Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of Byte Level Research. He closely tracks emerging wireless technologies and their impact on consumers and carriers alike. Over the years he has written a number of major reports on technologies such as Wi-Fi, WiMAX and cellular technologies.
About this blog
Unwired studies emerging wireless technologies and how they complement and conflict with one another. Technologies covered include: Wi-Fi, WiMAX, Ultra-Wideband, Zigbee, EV-DO, UMTS, HSDPA and whatever else comes along.
According to CNET News, Apple will be announcing a migration to Intel chips on Monday.
And it looks like they'll be starting with the low-end computers first, gradually working their way up to the high-end Macs.
So it looks like this move was all about the chips and not about WiMAX, as I speculated. Now that doesn't mean that we won't see Intel's wireless strategy change over the next few years. For instance, will Centrino be used in the Mac Minis? If so, where does this leave Apple's Airport gear?
As for WiMAX, I guess we'll see how this IntelApple marriage progresses. I still think something is going to happen along these lines.
About a week ago I wrote a blog about the possibility of Apple embracing WiMAX. That blog was followed soon after by a MacObserver story.
Needless to say, I've gotten an earful from readers -- some good, some bad, and some a little bit ugly. I should have known that any article that combined lightning-rod topics like Apple and WiMAX would attract attention.
So I wanted to summarize the comments received and make a few corrections. Here goes...
Comment: Apple launched Airport in 1999, not 1997. Apple launched it at the Boston Macworld show, alongside Apple's launching of the iBook.
-> I stand corrected. For a handy Apple timeline check out this site.
Comment: It should be noted that Apple does use Intel chips in its xRAID product.
-> This was one of several comments I received that noted that Apple is already using Intel chips. Some folks also stressed that porting the Mac OS over to Intel would not be a major production, while others said the exact opposite. I'd love to get more input on this as I am no expert.
Regardless, I still cannot help but think that the wireless folks within Apple aren't at least a little intrigued by the business potential of WiMAX. Intel bet big on Wi-Fi a few years back and certainly did well as a result; any potential partner and OEM is taking Intel's WiMAX gamble very seriously.
Comment: WiMax would not be affordable for an everyday technology. Heck, Alvarion, one of the largest players in the game does not hardly sell anything less than $1000, with the exception of their low-end access units.
-> Alvarion has been selling proprietary fixed wireless gear in low quantities, hence the relatively high costs. WiMAX gear, produced in large quantities by multiple vendors, will be affordable. And Intel isn't going to be the only player making WiMAX silicon. Everyone currently producing Wi-Fi components is either already investing in WiMAX or keeping a very close eye on it. Wi-Fi wasn't particularly cheap in 1999 either.
Comment: Just because WiMAX is a "new" technology, does not mean Apple will adopt it, especially if it is the wrong tool for the job.
-> Agreed. But my point here is that there are new "jobs" that wireless technology will be expected to perform in the years ahead and WiMAX might be a very good fit for those jobs. Not all jobs. I don't believe Wi-Fi is threatened in the least by WiMAX.
Finally, a number of people made it clear that WiMAX is a "last mile" technology and not a "last hundred feet" technology. While I agree that this is how WiMAX is being positioned, it is by no means the only way that WiMAX may ultimately be used. Wi-Fi certainly wasn't originally envisioned as a technology for unwiring city blocks via a mix of mesh and MIMO technologies. I think we're going to see all kinds of unintended applications emerge from WiMAX.
Anyway, that's it for me. Keep those comments coming...
So I have a few thoughts on why Apple is talking to Intel. First, let me quote this Reuters article to provide context:
"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.
Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."
So I'm going to assume that porting the Mac OS is not a high priority at Apple these days. What I think is a high priority is wireless. Apple launched its Wi-Fi-power Airport way back in 1997. Here we are eight years later and Wi-Fi is everywhere, particularly in the home.
There have been lots of speculation about Apple launching an A/V equivalent of iTunes. Now, connecting the cable or DSL modem to the TV is a hurdle we're seeing lots of companies tackle, with limited success.
I've spoken to a number of techs who see WiMAX as the next-generation home wireless technology. That's because only WiMAX can stream multiple streams of HDTV content in difficult RF environments to all ends of the home.
Apple is also rumored to be getting into the smart phone business. I'd certainly love to see how they could simplify my Palm Treo 650. But what wireless technology are they going to support if and when they do get into this business? I wouldn't bet on EV-DO and I don't think they want to bother with EDGE or HSDPA either. Apple likes to lead with wireless technology, not follow.
I think Apple sees a lot of opportunities with WiMAX. And I think Intel sees a lot of opportunity in getting Apple to support WiMAX. Because the applications that WiMAX will support don't really exist yet. Sure, we're going to see wireless last-mile proliferate using WiMAX, but that's the easy part.
