Comments on: New Clearwire a boost for WiMAX but faces challenges http://blog.telecoms.com/2008/05/19/new-clearwire-a-boost-for-wimax-but-faces-challenges/ Telecoms industry news and opinion Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:48:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Amitabh Kumar http://blog.telecoms.com/2008/05/19/new-clearwire-a-boost-for-wimax-but-faces-challenges/#comment-3343 Thu, 22 May 2008 05:13:20 +0000 http://blog.telecoms.com/2008/05/19/new-clearwire-a-boost-for-wimax-but-faces-challenges/#comment-3343 The objectives of Google are much wider than just being available on a WiMAX network. The current WiMAX partnership is only to demonstrate the capabilities of what Google can do with wide WiMAX connectivity in terms of applications and services. This model will then be available for replication in hundreds of wireless and WiMAX networks. The objectives of Google are much wider than just being available on a WiMAX network. The current WiMAX partnership is only to demonstrate the capabilities of what Google can do with wide WiMAX connectivity in terms of applications and services.
This model will then be available for replication in hundreds of wireless and WiMAX networks.

]]> by: Martyn Roetter http://blog.telecoms.com/2008/05/19/new-clearwire-a-boost-for-wimax-but-faces-challenges/#comment-3326 Tue, 20 May 2008 14:05:24 +0000 http://blog.telecoms.com/2008/05/19/new-clearwire-a-boost-for-wimax-but-faces-challenges/#comment-3326 While it is true that the cable operators cannot expect their fierce competitors Verizon and AT&T to give them any assistance in the mobile arena, nevertheless this assessment of the new Clearwire misses some key points. First, cable operators also now have the right to operate as MVNOs on Sprint’s CDMA/EV-DO network, which gives them more freedom of action than their earlier and now abandoned Pivot JV with Sprint, in which they were simply reselling Sprint’s own services. Their investment in WiMax should be looked at in the perspective of leaving no possibility unexamined, rather than as a definitive commitment to WiMax to the neglect of other technologies. I think that the cable operators are quite rightly leaving their options open in the event that mobile WiMax does not fulfill the ambitious announcements of revolutionary superiority that its advocates continue to proclaim. Second, Google is not putting all its eggs into the WiMax basket, but is also cooperating with Sprint, again on its CDMA network, as well as with T-Mobile USA on its GSM/WCDMA network with the same goal of rolling out its services and applications to mobile customers, on the Android platform among others. Google is the only sure winner in this consortium, since for a much smaller investment than the sum it had proposed to acquire spectrum in the recent 700 MHz auction it obtains privileged access to a substantial mobile network from which it will gain invaluable and widely applicable experience even if this network is not a commercial success. Third, further delays in the deployment of mobile WiMax will only increase its competitive hurdles in the face of HSPA and EV-DO networks whose coverage and performance will be upgraded over the next few years, while the ability of mobile WiMax to deliver performance that is superior to other technologies within this time horizon in real world, large scale usage scenarios remains to be proved. Furthermore, it is still unclear if or when mobile WiMax users will be offered the ability via multi-mode devices to use other networks in areas not covered by WiMax, such as customers of Verizon and AT&T enjoy in areas not yet covered by EV-DO Rev. A and HSPA respectively, and will be available in notebooks in which Qualcomm’s multi-mode, multi-frequency Gobi chipset is embedded. Absence of this alternative and/or fallback capability could be a significant competitive disadvantage. Finally, the underlying economic reality is that a network is being launched with a total investment of probably between $14-15 billion (that has benefited from being able to use spectrum that that itself was much less expensive than the mobile spectrum acquired in the 2006 AWS and 2008 700 MHz auctions), and there are serious questions whether this network can truly offer a superior value proposition to millions of U.S. users compared to other already widely deployed broadband wireless networks which are steadily improving in performance and the range of services they offer. The establishment of the new Clearwire solves a short term financing problem for Sprint in the deployment of a mobile WiMax network, but does not resolve other fundamental business and techno-economic concerns. The commercial viability of the new Clearwire business is at best extremely dubious. While it is true that the cable operators cannot expect their fierce competitors Verizon and AT&T to give them any assistance in the mobile arena, nevertheless this assessment of the new Clearwire misses some key points. First, cable operators also now have the right to operate as MVNOs on Sprint’s CDMA/EV-DO network, which gives them more freedom of action than their earlier and now abandoned Pivot JV with Sprint, in which they were simply reselling Sprint’s own services. Their investment in WiMax should be looked at in the perspective of leaving no possibility unexamined, rather than as a definitive commitment to WiMax to the neglect of other technologies. I think that the cable operators are quite rightly leaving their options open in the event that mobile WiMax does not fulfill the ambitious announcements of revolutionary superiority that its advocates continue to proclaim. Second, Google is not putting all its eggs into the WiMax basket, but is also cooperating with Sprint, again on its CDMA network, as well as with T-Mobile USA on its GSM/WCDMA network with the same goal of rolling out its services and applications to mobile customers, on the Android platform among others. Google is the only sure winner in this consortium, since for a much smaller investment than the sum it had proposed to acquire spectrum in the recent 700 MHz auction it obtains privileged access to a substantial mobile network from which it will gain invaluable and widely applicable experience even if this network is not a commercial success. Third, further delays in the deployment of mobile WiMax will only increase its competitive hurdles in the face of HSPA and EV-DO networks whose coverage and performance will be upgraded over the next few years, while the ability of mobile WiMax to deliver performance that is superior to other technologies within this time horizon in real world, large scale usage scenarios remains to be proved. Furthermore, it is still unclear if or when mobile WiMax users will be offered the ability via multi-mode devices to use other networks in areas not covered by WiMax, such as customers of Verizon and AT&T enjoy in areas not yet covered by EV-DO Rev. A and HSPA respectively, and will be available in notebooks in which Qualcomm’s multi-mode, multi-frequency Gobi chipset is embedded. Absence of this alternative and/or fallback capability could be a significant competitive disadvantage. Finally, the underlying economic reality is that a network is being launched with a total investment of probably between $14-15 billion (that has benefited from being able to use spectrum that that itself was much less expensive than the mobile spectrum acquired in the 2006 AWS and 2008 700 MHz auctions), and there are serious questions whether this network can truly offer a superior value proposition to millions of U.S. users compared to other already widely deployed broadband wireless networks which are steadily improving in performance and the range of services they offer. The establishment of the new Clearwire solves a short term financing problem for Sprint in the deployment of a mobile WiMax network, but does not resolve other fundamental business and techno-economic concerns. The commercial viability of the new Clearwire business is at best extremely dubious.

]]>