If you take a look at Sprint’s original presentation on WiMAX, you will see that they envision an open network where they get compensated for access- not for the services or data that flows across the network. Similar to Sprint’s deal with Amazon for the Kindle- expect to see new devices where the wireless connectivity is paid in the cost of the device. Sprint sees a world of millions of these wireless devices that don’t need a network service plan but do need connectivity.

And WiMAX with Google, Intel, McCaw et al, is how they intend to provide this open network where any device can have wireless service. Personally, I fully expect that WiMAX will be a game changer- the question is whether Clearwire will be in a position to control the new game they are playing.

Lastly- as an aside- how many people are really going to need to watch movies or post to a blog while driving at 55mph? WiMAX will be used by its users for nomadic use- not truly mobile except in rare cases.

In Swedem can you today get a country wide sub of 3G 7.2 Mbit/sec for $30 a month (incuding modem!). Without modem around $15/month.
Selling like hot cakes!
Some assumtions:
- LTE will not be slower
- LTE subs for user will not be more expensive than 3G HSPA today

Europe will follow very close and similar trend can happen when 3G is rolling out in US.

That is what Wimax is up against – and it’s not even out yet.

– Clearwire, while no raging success, has stated plans to switch its network to mobile WiMax and offer PC cards and ad hoc plans; dinging them for their initial fixed business seems to be comparing apples to oranges.

– According to several sources I talked to, device manufacturers have already put WiMax chips into their designs, and are testing them with Sprint and Intel. While some may wait to see if a market builds, others appear to be already in motion to take advantage of WiMax — Nokia, for one, showed its WiMax tablet at CTIA.

– According to the WiMax Forum, the technology is a worldwide standard and profiles are being developed for several different bandwidth ranges to address the spectrum available in multiple markets. To say WiMax “hasn’t proven itself elsewhere” seems seems a bit like saying an NFL draft pick is a bust even before he plays his first game. Big announced deals in Taiwan, Pakistan, Russia and Brazil seem to suggest some interesting experiments at the very least.

While I think it is necessary and proper to question the many complex facets of this deal, it seems like your arguments could be stronger if they didn’t ignore some easy-to-find metrics.

I get so sick of hearing about how fast DSL and cable is. The fact is, there are still folks on dial-up. The majority of people check their email and the weather. They don’t need a multi-meg per sec connection.

I realize that there are many who need more bandwidth and for those, Clearwire is not there yet. As I said before, Clearwire is not Wimax except in Wash, Chicago, and 1 other market I can’t remember (I think Las Vegas).

Clearwire could do Wimax a favor and do one of 2 things: 1) Make the announcement that they are NOT Wimax or 2) Roll out Wimax!

From Wikipedia, “Clearwire currently uses Expedience wireless technology, dubbed Pre-WiMax …”

I sell the service and use the service and I can’t complain. For $29 a month what do you expect. The connection is stable in a fixed environment. What’s great though is if I want to move in the territory, I can. I take the modem to customer’s locations or to community functions and set up portable “hot-spots”. This service competes with “line of sight” wireless services that are more expensive both monthly and initially. Clearwire setup is a snap. Just plug it in the wall and to a lan port and make sure you have a good signal. That’s it.

Whether Clearwire manages themselves as a corporation is another story. As far as the technology, it’s working for me!

And about the 2.5 vs 3.5 spectrum: North America is the last bastion of CDMA, but Verizon/Bell don’t seem to have too much trouble with handsets (besides missing the iPhone)

Free Space Optics (FSO) did not live up to its billing because of market reasons and not technology. The engineering was excellent, but the TeraBeam financiers mandated that this equipment was to be sold and not leased to provide services as was the initial plan. I am writing to say that when FSO technology is properly installed, and given the same level of attention of other technologies, it is a superior way to economically creates networks to rival buried fiber. These networks can support high bandwidth (100 Mbps to 10 Gbps), with a near zero latency for applications like IPTV, and are far more secure than any other wireless radio or even shared buried fiber facilities.

I disagree that Schmidt was “snookered” as he knows exactly what he is doing. Google needs a network for Android and it looks as if Verizon “isn’t playing” the open standard game. To throw 500 mil at the chance that the new CEO of Sprint, Dan Hesse could turn around the company and an opportunity to get with content providers as with Comcast and Time Warner, how can he loose?

Todd
SpiffyShiznickle