Perhaps all that Apple and Intel are talking about right now is processors. But I have to believe that there are people on both sides of the room thinking WiMAX.
Qualcomm is the Microsoft of the telecoms industry, for better and for worse. People in the telecoms industry typically either love the company or hate the company.
I lean toward the latter, so please keep that in mind as you read this brief review of The Qualcomm Equation by Dave Mock.
In this book, published earlier this year, Dave does an excellent and meticulous job of documenting Qualcomm's against-all-odds rise to the top of the telecoms industry. I did not realize the degree to which Qualcomm relied on government business in the early days and also did not realize just how close the company came to missing the cellular boat completely. Back when Europe set in place one standard and many in the US wanted to follow suit, Qualcomm stuck to its guns.
And I think that the US is better off for it.
By and large, the mixed-standards "mess" that we have in the US has turned out to be a pretty good thing. Because of competing standards, we have EV-DO, which is a much-faster technology than single-standard Europe has to offer. Competing technologies keeps everyone on their toes, and Qualcomm has certainly kept the GPRS vendors on their toes. Dave Mock documents this drama and makes sense of the very complex technical standards and jargon.
Mock is perhaps too kind to Qualcomm, particularly in the latter years, as the vendor transforms from David to Goliath. For example, the company has been in an all-out war with Wi-Fi and WiMAX over the past three years, and it is only recently that we now see the company starting to co-opt some of the same technology underlying WiMAX. Qualcomm recently ditched its much-hyped EVDV technology when it became apparent that carriers want IP and big pipes, something WiMAX was designed to address from the ground up.
I find Qualcomm to be a little lost these days, as if it is searching for another big bully to take on again; the trouble is, Qualcomm is now the big bully and it's taking on the types of innovators that it once was.
That said, anyone in the telecoms industry who wants to know how Qualcomm got to be Qualcomm should read this book.
I see that the WiMAX backlash is in fulleffect. I agree with much of the criticism and I certainly have my share of issues with the folks at the WiMAX Forum, but I think we are now witnessing a backlash bubble of sorts.
Yes, interoperability testing is behind schedule and, yes, PR hacks and reporters continue to over-promise the near-term benefits of WiMAX. But I also find that much of the criticism of WiMAX is based on a developed-market view of telecommunications. The US has a plethora of wired and wireless options and, with DSL prices continuing to fall, it is not surprising that a profitable WiMAX business model is tough to imagine in many markets.
But when you look at markets without a fixed line infrastructure, the picture changes dramatically. In these markets, cost per bit isn't near where it needs to be to drive deployments of 3G or proprietary fixed wireless networks. Wi-Fi can fill some of these gaps, but it's not carrier-ready, particularly regarding VoIP. WiMAX is technically sound and an excellent carrier technlogy for supporting VoIP. The issues behind the WiMAX Forum delays right now have to do with bickering over spectrum, scope, control, marketing -- all important stuff, but not insurmountable.
Steve Stroh writes that emerging markets need cheap wireless broadband. I believe that WiMAX will be one of the technologies that serves that need.
And back to developed markets. I also have every reason to believe that our wireless consumption will continue to escalate at a rate that will compel all carriers to look at WiMAX to share the load. But this will take time. While it is tempting to say WiMAX will fail because it's behind schedule, many people said (and continue to say) the very same thing about 3G.
Dave Mock writes in support of municipal wireless. I'm also glad to see Intel throwing its weight in support of cities that want to take control of their airspace. I'm not saying all cities should get into the ISP business; I'm just saying that they should have the freedom to hire whatever service providers they want to deploy and manage their wireless networks. The incumbents had their chance to be innovative and aggressive and they blew it. And, frankly, they simply can't move quickly enough to support all the applications that cities want to support over these networks.
Litigation may impede innovation, but it won't stop it. Cities and states watch one another and they will quickly learn that those that are not restricted by Pennsylvania-like legislation are improving their tax base by attracting citizens lured by low-cost or free wireless, are improving city services by saving money on municipal employee communications, providing broadband to their police and emergency services people at a fraction of the cost of 3G networks, and improving security, asset tracking, and, well, the list goes on.
This is a revolution and, like most revolutions, it is encountering fierce resistance. But the incumbents are too late to ban muni-wireless in every state. Wi-Fi created a monster: a more savvy wireless consumer. Once people install Wi-Fi in their homes they realize that wireless isn't quite so complicated after they. These people go to work and they demand Wi-Fi there as well. It is only natural for cities to fall in love with home networking.
Savvy wireless consumers are a fact of life and those service providers who learn to speak up to consumers rather than talk down to consumers will be the providers who succeed in the years ahead.
