Editor’s Note: Welcome to our weekly feature, Analyst Angle. We’ve collected a group of the industry’s leading analysts to give their outlook on the hot topics in the wireless industry. In the coming weeks look for columns from NPD Group’s Ross Rubin, Enderle Group’s Rob Enderle and more.
This year has been labeled a “make or break” year for mobile WiMAX and, as we hit the mid-point, there’s no denying the positive buzz. The WiMAX Forum just managed to pull off its first global trade show. Mobile WiMAX certifications embracing technologies such as MIMO are rolling in. Flush with new funding and partners, Sprint’s WiMAX plans seem back on track and actually driving new interest in innovations such as WiMAX femtocells.
Yet, in spite of – or maybe because of – all the buzz, I still hear a lot of statements and proclamations about WiMAX that make me scratch my head in confusion. Things that simply don’t make sense. Things that are just accepted without being questioned. You might not think the rhetoric and messaging matters enough to care; if WiMAX does what it promises, then deployments will proceed and success will follow. This is why so many of the WiMAX vs. LTE debates are rather meaningless. That said, if would be operators come to WIMAX with timing, development or performance expectations that are simply wrong, it will inevitably impact the technology’s image or prospects (for better or worse).
Still scratching your own head trying to figure out what I’m talking about? Well, here we go.
300+ WiMAX deployments
At its conference in Amsterdam, the WiMAX Forum pointed to 305 deployments in 118 countries. Technically, this is true. “Technically,” however, is the operative word. I don’t get paid enough to track global subscriber counts or network deployments. My friends who do track them tell me – not surprisingly – that the vast majority of today’s WiMAX deployments are fixed, 802.16d-based networks. When was the last time you heard WiMAX vendors or the WiMAX Forum talk up 802.16d? How well do 802.16d deployments speak to the momentum behind mobile WiMAX?
Yes, there may be more than 300 WiMAX deployments around the world. However, this seems a little like the LTE community pointing to roughly three billion users since GSM, UMTS and LTE are all part of the 3GPP family.
WiMAX is 3G, not 4G
Again, this one is technically true. You’ll recall that last year the ITU classified WiMAX as an IMT-2000 technology. Since IMT-2000 is the designation for 3G, it follows that WiMAX is a 3G technology. And what technologies have obtained an IMT-Advanced (aka 4G) classification? None; no technologies can formally be called 4G yet.
Of course, where the ITU defines the letter of the law, the spirit of 4G is something else. The spirit of 4G points to a technology that delivers broadband mobility beyond today’s 3G networks. From a technology perspective, it should probably embrace a new generation of air interfaces (think OFDM) and a packet-based core (think IP). At the very least, the spirit of 4G would include WiMAX. I once railed against the shorthand of calling anything 4G before the ITU gives its blessings. I’ve come to see it like referring to an orangutan as a, “monkey.” Sure, it’s technically not accurate, but it’s close enough and conveys the general idea.and I’m not about to correct everyone else.
Certification is a Destination
The WiMAX Forum must be congratulated on its recent mobile WiMAX product certifications. After all, slapping a, “WiMAX Forum Certified” label on products was one of the organization’s primary objectives, promising to drive deployments by supporting interoperability, ecosystem development and manufacturing scale. Still, if the journey of 1000 miles starts with one step, we’re still in an early part of the trip. Think back to April. Back then, mobile WiMAX certifications were announced covering a variety of 2.3 GHz products. Was that the end game? No. New spectrum (like 2.5 GHz) and new features (like MIMO) still needed to be tested.
Going forward, additional spectrum bands (like 3.5 GHz) and features (like beamforming) and a myriad of new test cases will need to be included in a certification process embracing hundreds of new products. Oh, and this is even before new duplexing schemes (like FDD) and advanced core network features are included. To call it a never-ending process might be an exaggeration.but not much of one.
WiMAX + two years = LTE
When people begin talking up the merits of WiMAX vs. LTE, the topic of a WiMAX time to market advantage is always raised. In particular, LTE is consistently pegged at two years behind WiMAX. How do we make the equation work? Where LTE vendors promise initial products in 2009, commercial 802.16e momentum began growing last year. However, you could just as well argue that mobile WiMAX has a bigger lead given the depth of the WiMAX ecosystem (silicon, device, network, application) and the fact that the LTE SAE Trial Initiative (LSTI) is just now outlining plans for cross-vendor device-to-network interoperability tests. Or, you could argue that claims of any WiMAX lead are exaggerated since apples-to-apples comparisons generally put LTE up against 802.16m (still being standardized) and things like FDD-mode WMAX are still a work on progress. Oh, and LTE R&D has already been fast-tracked by the potential WiMAX threat and could be sped by further WiMAX success.
Just like the monkey vs. orangutan debate, it’s essentially a matter of simplicity. Two years seems like a reasonable number for the gap between LTE and mobile WiMAX commercialization. For operators and vendors in those spaces, the reality behind the messaging may not be so simple.
70 Mbps @ 70 km
They say the classics never die. Luckily, however, nobody goes around claiming that WiMAX can support 70 Mbps data rates at a range of 70 km anymore. Regardless, the early stories surrounding WiMAX do make an important point; the veracity of most claims lies in the assumptions behind them. Yes, WiMAX can deliver 70 Mbps of capacity – depending on the amount of spectrum used and the distance between the user and base station (and modulation, antenna technology used, device capabilities, etc.). Yes, WiMAX is driving new business models for operators based on unsubsidized devices and open networks – but this is a function of operator will and not the technology itself. Yes, LTE and WiMAX are largely similar from a technology standpoint – but smaller WiMAX startups (many of whom plan on developing LTE kit) will have a hard time selling LTE into mobile operators used to dealing with 2G and 3G heavyweights.
None of this should suggest that I’m either a WiMAX fanboy or an LTE bigot. I appreciate WiMAX for its undeniable success in building network, device and silicon ecosystems from the ground up in a relatively short amount of time. Likewise, I appreciate LTE for its major-label endorsements and its responsiveness to the potential WiMAX threat. Ultimately, I appreciate the fact that both LTE and WiMAX are nothing more than technologies but that – particularly as they battle for the hearts and minds of operators and regulators – looking beyond the well-worn claims and supposed axioms (aka, mental shorthand) is a good idea. As we enter summer and a good deal of the industry goes on vacation, what else do you have to do?
Questions or comments about this column? Please e-mail Peter at pjarich@currentanalysis.com or RCR Wireless News at rcrwebhelp@crain.com.
