3 ms·

One of the things that I'm surprised about is how WiMax didn't take off. I used it for quite a while and was really happy with it, but when I moved to a more ru

One of the things that I'm surprised about is how WiMax didn't take off. I used it for quite a while and was really happy with it, but when I moved to a more rural area it didn't work. Still know people who use it happily. I am one of those who watches no cable TV but still pays for and deals with Comcast. It's a necessary evil in my opinion, and something I just live with. But WiMax providers could get their act together and smash them, I'm just not sure why they haven't.

p1mrx 13y ago
WiMAX is dead because LTE won the standards war. LTE data is currently crazy-expensive in the US, but that's not really a technical problem.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  you may be nitpicking, there's no reason a wimax like service (wireless internet) couldn't be provided with LTE wimax/lte is not the problen
  - p1mrx 13y ago
    Yes, that was my point; I'm not concerned by the death of WiMAX as a protocol, because LTE is functionally equivalent. The problem is that LTE is not currently a viable competitor to wired Internet services, because the providers have set the prices too high and the caps too low.
hayksaakian 13y ago
its a matter of expectations most people have experience with wired connections which provide consistent speeds with very good up time. nowadays, mobile web use is common as well. people live with inconsistent speeds and hit/miss availability (on ALL carriers). its a hard proposition to ask someone to compromise their consistency for small savings, or any political or philosophical reasons, and switch to wireless internet. I think the best solution is tethering, because when you're using your phone's internet your expectations are properly set. this will probably never happen however, as the wireless telcos are more than eager to charge you more for using your paid for connection on a different device.
mdasen 13y ago
The main WiMAX provider in the US was Clearwire. I'm curious who you're thinking of as the other WiMAX providers. In terms of Clearwire, part of what hurt them was their relationship with Sprint. Sprint wanted a 4G network without the expense of building a 4G network - Clearwire building a 4G network for them was an ideal situation. Of course, Sprint didn't want to become just another MVNO - which is what would have happened in a VoIP world. So, Sprint wanted Clearwire to succeed and create an awesome 4G network, but they didn't want Clearwire to succeed and have a successful, sustainable business that would make Sprint irrelevant. I haven't had Clearwire service and I'm curious to hear your take on it. When Clearwire started serving my area, they offered around 5-6Mbps while my cable company offered 10Mbps. That's slower, but not hugely slower. In 2013, they were offering the same speed while my cable company offered 30Mbps. That's a big difference. I'm a bit hopeful for Sprint's trial venture with Dish. In one market, Dish is working with Sprint to do home-broadband via fixed wireless (LTE). Dish is installing external antennas and a satellite dish on the house and the residents get TV and internet that way. The external antenna will work better than the antenna of a WiMAX hot-spot sitting in someone's living room (which is how Clearwire was operating). I've focused a lot on Clearwire because Clearwire has most of the spectrum that would have gone to WiMAX. And herein lies another problem: Clearwire was the WiMAX provider. Just as one can get angry at Comcast, one can get annoyed that Clearwire wasn't better at running a business and rolling out coverage. In terms of EBS and BRS spectrum (~2.5GHz), Clearwire averages about 80% of that spectrum in the top 100 markets. While Clearwire by itself could have made a bigger impact, it didn't. It would be like having another cable company that no one used - it wouldn't have an impact. Ultimately, I think one of the issues that doesn't get talked about enough is the revenue. For example, your cable company runs wires all over town - that's the expensive part. If they provide you with just internet or internet plus television, their costs aren't dramatically altered, but their revenues double. Clearwire didn't have such a revenue-doubler and that extra revenue could have fuelled investment. In some ways, Clearwire had a revenue-shrinker in that Sprint was having customers pay it $40/mo for a data plan and was giving Clearwire about $3-6/mo. While that's revenue, such a low amount might have been below the average cost to serve customers and the deal cut Clearwire out of getting retail mobile customers paying it real money. But this is why I'm hopeful about the Dish/Sprint trial. First, fixed wireless with an installed, external antenna is going to be significantly better. Second, there's the possibility of a quadrouple-play: TV with video-on-demand, home phone service, mobile phone service, and internet. That would provide a good revenue stream that would provide the incentive for investment. Even if you didn't want TV or home phone service, a double play of mobile phone and home internet service would be more revenue than just one service. I'm curious what your thoughts are. I think wireless has the potential to be impactful, but I think it's going to take a while. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile aren't finished dealing with their mobile customers and don't have the spectrum to do home broadband before their mobile solutions are complete (once that is complete, there is the possibility to install smaller cells to re-use spectrum on a more granular level). Sprint now has Clearwire's spectrum, but isn't the fastest moving company. Is there another player I should be aware of?