Chinese telecoms vendor ZTE has announced that it will begin cranking out WiMAX gear using Intel chips.
I'm glad to see ZTE gearing up for commercial WiMAX gear. I think that this company in particular will play a large role in helping WiMAX live up to its hype. That's because ZTE has built a nice global business on undercutting the Nortels of the world with less-expensive gear. If WiMAX is going to succeed big, it needs to be disruptively inexpensive and ZTE is just the company to get it there.
I also believe that ZTE's larger goal for WiMAX is to leverage the technology to help it gain handset market share. WiMAX, as I've said before, is the "poor carrier's 3G." Many carriers want to offer 3G-like services but simply can't justify the 3G equipment prices. WiMAX might fill that gap quite nicely.
For instance, a "limited mobility" technology known as PHS has been successful in China because it allows carriers to offer consumers a cellular service at low cost with a low geographic range. ZTE just happens to be the market leader with PHS in China. WiMAX could very well be viewed by ZTE as the next-generation PHS.
WiMAX has often been viewed as competitive to 3G or DSL networks. But I've always asked the question: Why can't a service provider use both?
Well, it looks like Lucent has been asking that same question. They just announced a partnership with Alvarion to begin merging WiMAX with their existing 3G and wireline portfolio. This is great news for Alvarion.
Here's the full release:
Lucent Technologies to Integrate Alvarion's WiMAX-Ready Platform into Its Converged Networking Portfolio
Lucent and Alvarion Partner to Deliver Converged Networking Solution That Enables Service Providers to Complement Existing 3G Mobile and Wireline Networks with WiMAX
MURRAY HILL, N.J -- Jan. 11, 2005--Lucent Technologies (NYSE: LU) today announced its plans to integrate WiMAX technology, based on the IEEE's 802.16 standard, through Alvarion's (NASDAQ:ALVR) BreezeMAX(TM) product line -- into its Accelerate(TM) Next Generation Communications Solutions portfolio, which includes Lucent's industry-leading IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) solution. Lucent's IMS-based convergence solution, which will include support for WiMAX, can help service providers deliver seamless communications services across a variety of wireless and wireline networks and enables the introduction of new converged "lifestyle" service bundles that can increase customer satisfaction and reduce customer churn.
Lucent will team with Alvarion, a market leader in wireless broadband networks, to deliver a converged networking solution to service providers that includes the seamless interoperability of WiMAX, third-generation (3G) mobile (CDMA2000(R) and W-CDMA/UMTS), WiFi and wireline networks. Additionally, as part of this initiative, Lucent Worldwide Services (LWS) will provide a comprehensive suite of deployment, maintenance, and professional services to support WiMAX infrastructure and applications, further extending LWS' multi-vendor services capabilities in important growth markets.
"WiMAX clearly complements existing and emerging 3G mobile and wireline networks, and can play a significant role in helping our customers deliver converged service offerings that can be accessed using a broad range of devices on a wide variety of networks," said John Marinho, vice president of strategic marketing for Lucent Technologies. "Our Bell Labs expertise, industry-leading IMS portfolio, best-in-class 3G mobile and broadband wireline solutions, and end-to-end services capabilities place Lucent in the best position to implement WiMAX technology as part of a converged networking solution. We're very excited to work with Alvarion because they are the front-runners and thought leaders in the WiMAX arena and this relationship will enhance our product portfolio."
BreezeMAX is Alvarion's 3G OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing) platform with advanced Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) functionality and a leading WiMAX-ready platform.
"Alvarion is pleased to be selected by Lucent for our outstanding WiMAX-ready product portfolio leveraged by our 10 plus years of experience in the wireless field," said Zvi Slonimsky, CEO of Alvarion. "No doubt this relationship will be a vehicle in the evolution of the fixed broadband wireless market to widespread availability of mobile broadband and reflects our commitment to the future of WiMAX."
The underlying foundation of Lucent's converged networking portfolio is the Lucent IMS solution, a service delivery platform that enables service providers to simply and cost-effectively introduce new voice over IP (VoIP) and multimedia services. Lucent's IMS solution enables operators to deliver services that blend voice and data capabilities, simplifying the creation of converged "lifestyle" service bundles. It also helps reduce the introduction costs and time-to-market for new services by leveraging a common applications infrastructure to deliver services with a common "look and feel" across 3G mobile, WiFi, WiMAX, and wireline networks.
Both companies are members of the WiMAX Forum(TM), an industry-led organization that facilitates the compatibility and certification of broadband wireless access equipment, with Alvarion holding several prominent positions on the board. The WiMAX Forum is expected to certify products as WiMAX Forum Certified(TM) later this year. By working with Alvarion and the WiMAX Forum, Lucent will ensure that WiMAX is compatible with 3G mobile and wireline networks, and that it meets service provider requirements for quality, reliability and performance.
