Intel has apparently decided the market opportunity for Wi-Max as a backhaul to 802.11 is too small for its taste, and thus a "mobile WiMax" aimed at displacing 3G mobile networks is necessary.
Uh, necessary for who?
Necessary for Intel to get out its WiMax investment, maybe. But a mobile DSL replacement faces some enormous hurdles:
A unified spectrum is mentioned by The Standard's Stephen Lawson, but there's something bigger at stake.
That is, WiMax is an open spectrum technology, designed to work in unlicensed frequencies at very high speed. Why should mobile companies who paid billions for exclusive licenses stand for that?
I personally believe, strongly, that open spectrum is the way to go. But a united industry can easily cause governments to turn their heads. And mobile -- based on licensed frequencies -- is one of the fastest-growing out there.
Already companies like T-Mobile are ditching 3G and going straight to technologies like HSPDA, which promise true broadband speeds (as opposed to the phone broadband claimed by Verizon's EV-DO service, a few hundred thousand bits/second).
Now you're saying that all that investment -- in spectrum and in infrastructure -- is going to be obsoleted by something operating in the unlicensed space?
This is a political struggle, taken at a time when proprietary interests in the West hold an iron grip on government policies. Can Intel, and good science, break through?
Only if China commits far more to this than it has already, creating a real risk that the U.S. will be left behind if it doesn't get behind open spectrum. I wish Intel all the luck in the world, but these days I feel pessimistic on their chances.
Just to be clear, there is no reason 802.16e (mobile WiMax) could not be ratified as an official 3G standard. Also, HSPDA is still 3G (it is just an incremental improvement on UMTS). 3G is like WiFi, it is not limmited by frequency or air-interface. A wireless company could deploy WiMax on Cellular or PCS frequencies if it wanted. The people at risk if WiMax suceeds are the Nokias, Alcatels, and Ericssons of the world who are used to making a very high markup on their network equipment. It is testiment to the influence those vendors have on the carriers that people think it is the license holders who are against WiMax. The advantage of owning a license is the need for fewer base-stations, nothing more and nothing less. CDMA2000 or UMTS in unlicensed is not much of an option because those base-stations are too expensive to deploy in the required density (thanks to vendor markup). WiMax is thought to be an option due to the expectation of commodity pricing. Whether this will be true remains to be seen. Anyway, the first hurdle to WiMax will be in the fixed wireless arena where it will go head to head with cable and DSL. This is where you should fear pro-incumbant government interference, since it has already begun. It may not even survive to do battle with EV-DV+ and HSPDA in 3 years or it may have already become so dominant that those standards are a non-issue.
Permalink to CommentYou know I dont think this is a political problem, or no more now than it ever was. It's not about open spectrum, but about open access. If we wind the clock back (say) 15 years we can change all instances of *WiMax* with *Internet* and all instances of *3G* with *Interactive TV*. Given this piece of history what do we take away from the current round of communications technology role out?
Well hows this:
1. The telco's dont understand content and thus will attempt to be *closed* in the 3G world - that means it'll be hard to get valuable useful stuff into their 3G networks both for vendors and consumers.
2. Open WiMax will use an internet model so we can all add what we want when we want - oh sure 3G will have access to the internet but remember it'll be via your telco, see point 1.
3. Open access and content will win, no matter what political barriers are placed in the way.
4. All the arguing about Stds(HSPDA, EV-DV, CDMA, IP etc.) wont count a jot.
YMMV
Dana said: "That is, WiMax is an open spectrum technology, designed to work in unlicensed frequencies at very high speed."
WiMAX is a broadband wireless system being gelled into a interoperability specification and standard so that carriers would be willing to buy (not locked into proprietary equipment).
Of the three "profiles" agreed upon to date by the WiMAX Forum, two of them - 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz are licensed spectrum. The third WiMAX profile is for 5.8 GHz license-exempt. In the near term, 700 MHz (again, licensed) is the most likely additional profile to be agreed upon, followed eventually by other licensed spectrum such as 2.3 GHz.
The main problem that Intel has finally realized that they have is that there's no reasonable possibility that ubiquitous WiMAX networks will be ready and waiting for "Intel WiMAX Inside" laptops when/if they emerge in a few years... thus little incentive to BUY laptops with "Intel WiMAX Inside". That's why Intel is willing to risk angering the carriers in the WiMAX Forum by encouraging cities to deploy wireless networks.
But that pales in comparison to Intel's REAL nightmare scenario, and why it's really got to light a fire under WiMAX, is that 802.11 / Wi-Fi, at which Intel is just another commodity vendor, is rapidly evolving to be a good enough last-mile wireless system, at VERY low cost. Seen any Voice Over IP over WiMAX phones? (oops... forgot... we still don't have any kind of real WiMAX yet). Lots of VOIP/Wi-Fi phones - Jeff Pulver says they'll be $50 by YE2005.
