allow wireless technology to compete with wireline technology. they already lost BILLIONS with VOIP customers fleeing copper (telcos).. why lose BILLIONS in their investments for FTTX and DSL upgrades?
Yet, if someone else-- say a google would try to muscle in on the market.. that would be heresy.. with big wireless carriers spending billions on wireless spectrum-- to have a technology come in on some frequency that wasn't "AUCTIONABLE" would be crazy talk... yet, the thing is this is still a niche market because competitors aren't allowed to build something from the ground up.. using their own towers & equipment / frequencies. To setup shop as a data carrier offering wireless data/VOIP without all the costs associated with being a cellular carrier is DEAD ON ARRIVAL (for the most part) in the USA.
I'm not writing this to debate the merits of WiMax vs LTE.. only the nature of the wireless business & it's interests in keeping low cost competitors OUT of the marketplace. That more than anything is what kills WIMAX as a mass market technology (and there may be some truth to costs of the equipment compared with DSL equipment during its shining years). | |
| kasism
join:2009-08-24
Plano, TX
| Spectrum is the key Most operators utilize FDD spectrum (frequency division duplex) in auctioned buys. That means spectral transmit and recieve are separated on different channels.
Sprint has a significant holding in sprectrum that is TDD (Time division duplex). Meaning the transmit and recieve are on the same channel and you give time to get transmit and then give time for the uplink.
LTE is currently a FDD technology, not slated to be built for TDD for 2 years.
WiMax is a TDD technology intrinsically so was a perfect match for the spectrum holding that Sprint/Clearwire owns.
May not be as difficult an answer as some think. | |
| 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Ma Bell is dead. The people still bitch. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·