Tech pundit Bob Cringley's annual predictions are always a good read. Here are his wireless predictions:
->WiMax will be a huge story by summer, but widespread adoption of the wireless networking technology will take at least another two years. In the meantime, though, nobody will make money on WiFi, but it will become ubiquitous anyway, especially with the arrival of 802.11n.
( I'm not sure WiMAX can be much more of a "huge" story than it is already. I would add that Wi-Fi will become known more for the applications it supports [see below] than for simply providing Internet access.)
-> VoIP will continue to shatter the telephone industry with the arrival of WiFi phones, which might finally be the killer app for hotspots. Eventually, all the backbone suppliers will figure out that VoIP is their salvation and will either start their own VoIP companies or ally with big VoIP players.
(I agree. Wi-Fi phones [standalone or embedded within PDAs and cellular handsets] are going to give carriers a reason to invest in hotspots; they're a lot cheaper than base stations and can often be partially supported by the venue.)
-> Two thousand five will NOT be the year for UltraWide Band (UWB) networking or Power Line Networking, but both will do really well in 2006.
(After spending time at CES, it's safe to say we'll see commercial UWB products, primarily for wireless USB. However, we will also see a blending of power line and UWB technology for pretty nifty hi-def home networking. But much of this will take until 2006 I'm afraid.)
Unstrung has published an introductory guide to WiMAX. It's a worth a read if you need the basics, but it does fail to mention other WiMAX-like technologies such as Flash-OFDM (Flarion) and UMTS TDD that are live today and gaining carrier support. And there is the inherent tendency among carriers to stick with predictable and "safe" migration paths - GPRS/UMTS/HSPA, for example. But I digress...
Dave Mock is a wireless consultant and analyst with currentofferings.com and author of the forthcoming book The Qualcomm Equation. Dave took a moment to answer a few of my burning telecoms questions...
Q: What are your thoughts about a Nextel/Sprint merger? Is this good news for US telecoms industry? Good news for consumers? A: The Sprint/Nextel combo will have pros and cons but overall I think it’s a move in the right direction for both the industry and consumers. Nextel’s strained network will get relief and Sprint will get some very profitable channels. The different network platforms will slow the integration though – they’ll operate two networks for a while.
Q: What are your predictions about Qualcomm and China? China has been testing the two leading 3G technologies along with a homegrown technology. Any thoughts on how it will all play out? A: I think China will push TD-SCDMA into the market somehow, with the principle purpose of leveraging a bigger role in the industry. Whether it is successful or not probably doesn’t matter as much as what it buys them. I think arguments of Qualcomm’s assertion of IPR in the standard are moot, as I don’t see it as a significant driver of royalty for them. However it plays out, CDMA and WCDMA should still develop a significant presence.
Q: EV-DO vs. HSDPA: Which do you like better, and why? A: I like EV-DO because it’s here today. Ultimately, HSDPA promises more flexibility for operators, but it’s got some distance to go before widespread deployment.
Q: Qualcomm is becoming a network operator with its MediaFLO deployment. Why is Qualcomm doing this and do you think it will pay off? A: Well, Qualcomm has no interest in being a network operator. But they certainly would like to see the spin-off take fire to boost demand for wireless broadband (re: their EV-DO). It’s a typical practice for them I call “seeding the market”, and it’s very forward thinking as there is not yet significant demand for streamed media. Odds are it won’t pan out well (just as several other ideas have flopped), but they only have to be right once to hit it big again.
Q: Since MediaFLO will using an ODFM technology, is this a sign that OFDM is going to drive Qualcomm's next-generation chipsets? A: I think OFDM will play a bigger role in Qualcomm’s designs going forward (where it’s appropriate). When it comes to chipsets, Qualcomm has demonstrated competency in integrating whatever customers demand – be it GSM, WCDMA, OFDM or maybe even Wi-Fi. As long as OFDM offers performance advantages, they’ll play.
Q: Speaking of Wi-Fi, do you think that Wi-Fi-enabled handsets will hurt the success of EV-DO and other 3G technologies, or increase usage of these networks (or both)? A: I think Wi-Fi is shaping up to be a serious threat, and this is no surprise to anyone in Qualcomm. But I think it hurts Qualcomm less than the operators, who will lose control of the channel. Regional (and municipal) Wi-Fi deployments have the biggest chance of limiting the uptake of EV-DO, and pressuring service prices. Actually, Wi-Fi itself is not the true threat – it’s the aggregation of hotspots and roaming agreements for WLANs that potentially could cut out EV-DO. But so far these efforts have failed.
