Comments on: The Truth About WiMAX http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:24:38 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Frank http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-884930 Frank Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:25:05 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-884930 My superficial take on it is that the WiMAX technology itself isn't really all that great, but it makes sense in the context of an Intel/Google/Telco partnership in a business plan involving advertising to a large number of users through legacy analogue TV infrastructure. That is, it's the particular business plan, involving those partners, that makes WiMAX suitable for that. Maybe that will open opportunities for WiMAX elsewhere as it drives the price of the technology down, but I see the 3G LTE being the way forward My superficial take on it is that the WiMAX technology itself isn’t really all that great, but it makes sense in the context of an Intel/Google/Telco partnership in a business plan involving advertising to a large number of users through legacy analogue TV infrastructure. That is, it’s the particular business plan, involving those partners, that makes WiMAX suitable for that. Maybe that will open opportunities for WiMAX elsewhere as it drives the price of the technology down, but I see the 3G LTE being the way forward

]]> By: Steve http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-240188 Steve Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:24:58 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-240188 <p>Is it possible to use Fon with Clearwire and have an even more secure setting?</p> Is it possible to use Fon with Clearwire and have an even more secure setting?

]]> By: Ron http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45841 Ron Sun, 01 Oct 2006 08:36:06 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45841 <p>WiMAX is defined as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access by WiMAX Forum. WiMAXForce.com - Providing wired line and wireless connectivity via T1, T3 and higher. Whatever Bandwidth is required we can provide the Solution. Thank you for visiting WiMAXForce.com.</p> WiMAX is defined as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access by WiMAX Forum. WiMAXForce.com – Providing wired line and wireless connectivity via T1, T3 and higher. Whatever Bandwidth is required we can provide the Solution. Thank you for visiting WiMAXForce.com.

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45840 Jesse Kopelman Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:35:46 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45840 <p>Chetan. what do you think you're Verizon friend would say -- WiMax is great for the US, we just wasted $10B on fiber and 3G the last couple years? The so-called super 3G/4G DoCoMo and other are working on has as much in common with WiMax/WiBro as it does with the CDMA2000 that Verizon is currently using.</p> Chetan. what do you think you’re Verizon friend would say — WiMax is great for the US, we just wasted $10B on fiber and 3G the last couple years? The so-called super 3G/4G DoCoMo and other are working on has as much in common with WiMax/WiBro as it does with the CDMA2000 that Verizon is currently using.

]]> By: Chetan http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45839 Chetan Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:52:49 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45839 <p>Took me a while to get to the bottom of this. WiMax is not suitable for the US market said my Verizon friend, atleast not for an ISP which has fiber(Speed and reliablity are THE BEST) goals. Best suited for Asian markets. Telcos are likely to go with Super 3G which will be led by DoCoMo.</p> Took me a while to get to the bottom of this. WiMax is not suitable for the US market said my Verizon friend, atleast not for an ISP which has fiber(Speed and reliablity are THE BEST) goals. Best suited for Asian markets. Telcos are likely to go with Super 3G which will be led by DoCoMo.

]]> By: Paul Jardine http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45838 Paul Jardine Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:23:34 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45838 <p>P.S. I'd love to be a strategist at Walmart or Tesco right now…</p> P.S. I’d love to be a strategist at Walmart or Tesco right now…

]]> By: Paul Jardine http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45837 Paul Jardine Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:21:04 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45837 <p>Om, the point the Swisscom figure was supposed to show, is that people don't move too far from their homes, and they definitely don't move around wide areas on a regular basis, they have specific destinations and home locations. Are these so hard to predict? Perhaps Americans move around more, morbidity statistics would suggest otherwise, however! I could also be wrong in my inference from the Swisscom figures, but what I'm saying is that you don't need a huge amount of coverage to make the service attractive to customers. Another reader mentioned FON and it will be interesting to see how it develops. Will the patchy coverage be a problem?</p> Om, the point the Swisscom figure was supposed to show, is that people don’t move too far from their homes, and they definitely don’t move around wide areas on a regular basis, they have specific destinations and home locations. Are these so hard to predict?
Perhaps Americans move around more, morbidity statistics would suggest otherwise, however!
I could also be wrong in my inference from the Swisscom figures, but what I’m saying is that you don’t need a huge amount of coverage to make the service attractive to customers. Another reader mentioned FON and it will be interesting to see how it develops. Will the patchy coverage be a problem?

