Unstrung reported that Cisco CTO Charles Giancarlo isn't too fond of WiMAX. He is quoted as saying:

"Other than providing the backbone infrastructure that may be behind any WiMax deployment, Cisco is not invested in WiMax," says Giancarlo. "DSL and cable are [already] there, and they are much more deterministic."

Okay, so this means that Cisco is only going to make WiMAX base stations. Fair enough; after all, Intel is just focusing on the CPEs. And Giancarlo has a very good point about the elusive business model for competing against DSL and cable. However, if 1/3 of all households don't have access to wireless broadband via cable or DSL I fail to see how Cisco fails to see any business opportunity here.

Now let's review the next quote:

Giancarlo says third-generation wireless technology will already be deployed by the time WiMax hits the streets, and he doesn't see service providers spending on both: "Why would anyone build two parallel [wireless broadband] networks? Perhaps it will provide a better technology for hotspots like airports, but I still maintain that the case for WiMax is challenging at the moment."

He doesn't see carriers investing in both 3G and WiMAX. Here's where I disagree. When I look at broadband consumption patterns I do not see 3G technologies keeping pace. We are becoming a nation of data hogs and this is where WiMAX will become highly attractive to carriers. Take a look at what Qualcomm is doing with MediaFLO. It is building a nationwide broadcast network that will save the carriers from investing in additional 3G infrastructure. I'll talk more about MediaFLO shortly, but the very fact that Qualcomm sees value in rolling out a nationwide network tells me that there is going to be new business models to be built on our growing broadband consumption habit.

Finally, Giancarlo can't help dredging up failed fixed wireless technologies of years gone by...

While whipping on WiMax, Giancarlo reminded the audience that many wireless technologies have come and gone over the years without finding success. "This is what went wrong with MMDS [multichannel multipoint distribution system] and LMDS [local multipoint distribution system], too, if you all remember that. The economics became very bad very quickly."

MMDS and LMDS have little in common with WiMAX. We're talking apples and oranges and Giancarlo knows better. So why is he so hard on WiMAX? Cisco can't control WiMAX so it fears it. It's losing control of Wi-Fi in the enterprise, which is why it's suddendly embracing Ultra-Wideband.

Anyway, this backlash is interesting to follow. Some of it is justified. Some of it isn't. But the force of this backlash is what is most significant. If WiMAX is really destined to fail on its own, why are so many vendors going so far out of their way to criticize it? I have a pretty good idea why.