Q: Should Qualcomm be frightened by WiMAX? And do you think the vendor will ultimately support WiMAX? A: Qualcomm should be concerned about WiMAX and anything like it – and they are. The standard itself will likely be stalled to no end as it is too broad right now, but some significant decisions will be made in 2005 that could put it on the fast track or send it out to be shot. Intel’s weight shouldn’t be underestimated here, and I think they’ll be successful in getting many in the industry to adopt the standard if it comes through in marketable form.
According to The Economist a company out of Atlanta, Georgia plans to launch an "airship satellite" stationed 13 miles off the ground to function as a cost-effective low-orbit satellite.
This "stratellite" certainly appears to be less expensive than the real low-orbit satellite WildBlue which is coming on line in 2005.
The airship could be used to light up cities with DSL-like bandwidth. At 13 miles, I suspect latency will be an issue. But it certainly is a convenient way of manufacturing the tallest tower in town and would make a nice platform for fixed wireless base stations. Perhaps TowerStream would be interested in such a service.
Siemens is getting some blazing speeds out of OFDM. It is also going to be building OFDM gear in partnership with Flarion. OFDM is becoming the technology of choice for next-generation networks. Qualcomm's on board. Wi-Fi uses it. Who's next?
MuniWireless has culled together eight RFPs from municipalities around the US, all looking to deploy wireless networks. Most of these networks will use Wi-Fi and most munis hope to the charge for the networks. Rome Georgia is planning an 802.16 network for its own use. All in all, there's a nice mix of large and small, public and private.
You can download it here. Esme Vos has done an excellent job of making MuniWireless a valuable resource for tracking what has turned out to be quite a revolution.
Unstrung reports that PCCW has dropped Navini in favor of IPWireless. Navini had tried to go the proprietary fixed wireless route awhile back, then began backing 802.20 only to change course and join the WiMAX Forum.
The IEEE has a new working group up and running (802.22) and they've got a new acronym that is sure to confuse media and profit analysts for years to come: WRAN, which stands for wireless regional area network.
WRAN joins a growing list of acronyms defined by coverage area:
- WPAN (personal area network)
- WLAN (local area network)
- WMAN (metro area network)
- WRAN (regional area network)
(There is also 802.20 "wireless mobility" which is in desperate need of a good acronym.)
Labeling a technology by coverage area is an inperfect solution. WLAN can easily be powered up to cover several miles and WMAN is not likely to see many deployments over 5 to 10 miles (let alone 30), at least in the unlicensed band.
WRAN will attempt to bring order to new unlicensed UHF/VHF bands that will open up as part of the FCC-mandated digital television "upgrade." Specifically, the working group's charter is to "develop a standard for a cognitive radio-based PHY/MAC/air_interface for use by license-exempt devices on a non-interfering basis in spectrum that is allocated to the TV Broadcast Service."
The "non-interfering basis" will probably be the technical issue most contested by broadcasters in the years to come. But every little unlicensed crack in the FCC wall is a good thing and I wish this group luck.
I want to clarify something about the CNET article that states that Nextel is "dropping" WiMAX from consideration.
WiMAX was not a serious contender to begin with. Yes, Nextel had taken a very close look at the technology, but so have all the other operators. Nextel needs to get moving quickly on a network that will allow them to compete with Verizon Wireless in 18 months, not four years from now. So, it will either use the same gear that Verizon is using or take a chance on Flarion's solution (which functions today very much like WiMAX is expected to function three years from now).
Now I realize the WiMAX backlash is in full swing, and that much of it is well deserved. But I also think we need to keep things in perpective. This news is not a setback for WiMAX any more than Cingular's decision to deploy HSDPA is a setback for WiMAX.
As Unstrung notes, UK startup Iberia is going to use WiMAX equipment and unlicensed spectrum to go after the enterprise market.
Ibera has the right idea. There's money to be made in chipping away at those T1 margins. But I hope Iberia has its sights set on the tallest buildings in town as well as a little patience.
The initial WiMAX profile supports just one unlicensed band, at 5.8GHz. Although there is an enormous amount of space in this band for operators to set up shop in, the high frequency is not so good at penetrating walls, trees, etc. (at least not compared with the likes of 900MHz). At 5.8GHz, laws of physics favor line-of-site connections.
In the US, TowerStream secured the tallest buildings in Boston, New York and LA for its base stations. Founder Jeff Thompson said some of these tower deals took years to hammer out; now that he's got them, the locations give his company a tangible competitive advantage other challengers.
Granted, many of his customers do not have line-of-site connections. Jeff credits the quality of the fixed wireless equipment, which keeps improving year after year. But for time being, in the unlicensed space, if you want to be king of the fixed wireless hill, you'll need a really tall hill.