]]> By: Rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45836 Rick Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:35:23 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45836 <p>Here's a great municipal wireless analysis by an expert in the WBB space.</p> <p>http://www.wimaxtrends.com/features/special/sfeature_031306.htm</p> Here’s a great municipal wireless analysis by an expert in the WBB space.

http://www.wimaxtrends.com/features/special/sfeature_031306.htm

]]> By: rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45835 rick Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:17:49 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45835 <p>Great backhaul though. And can be independent of the incumbents.</p> <p>This will be Wimax's greatest asset.</p> Great backhaul though. And can be independent of the incumbents.

This will be Wimax’s greatest asset.

]]> By: rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45834 rick Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:16:30 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45834 <p>Speaking for myself, when I refer to Wimax, I'm referring to the mobile (802.16e). Fixed obviously has limited use.</p> <p>Wimax as a mobile technology is just another competitor IMO. Not a deal-breaker.</p> Speaking for myself, when I refer to Wimax, I’m referring to the mobile (802.16e). Fixed obviously has limited use.

Wimax as a mobile technology is just another competitor IMO. Not a deal-breaker.

]]> By: Sam http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45833 Sam Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:51:56 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45833 <p>I have no idea why people keep trying to compare WiFi to WIMAX. They are very different technologies for very different applications. WiFi is a fine technology for mobility within your house, office or in some cases, public buildings. However, it is NOT a reliable technology for WAN use. The range for each access point is too limited and the use of unlicensed spectrum is already started to show why it is not a feasible long-term solution (interference in populated centers is getting ridiculous).</p> <p>WIMAX is a misunderstood term. It is used for both fixed and for mobile standards. The fixed standard is currently available, but has very expensive CPEs and a limited commercial application. The mobile standard is really the one that provides the interesting applications. This is the one that Intel is really pushing and a similar technology is currently deployed by Clearwire internationally. This allows for reasonable bandwidth speeds (Clearwire offers 1.5Mbps in the US) but also the allure of portability/mobility. It is clear this will not replace all bandwidth choices. Some people want to download video at home, and will want more than 1.5Mpbs. But a lot of people don't, and 1.5Mbps is sufficient. However, a lot of people do want the ability to use their laptop outside of their house and not have to pay to access each hotspot they get to. That is where the allure of mobile WIMAX comes in. You can use it as an adjunct to your home connection, but if you want to save some money and don't need to download video, you can also use it as your only bandwidth connection.</p> <p>As for how it will compete with the other mobile data technologies, the proof will be in the pricing. No one is expecting HSPDA to ever be offered for much less than $40-45 per month due to inherent costs in deploying the technology. WIMAX should be able to be offered for much less…</p> I have no idea why people keep trying to compare WiFi to WIMAX. They are very different technologies for very different applications. WiFi is a fine technology for mobility within your house, office or in some cases, public buildings. However, it is NOT a reliable technology for WAN use. The range for each access point is too limited and the use of unlicensed spectrum is already started to show why it is not a feasible long-term solution (interference in populated centers is getting ridiculous).

WIMAX is a misunderstood term. It is used for both fixed and for mobile standards. The fixed standard is currently available, but has very expensive CPEs and a limited commercial application. The mobile standard is really the one that provides the interesting applications. This is the one that Intel is really pushing and a similar technology is currently deployed by Clearwire internationally. This allows for reasonable bandwidth speeds (Clearwire offers 1.5Mbps in the US) but also the allure of portability/mobility. It is clear this will not replace all bandwidth choices. Some people want to download video at home, and will want more than 1.5Mpbs. But a lot of people don’t, and 1.5Mbps is sufficient. However, a lot of people do want the ability to use their laptop outside of their house and not have to pay to access each hotspot they get to. That is where the allure of mobile WIMAX comes in. You can use it as an adjunct to your home connection, but if you want to save some money and don’t need to download video, you can also use it as your only bandwidth connection.

As for how it will compete with the other mobile data technologies, the proof will be in the pricing. No one is expecting HSPDA to ever be offered for much less than $40-45 per month due to inherent costs in deploying the technology. WIMAX should be able to be offered for much less…

]]> By: rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45832 rick Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:26:41 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45832 <p>Oh sorry, the FON article:</p> <p>http://www.redherring.com/article.aspx?a=15969 </p> <p>I got so excited there.</p> Oh sorry, the FON article:

http://www.redherring.com/article.aspx?a=15969

I got so excited there.

