Wi-Fi

Sanity check: WiMAX is about a lot more than just faster mobile broadband

While the U.S. launch of WiMAX marks the debut of fast wireless Internet, the overall implications of this technology are much broader. See how this could shake up the cellular world and usher in a new breed of software, devices, and business applications.

While the U.S. launch of WiMAX marks the debut of fast wireless Internet, the overall implications of this technology are much broader. See how this could shake up the cellular world and usher in a new breed of software, devices, and business applications.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday in Baltimore at the official launch of America's first mobile WiMAX network, Sprint CTO Barry West said that if this was only about launching a new type of network with faster performance then it would be significant. However, it is abundantly clear that for West, Sprint, and their band of high-profile WiMAX partners, this is about a lot more than just a faster mobile network.

What is it about? What's the subtext? Here's my interpretation:

  • It is about unleashing a new generation of applications and devices with broadband connectivity.
  • It is about changing the balance of power in the cellular industry.
  • It is about bringing wireless broadband to the masses by making it less expensive and more open.
  • It is about turning the U.S. from a laggard into a leader in the mobile world.
  • It is about a bunch of underdogs who are trying to leapfrog a set of powerful, entrenched leaders.

Sprint's Barry West celebrated the launch of WiMAX by ceremonially cutting Ethernet cables, even though it's the cellular companies Sprint is really going after with Xohm. Photo by Jason Hiner

Is this really the beginning of WiMAX?

I've seen a number of consumers in the U.S. respond to news of the official U.S WiMAX launch in Baltimore by saying. "This isn't new. My town has had WiMAX for a couple years." What's going on here is that several smaller cities in the U.S. already have a version of WiMAX called "Fixed WiMAX" based on the 802.16d protocol.

This is essentially the same as Cable or DSL where a consumer has an Internet modem in their home, only instead of a phone line or a coaxial cable running into that modem, the Fixed WiMAX customer has a modem with a long-distance radio antenna in it. This is the equivalent of an early beta version of WiMAX.

What Sprint has launched in Baltimore is the first U.S. deployment of Mobile WiMAX, based on the 802.16e protocol. This version of WiMAX can be used for stationary modems, but it can also provide roaming Internet access across large areas and at highway driving speeds. So if you have Xohm WiMAX as your Internet service in Baltimore, your connection is good not only in your office or your house but anywhere you go in the city and throughout most of the metro area. It's like combining your Cable Internet account with a 3G broadband account.

The limitation, of course, is that it is only in Baltimore for now. However, Sprint is preparing to launch its next two Xohm networks in Washington, D.C. and Chicago before the end of the year. Then it plans to light up Philadelphia, Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston, and Providence, Rhode Island. Meanwhile, Clearwire is prepping Mobile WiMAX networks in Portland, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Sprint and Clearwire networks will interoperate.

In fact, Sprint is in the process of spinning off its Xohm business unit and merging it with Clearwire to create a new WiMAX company, with backing from Intel, Google, Comcast, and others. The new company will still need to raise about $3 billion of the $5 billion needed in order to compete a nationwide WiMAX network.

What does WiMAX really change?

Besides the obvious benefits of mobilizing high speed broadband, there are three significant developments that are part of WiMAX that could be game-changers in the technology industry.

1. Embeddable broadband

The cellular network was built to handle voice calls. It has been upgraded and re-engineered to handle data, but there are limitations to how much data it can handle and how much it can scale. The cellular network also has a business and usage model that strictly regulates end-point devices. That limits innovation from third-party developers on the network.

While the WiMAX network is very similar to the cellular network in its physical infrastructure, it was conceived from the ground up to be a pure IP network, built on open standards, and designed to be as open as the Internet itself. In that sense, WiMAX is simply a wireless on-ramp to the Internet.

With that in mind, Intel and several of the other founding  members of the WiMAX Forum set out to make WiMAX chips that would be mass-produced and inexpensive. It has worked. Embedded WiMAX chips for laptops, for example, are already cheaper than their embedded 3G counterparts. For example, a WiMAX module will typically add about $60-$80 to the price of a laptop, while embedded 3G will add $150-$200.