James Enck of EuroTelcoBlog writes that Clearwire had an early interest in 3.5GHz (WiMAX) frequency in Austria, although it didn't follow through. Clearwire did, however, acquire spectrum in Copenhagen and (via Flux Fixed Wireless) in Belgium.
To get an idea of what a WIMAX CPE is going to cost, it's important to know where the proprietary gear is at right now. Motorola has had a Canopy line of fixed wireless gear for years now and has been fairly open on pricing. So here is what their CPEs are going for these days (screen grab from their Web site):
The ISPs have told me that they need CPEs in the $200 to $100 range to make a go of it in the residential market. But these prices are fine for the enterprise market. So, as I've said before, WiMAX will succeed with enterprises because proprietary equipment is already succeeding.
I had my doubts last year that Motorola was going to stick with Canopy and pursue WiMAX. But it seems that they are staying the course and their acquisition of MeshNetworks says, to me at least, that they'll be looking to provide WiMAX mesh solutions as well.
To address the WiMAX "overhang" issue, Motorola is launching gear that will co-exist with WiMAX unlicensed gear and existing Canopy gear. I'm hearing the term "overhang" a lot these days, which refers to carriers holding back on purchases until this much-hyped WiMAX gear is ready. Motorola wants carriers to buy today and is providing assurances that they will not be stuck with instant-legacy gear next year.
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.
Much is being made of the Qualcomm vs. WiMAX battle these days. And their recent announcement that they are getting into the broadcast business in the US, by means of their MediaFLO network, will add fuel to the fire.
MediaFLO is a $800 million bet on consumer demand for TV content. According to the press release, Qualcomm "intends to offer the network as a shared resource for U.S. CDMA2000 and WCDMA (UMTS) cellular operators, enabling them to deliver mobile interactive multimedia to their wireless subscribers without the cost of network deployment and operation." Sounds awfully altruistic, doesn't it?
Basically, Qualcomm wants to prime the pump for significant broadband delivery/demand. Carriers have not exactly been tripping over themselves to deploy EV-DO networks. And even when Verizon Wireless and Sprint do get those networks up nationally there's no guarantee the networks will be able to provide the type of high-speed A/V feeds that consumers will likely want. By dedicating a separate network specifically to broadcasting content (FLO stands for forward-link only) Qualcomm creates a nice wholesale content delivery business. All carriers need to do is start upgrading their subscribers to the new handsets that include the brand new FLO-ready chips.
I've read a few articles that point to MediaFLO as a yet another example of how WiMAX will ultimately fail. After all, the thinking goes, if all these networks are live and pumping huge amounts of data by the time WiMAX goes live, why would carriers even bother with WiMAX?
Yet despite the real or perceived conflicts, WiMAX and FLO have one thing in common: OFDM. OFDM stands for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (sometimes acronyms are better left untranslated). All you need to know is that OFDM is the cornerstone technology for 4G. Even Flarion, the technology that Nextel is currently testing for its next broadband wireless network, is using OFDM.
So no matter what vendor wins the battle for broadband over the next five years, you can be fairly certain that OFDM will be there as well.
There is much talk these days of Flarion's trial with Nextel and Intel's efforts to get every ISP from Seattle to Kent using WiMAX.
But let's not overlook IPWireless. They recently became the infrastructure of choice for a wireless broadband network in Nigeria. Nigeria is one of the fastest growing cellular markets in the world. And just because per capita income is low does not mean there are not plenty of people willing to pay a premium for wireless broadband. The irony of developing markets is that businesses and consumers have historically paid much more for access than people in developed markets, which means that any operator that can offer a competitvely priced form of access stands a good chance of success.
ComputerWorld mentions that Taipei is planning a citywide Wi-Fi network next year. And this is no small project either. They plan to blanket the city with between 15,000 and 20,000 access points, at a total cost of $70 million. I only wonder if they took a hard look at mesh networking to get the costs down, because they appear awfully steep.
Nevertheless, it seems that not a week goes by without another city investing in or studying a metro-wide Wi-Fi network.
Off the top of my head, here are a few cities to keep an eye on:
New York City
Philadelphia
Atlanta
New Orleans
San Francisco
Los Angeles
And I could quickly generate a list of 50+ smaller and rural metro areas that are also pursuing Wi-Fi networks. So why the big rush to Wi-Fi? And why should carriers be concerned?
Here are a few reasons why:
The digital divide: Internet access is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Cities want to provide Internet access to all of their residents. It is a noble and necessary pursuit and must not be trivialized.