THAT's why cities like Philadelphia are willing to deploy metro Wi-Fi Networks and not wait, or even really care about WiMAX for the immediate future - Metro Wi-Fi works well enough, cheaply enough for last mile delivery of broadband. Intel's nightmare is that they might come out with WiMAX, and it's greeted with a yawn by the general "moves me to buy a new laptop" public.
Steve Stroh
Mobility has always been the only realistic target for wireless broadband.
WiMAX has a broad spectrum mandate but several different system profiles will be used to address specific applications. WiMAX is a framework for technology not a specific technical definition. Within that framework there is room for evolution while maintaining backward compatibility. This is different than the narrowly defined scheme of 802.11 WiFi.
While there is much advancement in 802.11, the unlicensed spectrums have restricted power and are unable to guarantee levels of quality needed for corporate, government and significant parts of consumer markets. Cheap/free is not the only reason people buy.
The telecommunications and computing services industries are changing: the trend is a shift towards content and service and away from network ownership.
The idea that because WiMAX can apply to unlicensed spectrum means that it's use will somehow devalue operators licensed spectrum is false. WiMAX will face similar power limitations in unlicensed space. But it can serve as better bridge to WMAN networks due to it's use of OFDMA/WOFDM, more robust channelization, and dynamic modulation which will provide extended range operation compared to WiFi.
China can play a significant part in developing mass markets but global harmonization of spectrum won't happen quickly. But many people are too impatient and forget the history of cellular or even of the more recent history of limited scope WiFi: Cellular systems started out as islands of coverage and what showed up for users as proprietary systems. And through years of evolution and consolidation national and international networks and multi-mode handsets developed. National, let alone world-wide, coverage didn't happen for several years. WiFi was approved years before it finally took off to become the well recognized phenomena. It was not designed from the ground up to be a wide area metro network system or handle large numbers of users. WiFi is a joke to do wireless MESH.. never was considered for that and other extended uses.. those are just after thoughts. As a consequence, WiFi has to be hacked to make extended technologies work, and then only to partial benefit. WMESh, for example, has to work within a contention based, simplex environment in which each additional hop degrades performance by about half. This can be fixed, by using multiple radios, but that is not very efficient and is not what a typical user can buy off the shelf... it isn't how basic WiFi is designed. (Microsoft has released beta 2 of their client WMESH so maybe they will provide the common environment WiFi needs).
Why should WiMAX matter if it will take years? Because it is broad, well thought out, and allows evolution to take place within it's framework. WiMAX is a carrier class system, developed with extensive testing and conformance regimens. And because it is advanced and will provide greater spectral efficiency and better use of complimentary technologies such as MIMO and MESH.
Why not just extend WiFi to do all that? Because WiFi is open it has no ability to prescribe guaranteed quality of service. It is a happenstance environment. If you want reliable, nationwide service, someone will pay for it.
Permalink to CommentRobert, you make many very good points but I will disagree with you on one thing and that is the capacity limitations of WiFi mesh. Even if contention issues limit you to 5 users per AP how is that any different from current cellular systems? If you think about it, the average GSM cell (or sector if you prefer) supports 15 simultaneous voice calls and covers at least 1 sqmi. To cover that same 1 sqmi, you probably need at least 15 APs (which would support 75 users). I would say that for the same money one would spend to deploy GSM/EDGE over a given area I could deploy mesh WiFi that had better data speeds and similar voice capacity. Yes I would spend more on rent, but I would spend less on licenses. Would a mesh WiMax system be even better? Yes, but my point is (and I guess I am agreeing with Steve) mesh WiFi is already good enough.
Permalink to CommentWimax can make big telecom busness vanish. The top 10% of the telecom business gets paid as much as the bottom 90%. Ma and pa shops with a local antenna and alot less managment overhead can blitz the industry. :-D I like my big telecom paycheck but I know the culture, the waste and the terrible monopolistic approach hidden behind the consumer advocate propaganda the put out. They are 10 years behind, have absolutely stiffling processes that supress inovation (including burying an invention of mine !@#$% now they own it!) and are dragging their behinds like the stoggy old men they are. Intel is the catalyst to something they have not yet grasped themselves. Just watch what happens when a few more people in telecoms like mine figure this out. The innovative hemmorage will catch up to them soon. Telecom will be just as competative as your local grocery store or even better.:-) Wireless Ip and the plethora of inovations coming from that is about to crush telecom like mp3, napster, kazaa, morpheous, and the ipod did to the music industry. Thier blood letting has just started. Huge big business is bad business, period.
Permalink to Comment