p1mrx 13y ago

WiMAX is dead because LTE won the standards war. LTE data is currently crazy-expensive in the US, but that's not really a technical problem.

hayksaakian 13y ago
you may be nitpicking, there's no reason a wimax like service (wireless internet) couldn't be provided with LTE wimax/lte is not the problen
- p1mrx 13y ago
  Yes, that was my point; I'm not concerned by the death of WiMAX as a protocol, because LTE is functionally equivalent. The problem is that LTE is not currently a viable competitor to wired Internet services, because the providers have set the prices too high and the caps too low.

hayksaakian 13y ago

its a matter of expectations most people have experience with wired connections which provide consistent speeds with very good up time. nowadays, mobile web use is common as well. people live with inconsistent speeds and hit/miss availability (on ALL carriers). its a hard proposition to ask someone to compromise their consistency for small savings, or any political or philosophical reasons, and switch to wireless internet. I think the best solution is tethering, because when you're using your phone's internet your expectations are properly set. this will probably never happen however, as the wireless telcos are more than eager to charge you more for using your paid for connection on a different device.

mdasen 13y ago

The main WiMAX provider in the US was Clearwire. I'm curious who you're thinking of as the other WiMAX providers. In terms of Clearwire, part of what hurt them was their relationship with Sprint. Sprint wanted a 4G network without the expense of building a 4G network - Clearwire building a 4G network for them was an ideal situation. Of course, Sprint didn't want to become just another MVNO - which is what would have happened in a VoIP world. So, Sprint wanted Clearwire to succeed and create an awesome 4G network, but they didn't want Clearwire to succeed and have a successful, sustainable business that would make Sprint irrelevant. I haven't had Clearwire service and I'm curious to hear your take on it. When Clearwire started serving my area, they offered around 5-6Mbps while my cable company offered 10Mbps. That's slower, but not hugely slower. In 2013, they were offering the same speed while my cable company offered 30Mbps. That's a big difference. I'm a bit hopeful for Sprint's trial venture with Dish. In one market, Dish is working with Sprint to do home-broadband via fixed wireless (LTE). Dish is installing external antennas and a satellite dish on the house and the residents get TV and internet that way. The external antenna will work better than the antenna of a WiMAX hot-spot sitting in someone's living room (which is how Clearwire was operating). I've focused a lot on Clearwire because Clearwire has most of the spectrum that would have gone to WiMAX. And herein lies another problem: Clearwire was the WiMAX provider. Just as one can get angry at Comcast, one can get annoyed that Clearwire wasn't better at running a business and rolling out coverage. In terms of EBS and BRS spectrum (~2.5GHz), Clearwire averages about 80% of that spectrum in the top 100 markets. While Clearwire by itself could have made a bigger impact, it didn't. It would be like having another cable company that no one used - it wouldn't have an impact. Ultimately, I think one of the issues that doesn't get talked about enough is the revenue. For example, your cable company runs wires all over town - that's the expensive part. If they provide you with just internet or internet plus television, their costs aren't dramatically altered, but their revenues double. Clearwire didn't have such a revenue-doubler and that extra revenue could have fuelled investment. In some ways, Clearwire had a revenue-shrinker in that Sprint was having customers pay it $40/mo for a data plan and was giving Clearwire about $3-6/mo. While that's revenue, such a low amount might have been below the average cost to serve customers and the deal cut Clearwire out of getting retail mobile customers paying it real money. But this is why I'm hopeful about the Dish/Sprint trial. First, fixed wireless with an installed, external antenna is going to be significantly better. Second, there's the possibility of a quadrouple-play: TV with video-on-demand, home phone service, mobile phone service, and internet. That would provide a good revenue stream that would provide the incentive for investment. Even if you didn't want TV or home phone service, a double play of mobile phone and home internet service would be more revenue than just one service. I'm curious what your thoughts are. I think wireless has the potential to be impactful, but I think it's going to take a while. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile aren't finished dealing with their mobile customers and don't have the spectrum to do home broadband before their mobile solutions are complete (once that is complete, there is the possibility to install smaller cells to re-use spectrum on a more granular level). Sprint now has Clearwire's spectrum, but isn't the fastest moving company. Is there another player I should be aware of?