The Wi-Fi effect: A funny thing happens when people install their first wireless home networks. They become a good deal more savvy about wireless technology. Suddenly, they're in charge of a network and it's not such a big deal after all. It's a minor, but important, shift in thinking that I believe will increasingly challenge the carriers. Metro wireless networking is little more than home networking on a larger scale. Town managers look at all the things they could do with a wireless network that they control. They could provide their emergency personnel with broadband connections, they could install video cameras around town with wireless feeds, they could track assets around town with wireless transponders, they could share one backhaul connection between multiple city buildings, dramatically cutting costs.
Carrier arrogance and/or apathy: Carriers have been sticking it to cities for years, charging them unnecessarily high rates for emergency services, backhaul, etc., not to mention underserving parts of the cities that carriers view as low margin. It is only to be expected that cities want to take matters into their own hands to save money primarily and at the least keep the carriers honest. If carriers had been more aggressive, more innovate and more affordable over the years we would not be witnessing this municipal backlash. Cities don't want to get into the telecoms business, but if they can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (or millions), while providing better service to their staff and citizens, they're going to give it a hard look.
Buzz: Cities are well aware of the attention they'll recieve by offering metro Wi-Fi networks. Cities want attention these days, to attract new businesses and residents. I'm not sure a city like New York or Los Angeles needs much more buzz, but this type of thinking makes great sense in smaller cities, those who want to attract people and business from the larger metro areas. Richard Florida (author of The Rise of the Creative Class believes this much. Internet access provides a cultural and business lifeline to people in smaller cities and rural areas.
That said, I understand that there are more than 10 states that prohibit municipalities from providing telecoms services. I also understand that the major telcos and cablecos are in a lobbying frenzy to prevent this as well.
Ultimately, they will fail. They will fail because the Wi-Fi cat is out of the bag and there's no putting him back in again. We, as increasingly savvy wireless consumers, now know what we can do with wireless networks if we own them. Wireless is a local phenomenon. We control Wi-Fi in our homes and municipalities are going to control Wi-Fi (and WiMAX) within their city lines.
Want to know more about municipal wireless developments? I highly recommend checking out this Web site.
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.
I sat in on the Intel/Clearwire briefing at CTIA and was not surprised by Intel's investment in the company. Intel needs insurance that an operator will deploy WiMAX as soon as it's available and Clearwire needs cheap equipment to make its business model work.
I'm certain that Clearwire won't be the only operator to deploy WiMAX nationally, but operators are notoriously slow to deploy any new technology. In their defense, operators have been burned in the past by deploying technologies before they were truly ready for prime time; they're wise to ease into them today.
I spoke with a few other analysts at CTIA and there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm over the deal. WiMAX in general and Intel in particular are suffering a backlack for all the WiMAX hype generated thus far. Perhaps Intel could have managed expectations better but perhaps the backlash was unavoidable. The proof is in the deployments and Clearwire is now onboard, although it did take a "significant" investment from Intel to make it happen.
Here's the really interesting thing about the deal. As much as analysts would like to dismiss WiMAX they can't dismiss Clearwire CEO Craig McCaw. The man has huge credibility in telecoms and when he says he's bullish on WiMAX, people take him seriously.
I have a number of questions about the deal which I will follow up on offline with Intel, Clearwire and NextNet and will report on in our new monthy newsletter, Great Unwired. If you'd like a sample copy, shoot me an email at jyunker@greatunwired.com.
A number of wireless pundits are weighing in against WiMAX - most notably Om Malik . He makes some good points; Intel has created prematurely high expectations and WiMAX has plenty of hurdles ahead of it.
I expect the WiMAX backlash to grow in momentum; I predicted as much 10 months ago. But I would not bet against WiMAX in the long run. Earlier this week I met with three US wireless ISPS (WISPs) who will all be migrating to WiMAX, first as an enterprise fixed wireless solution, next as a Wi-Fi backhaul solution.
Regarding unlecensed spectrum, 5.8 will work. Yes, there are limitations and intererence will remain a wild card, but in the US alone the unlicensed WISP industry is well over $200 million -- and mostly due to organic growth. The RBOCs aren't anxious to jump into the fixed wireless market for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, but that doesn't mean the market isn't viable. RBOCs are not always a good bellweather of an emerging market.
Now what about this notion of WiMAX replacing cable and DSL? I don't expect much progress in this regard. DSL prices will continue to drop and cable pipes will continue to expand. But as I've said repeatedly, you don't need the DSL and cable market to be a success in the US.
Roughly 30 million out of 120 million households have broadband right now. There is plenty of room for growth yet. And then there are the municipalities who want wireless broadband for security, emergency services, asset tracking, VoIP. I just don't see wireless carriers meeting their needs at the right price. WiMAX is the ultimate "home networking" technology for communities and campuses.
Now let's assume that DSL and cable eventually own every household in the US. Can WiMAX still be wildly successful? Absolutely. WiMAX stands a reasonably good chance of replacing Wi-Fi in the home and in consumer devices. Wired backhaul or wireless backhaul, it really doesn't matter in the long run. WiMAX has plenty of opportunities ahead.