]]> By: rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45831 rick Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:26:08 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45831 <p>Here's a great article on FON, the open-source wireless mesh company. It even quotes Om.</p> <p>Here's the real deal:</p> <p>Take a FON worldwide mesh-network backhauled by independent Wimax operators and you got a whole new internet infastructure less the phone and cable companies unless they decide to wisely jump in too. I love it!!!!</p> <p>This is what technology was made for!</p> Here’s a great article on FON, the open-source wireless mesh company. It even quotes Om.

Here’s the real deal:

Take a FON worldwide mesh-network backhauled by independent Wimax operators and you got a whole new internet infastructure less the phone and cable companies unless they decide to wisely jump in too. I love it!!!!

This is what technology was made for!

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45830 Jesse Kopelman Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:38:15 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45830 <p>On Instat's $3B number: I'd say this number is only accurate if you are doing licensed and already own the licenses. You could conceivably do a network of 15,000-20,000 sites using licensed frequencies below 3 GHz for $3B and that would cover 90% of the US population. However, to get the same coverage using unlicensed you would have to factor in at least 10 dB of better link budget to deal with interference and that would require 3-4 times as many sites. To avoid having to spend the money on the additional sites and their backhaul, you need that license which will probably set you back at least $5B. So, I would put the REAL cost to build a nationwide network at more like $10B. Still, $10B to cover 250M people is a good price. Even if you can only get 20M customers, that is only $500/sub which is a lot less than you would pay to buy an existing 3G carrier.</p> On Instat’s $3B number: I’d say this number is only accurate if you are doing licensed and already own the licenses. You could conceivably do a network of 15,000-20,000 sites using licensed frequencies below 3 GHz for $3B and that would cover 90% of the US population. However, to get the same coverage using unlicensed you would have to factor in at least 10 dB of better link budget to deal with interference and that would require 3-4 times as many sites. To avoid having to spend the money on the additional sites and their backhaul, you need that license which will probably set you back at least $5B. So, I would put the REAL cost to build a nationwide network at more like $10B. Still, $10B to cover 250M people is a good price. Even if you can only get 20M customers, that is only $500/sub which is a lot less than you would pay to buy an existing 3G carrier.

]]> By: Dennis Evans http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45829 Dennis Evans Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:40:27 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45829 <p>"On WiMax, how can we expect those that have already invested in Wi-Fi equipment to run out and change to WiMax?" How about if their existing equipment quits working?</p> <p>"Airgo Networks took the occasion of last Friday's vote by the IEEE 802.11n Taskgroup to proceed to the "letter ballot" phase of the standardization process, to go public with the developing standard's little secret. The firm claims that the "802.11n Draft 1.0 does not provide for interoperability with nearby legacy 802.11b/g networks".</p> <p>"Specifically, if 'Draft N' or 'N Ready' products are released to market based on Draft 1.0 of the standard, they will severely degrade - or even disable - nearby 802.11b and 802.11g networks," Airgo said. "</p> <p>http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/13/802<em>11n</em>backwards<em>compatibility</em>issues/</p> “On WiMax, how can we expect those that have already invested in Wi-Fi equipment to run out and change to WiMax?” How about if their existing equipment quits working?

“Airgo Networks took the occasion of last Friday’s vote by the IEEE 802.11n Taskgroup to proceed to the “letter ballot” phase of the standardization process, to go public with the developing standard’s little secret. The firm claims that the “802.11n Draft 1.0 does not provide for interoperability with nearby legacy 802.11b/g networks”.

“Specifically, if ‘Draft N’ or ‘N Ready’ products are released to market based on Draft 1.0 of the standard, they will severely degrade – or even disable – nearby 802.11b and 802.11g networks,” Airgo said. “

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/13/80211nbackwardscompatibilityissues/

]]> By: rick http://gigaom.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45828 rick Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:45:53 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/03/12/the-truth-about-wimax/#comment-45828 <p>Om, you right on about Intel. I couldn't agree with you more. They try to "manufacture" technologies and usually come up short. A silicon expert they are, but new markets are a challenge for them.</p> Om, you right on about Intel. I couldn’t agree with you more. They try to “manufacture” technologies and usually come up short. A silicon expert they are, but new markets are a challenge for them.

]]>