WiMAX sounds a lot like Wi-Fi, which is a big reason why people find WiMAX so darn confusing. For example, when I talk about 802.11g, you know exactly what that technology does and what frequency band it operates in (2.4GHz). Granted, the alphabet soup of 802.11a/b/g is not exactly simple, but it's a piece of cake compared to WiMAX.

When I refer to the type of WiMAX that will be available commercially next year -- 802.16a -- you may have no idea what that technology does or what frequency band it operates in. Why? Because the WiMAX 802.16a spec is awfully flexible.

A device that operates at 3.5GHz or 2.5GHz or 5.8GHz may be considered a WiMAX device. Technically, 802.16a supports anything from 2GHz to 11GHz. As a result, the WiMAX Forum is in charge of creating more narrow "system profiles" that vendors must adhere to with their equipment. But here's where the confusion and conflict sets in. How narrowly or widely defined should these profiles be? A narrowly defined profile will result in less-costly chips (because fewer frequency bands are supported) but may have limited global appeal. Wider profiles may appeal to more carriers but simply be too expensive. And given the chaotic nature of spectrum allocation globally, how can the WiMAX Forum stay ahead of the curve?

These are the questions that I suspect will make or break WiMAX over the next three years. I have no doubt that the technology will perform as promised (802.16a that is) but I do have doubts about these profiles.

For now, it looks like the Forum is focused on a profile that supports the MMDS, 3.5GHz licensed band and the unlicensed upper U-NII 5GHz band. Time will tell if this profile is the right profile.