But beyond that, these cheap WiMAX chips are poised to be embedded in all kinds of devices, including

  • Parking meters
  • Home energy meters
  • Vending machines
  • Toys
  • Traffic lights
  • Cars and other motor vehicles

"The defining difference between WiMax and any other technologies is in the embedded devices," said West. "There are more than 20 WiMAX chipset manufacturers... In CDMA, there's one and a half." West was referring to Qualcomm, which dominates the CDMA market and charges royalties on its chips.

2. Wireless Applications 

With broadband being embedded in so many more devices, that also opens the door for new applications for both businesses and consumers. Since virtually anything will be able to connect to the Internet, that will offer new opportunities for connectivity apps that can streamline business processes, provide new communications opportunities, and do greater levels of data collection, for example.

West said, "WiMax really is a platform for innovation... We are inundated with people that want to work with us to build new applications."

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse added, "There will be so many applications we haven't even thought of."

3. Replacing the cellular business model

Make no mistake, Sprint and Intel are not just in the mobile broadband business as an altruistic attempt to bring fast wireless Internet access to the masses. Sprint is a distant third behind AT&T and Verizon Wireless in the U.S. cellular business and needs a better way to compete. All of the carriers know that the future lies in their data networks -- even voice traffic will eventually run over the data network.

That's why Sprint took the gamble of investing heavily in WiMAX and is doing everything it can to bring it to market as a open standard that will foster great innovation from third party hardware and software vendors.

Intel sees the writing on the wall that a lot of the computing world is migrating beyond PCs to include wireless  and mobile devices, where Intel hasn't traditionally been one of the primary chipmakers. That's Qualcomm's territory. Intel wants a piece of the action, but instead of trying to compete in the current market, Intel is investing in the next generation with WiMAX. It's also a technology that helps Intel in its core PC business because more and better connectivity usually translates into more people buying computers.

Ultimately, both Sprint and Intel want to replace the current cellular model with a platform that is open to devices and applications and ties into all of the development that is already happening on the Internet.

Now, to start, Sprint's first Xohm network in Baltimore does not expressly try go after telephony.  That would be silly to do since the coverage is so limited at this point. However, I have seen prototype WiMAX phones from Motorola and others, and there are even reports that the Google G1 will eventually include a WiMAX chip or be released in a WiMAX version.

In a surprisingly frank admission at the Baltimore launch, West said, "We're not trying to go head-to-head with cellular services today. We will in the future."

Bottom line

WiMAX could be the beginning of the convergence between traditional ISPs and cellular carriers. Or WiMAX could fail to get the funding it needs and fail to win over enough users to reach critical mass before other cellular carriers come to market with their next generation cellular data technologies, such as LTE.

Which ever way it goes, it's very likely that WiMAX will drive down the cost of mobile broadband and force the other cellular carriers to become more open in their policies toward third-party devices and applications. We're already seeing Verizon Wireless take steps in this direction. This should eventually fuel a new wave of hardware and software innovation.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

28 comments
Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Just another reason I didn't fall into the iPhone trap. This way you can get a real phone with useable features for enterprise use and still get the speed. The future possibilities are limitless, with the right investments.

tbenson
tbenson

Your article is obviously excited about 802.16E but please don't bash D. It is a proven protocol for fast wireless data transfer that's ready NOW. E will be super cool, but it's D that will make the industry mature and introduce to decision makers in the business world the concept you can send reliable data through the air safely with speed.

ejtpa1
ejtpa1

This is very nice and Ive known about its comming for years now!! I believe 2005 was my first wind of it.. when is it going to happen is the question? Gone are the days of the $300 plus cell phone bills when this does happen because this will blow up the IP phone market!

liqour43
liqour43

Baltimore? What a waste! Why not a city that actually has more workers then convicted criminals. For example, Wilmington DE, Stamford CT, Orlando FL, etc... These are the types of decisions that help doom a technology. Good luck WiMAX...

terryd64
terryd64

Baltimore, as in right next to Washington D.C. I'm sure that many a Washington staffer lives in or near Baltimore. Get Baltimore hooked and Washington D.C. is next. Isn't D.C. where all of the law makers and bureaucrats that make decisions rergarding who gets what bandwidth hang out? This is an extremely intelligent decision.

