search



Glenn Fleishman, in a long post (generally reserved for trashing writers), opines that Qualcomm’s marketing guy, Jeffrey Belk, is right on the money when Belk disses WiMax (pdf). Belk argues that WiMax has been overhyped and that cellular is a better solution (what a surprise).

Belk argues:

  • Folks are out there purporting 75Mbps at 30 miles and not specifying whether this is for mobility or not.
  • THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED STANDARD for Mobile WiMAX, and the dates for commercial implementation of both Fixed (802.16d) and Mobile (802.16e) WiMAX keep on slipping.
  • There is no definition of what spectrum this stuff WiMAX will be operating at 700MHz, 2.3GHz, 2.4GHz unlicensed, 2.5GHz-2.65GHz, 3.4-3.6GHz, 5.7GHz unlicensed and other bands keep on getting bandied about.
  • Unlike your 802.11 b/g and Bluetooth, both at unlicensed 2.4GHz, and your solving of WWAN issues (850/1900MHz, 900MHz/1800MHz, 2100MHz) of globally harmonized spectrum, you have no clue about where WiMAX will show up.
  • So, there IS NO STANDARD, no broadly available info on real-world performance of the proposed standard, there is not any harmonized global spectrum.
  • SO WHAT DO YOU BUILD?

Mobile WiMAX is potentially caught in the middle between the rapidly developing WWAN standards such as CDMA2000/1xEV-DO and WCDMA/HSDPA and the WLAN standards that are evolving from 802.11 a/b/g to 802.11n.

True. WiMax seems overhyped.


“3G is a 10-year-old technology. Just because you spent billions of dollars on infrastructure, consumers don t care you wasted it.” - Jeff Thompson, COO, TowerStream

But how can anyone judge the merits of these arguments? It’s hypothetical. Real-world data does not exist (yet).

That’s not stopping the South Koreans. They’re going nationwide with their version of mobilized WiMax next year…apparently against Qualcomm’s better judgement. Could they know something Qualcomm doesn’t? The Koreans, of course, want to avoid paying Qualcomm royalties on CDMA and hope to gain early market entry with their WiBro system.

Proponents of WiMax argue:

  • WiFi is a commodity. It’s fast and cheap. It plugs into the internet with Ethernet.
  • Same deal with WiMax (except it can go 1-5 miles NLOS, 30 miles LOS).
  • Licensed or (free) unlicensed bands can be used. Go mobile or fixed.
  • Cheap VoIP and upstream video are possible. Qualcomm’s Rev A is too slow for video at 250Kbps.
  • Pre-WiMax has been operational in Portland for almost two years. It works.
  • Pre-WiMax is operational all over the United States using 2.3 Ghz, 2.5 GHz, 3.5 Ghz (New Orleans) and 5.8 GHz. Certified gear will be available in a few months.
  • Proprietary CDMA is slow and expensive. It can’t provide wireless T-1.
  • Mobile WiMax can provide WiFi speeds with cellular range. Cellular can’t.
  • It can use simplex or duplex channels.
  • Mobile WiMax incorporates COFDMA with Sub-channelization (concentrates power on fewer carriers), Scaleable-OFDMA (adjusts number of carriers), Adaptive Modulation (dynamically adjusts modulation), space coding (adjusts for fading), MIMO Antennas (increases speed and range), beamforming (focuses beam), adaptive antennas (tracks users), and other techniques.
  • At similar speeds, Mobile WiMax is expected to travel further than cellular. Infrastructure will be cheaper because less towers will be needed and everything over IP is inherently cheaper. Like WiFi.
  • WiMax proponents claim their infrastructure costs may be one-tenth that of cellular.

Arraycomm says costs per Mb of data delivered is around 2 cents per Mb for DSL and WiMax. With 3G, they claim, the figures are 100 to 1000 times higher. Broadband wireless deployments in Australia by Navini and ArrayComm, Portland’s Pre-WiMax, Clearwire deployments across the United States and South Korea s nationwide WiBro rollout next year will produce real data.

Talk is cheap.

Bell South’s Navini test in Athens, Georgia, should be watched closely. All of us will soon be able to compare the respective technologies in one test market:

Trust, but verify.

Something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.