Yes, there are plenty of road bumps as well. But don't bury WiMAX before it has shipped.
The convergence of communications technologies is often portrayed as a wonderful thing for consumers. In many respects it is; the bundling of services often results in cheaper individual services and fewer bills in the mail. For example, I now pay for cable TV, voice and Internet access with one bill. But from the service provider's point of view, convergence can be downright messy; we now have cable companies selling voice services, phone companies selling media content, and wireless carriers headed into the fixed wireless (DSL substitution) market.
This recent article in The Wall Street Journal hits on the many of the major issues. Here's an article excerpt:
Over the past four years, the nation's largest phone companies have lost local phone lines by the millions as consumers fled to cellphones and e-mail. Many customers are giving up their second, and even their primary, phone lines. The intrusion by cable companies only made things worse, forcing the Bells to expand into other areas that promise more growth, such as wireless, high-speed Internet and television.
Covergence may not be pretty, but it sure does make the telecommunications industry exciting once again. These carriers have no choice but be creative and aggressive or they will be left behind; this will result in better prices for consumers and more creative services. Convergence isn't always pretty because creativity isn't always pretty.
Unstrung Insider is reporting that Lucent is close to joining the WiMAX Forum.
As I noted a week ago, it's just a matter of time before all major telecoms vendors join the Forum. After all, they're in the best position of all to capitalize on the technology.
That's not to say that WiMAX will be a huge success right away. These vendors may only be hedging their bets and have little invested in making WiMAX a part of their carrier product portfolio. But now that Nortel and Lucent are onboard, I expect at least one of them to take WiMAX seriously.
And what about Qualcomm? When are they going to join the Forum? They won't tell me; I suspect much is riding on Nextel's wireless broadband decision. My prediction: Nextel goes with Qualcomm and WiMAX and Qualcomm joins the Forum.
WiMAX is in the spotlight this week as Intel aims its promotional machine at the media and the developer community. And even though the actual product is still up to a year away (much later than expected) hope springs eternal. I, for one, do believe that WiMAX will be successful, but I do not believe WiMAX is a panacea.
The fixed line incumbents are wisely turning toward fiber to the home (FTTH). Fiber provides practically unlimited broadband to the premises, something that appears to be of increasing importance to many consumers. While WiMAX promises last-mile wireless, fiber promises to be the last wire you'll ever need.
For a glimpse at how this battle is being fought at the municipal level, check out this letter to the editor in the town of Truckee, a community near Lake Tahoe. The writer, an advocate for fiber, makes some good points about the weaknesses of WiMAX, particularly in a mountainous environment. But I think the larger issue is this: WiMAX is going to do a lot of good for millions, perhaps billions, of people. But if I were faced with a choice between WiMAX backhaul to my home and fiber backhaul, at similar costs, I would choose fiber.
Nortel Networks has wisely joined the WiMAX Forum. I expect the rest of the major telecoms network vendors to be following along, albeit reluctantly. I don't envy these vendors. They spent the past few years avidly promoting conventional "3G" technologies like UMTS and EV-DO only only to find some other technology, backed by Intel of all companies, hogging the spotlight.
My advice to Nortel is this: embrace WiMAX. Figure out how to layer WiMAX and 3G seamlessly and then go back to your carrier clients and beat out the likes of Alvarion and Flarion. Carriers would much rather stick with their existing vendors than try out an upstart vendor. But timing is critical.
A Parks Associates research report predicts that there will be 7 million global WiMAX users by 2009. A few news outlets have picked up on this study as a sign that WiMAX is lagging, but I don’t completely agree. Compared with the roughly one billion global cellular users today, 7 million is indeed small change. But keep in mind that there is no WiMAX gear on the market as of today. And the gear that will first be available will be designed for fixed wireless deployments only, such as unwiring homes and offices. The WiMAX scenario that promises to compete with cellular networks won’t actually hit the market until 2006, when Intel says it will be embedding WiMAX within laptops.
The first few years of any technology are almost always guaranteed to be slow. Wi-Fi was hardly explosive in the first few years of its existence, and look where it is today. But because WiMAX has been so heavily promoted and is so poorly understood, I suspect we’re going to see many more articles that talk about the “failure” of WiMAX. However, reports of WiMAX’s death over the next few years is premature.
Russell Shaw is a specialist in mobile computing, telephony, networking and covers these fields regularly for numerous print and online publications. Russ writes the popular IP Telephony blog on ZDNet and contributes regularly to The Industry Standard blog as well. Author of seven books, Russ' latest book is Wireless Networking Made Easy.
John Yunker is president of 
