

What does WiMAX really change? - newsit
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10401&tag=nl.e019

======
iigs
The overall WiMAX picture is about providing a foundation for next generation
devices to innovate. That's not BS and I'm not a CEO, so forgive that it
sounds kind of mission-statementy and let's dig in:

Devices are getting bigger and faster at every announcement. Today a college
graduate can put into an Altoids tin a device that is faster and more powerful
in every dimension than the desktop computer they started high school with. A
similar thing has happened with mobile data networks -- the phone I purchased
eight years ago could not send text messages, and the only "browser" type
functionality it had was a very crippled WAP implementation. The back end was
overwhelmingly voice oriented. WiMAX is about bridging the gap from IP on your
phone as a novelty to IP as an expectation -- IP as the default, and possibly
only protocol for communication.

WiMAX itself isn't some kind of miracle protocol. It has some very desirable
attributes, and was subject to a large amount of review by companies, from
carriers to silicon vendors. People that say that WiMAX itself is going to
revolutionize anything are dreaming, just as naysayers are missing the bigger
picture.

The bigger picture, here, is that new radio links are capable of consuming
enough bandwidth that carriers need to rethink their backhaul, or site to main
internet connection, infrastructure. One of the reasons, to date, that the
incumbent carriers have treated data so gingerly is because their towers are
frequently served by a small number of T1s, each 1.5 megabit. If you have 4
T1s to a site, you only have 6mbit total, which of course could be consumed by
a single aggressive user, even with existing 3G technology.

The backhaul requirements of WiMAX (and LTE) are going to require intense
effort invested by the carriers. The carrier(s) that do the best job on this
aspect of the network are going to be in a position to offer the most flexible
data plans, which may drive a lot of customer adoption (innovative platforms
that can't work anywhere else). Carriers that punt on this are going to need
to traffic shape to keep the network under control, and this will limit what
they can offer their customers and at what price.

Disclosure: I have skin in this game.

------
thedob
This is huge win for any company making a product that needs the network but
doesn't want to be tied to an existing broadband deployment. The cost of
embedding a WiMAX chip is far cheaper than embedding a 3G chip, so a whole new
array of devices will now be able to communicate with your network or web site
whereas before it was too expensive.

Some of the examples in the article (parking meters, home energy meters, etc)
were interesting, but there are exciting consumer facing applications for
this.

------
sant0sk1
I always thought the main thrust of WiMAX was to allow high-speed connections
to rural areas because of low infrastructure costs. I guess I was wrong. Seems
like rural areas are being ignored altogether.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Rural areas don't have the population density to support the high up-front
investment costs of the WiMax towers. As the WiMax companies start turning
profits and the cost of installation becomes cheaper I expect to see deeper
rural penetration.

------
llimllib
I'm in Baltimore... is there anything neat I can do with WiMax? I don't see
why I care about this, and certainly not why I should pay for it.

~~~
iigs
not much, today anyway... it's like having a Sprint PCS phone in Baltimore 15
years ago. The value prop won't go up until it's in more places and there is
more coverage. The device situation is also not great at the moment. The
future looks pretty good for that, though.