John.Schupp
John.Schupp

Baltimore is actually BAWA or Baltimore/Washington they are the same market to Sprint.

nmeyer
nmeyer

I have nothing in particular against any wireless data communication technology. WiMAX certainly qualifies as yet another standard (GSM/CDMA/FOMA/etc.) that has a future in the world at large. While it may succeed - it may not revolutionize much from the consumer standpoint. The costs and limitations to deploy WiMAX are still there. Sprint still needs an ROI. Let's review a few facts though: * Hanging new technology at a cell tower still costs money and takes a lot of time - Sprint may be banking on the prospect that it will be cheaper to hang WiMAX instead of any other gear - but there are still non-technology issues that slow deployment and impact cost. * WiMAX is as spectrally efficient as current iteration "CDMA" and "GSM" technologies - it is not significantly better. Cost per Hz to deploy the technology will be about the same. In other words - it eats up spectrum as fast as CDMA and GSM - yielding the same (or similar) wireless capacity. * If Sprint chooses to open up data capacity to the consumers - they will still need to provide a backhaul to handle the extra throughput. Terrestrial lines still cost money (even when you are a Telco). More wireless throughput translates into more demand on the backhaul. * Data capacity increases require consumption of licensed spectrum - Sprint may have the spectrum but this is a finite resource. * WiMAX will need a tower density similar to that of current cell competitors - so those costs will be similar to what it in the market now. * Data connection devices may have cheaper chipsets, which may reduce overall cost to the consumer - so the Sprint will not have to subsidize the cost of the device through the plan (read: minimum contract lengths) - that may provide an incentive to consumers. Sprint may also pocket the difference - to improve their ROI. In other words - we see no changes but Sprint is more profitable. I believe that Sprint will do well - but make no bones about it - it's just another technology that will (from a consumer perspective) represent a specialty device that we need to buy and pay for. Unless Sprint plans on loosing money in the deal - our out-of-pocket costs will be close to the same. The data experience will also be about the same.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

and pretty valid too. I have to question one though. "WiMAX will need a tower density similar to that of current cell competitors " I don't see it, as it is CDMA requries a far lower tower density than GSM. That's why CDMA networks originally covered greater areas than GSM networks, which require more towers to cover the same area. From what I've read on WiMax, the coverage is increased even more than an analogue(CDMA) tower. So based on this, why would WiMax towers require greater density? One other note, I thought the 'data experience' was to be many times faster that GSM, how will it be the same?

John.Schupp
John.Schupp

I have to disagree with a few of the points you have made here. I used to work for Sprint in the group that was doing testing and turnup for WiMAX elements for both the Baltimore and Chicago test Markets. your first point makes sense, Sprint is not by any means immune to the non-technical things that might interfere with a rollout and if they want to be successful they will have to be VERY careful to make sure that these issues are kept to a minimum - ION is a perfect example of this. On your second point, here you are incorrect WiMAX is significantly more effcient that CDMA which is SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient than GSM - you can have more subscribers on CDMA with less SNR than on GSM. Particularly on data services GSM is a joke compared to CDMA. GSM's throughput is limited to approximately 1.9 mb down and .9 mb up, CDMA EVDO-REV-A which is what Sprint currently deploys is 3.1mb down and 1.8 mb up Your third point is also good, WiMAX is going to be backhaul hungry, but Sprint has been planning optical runs to the towers supplying WiMAX so i don't see this as being an issue to the success or failure these costs will be passed on to the consumer as are all backhaul costs. On your fourth point WiMAX is also tuned to work in the 2.5-2.6 Ghz frequency range, and Sprint owns 90% of that nation wide and did before the WiMax deployment and while yes it is a finite resource it is not a hugely limiting factor at this point (particularly since thier partnership with Intel, Google, TWC and others to form Clearwire. WiMAX will actually need less tower density than CDMA or GSM because it is capable of either very high bit rates or very long distances. The standard implementation is looking at 10 megabits at a 10 kilometer range. In cities this could be higher as the tower density would be greater. The plan that Sprint is currently going with (as far as I know if it has not changed) is that they will co-locate WiMAX towers on existing EvDO-Rev-A towers so the construction costs won't be nearly as bad as your suggesting. Here is the bottom line on cost of the chipset - GSM is not nearly as good a technology as CDMA however, GSM does not have a royalty cost associated with it. So it is possible to make handsets super cheap which is why GSM is the most widely used system in the world. They work everywhere because the handsets are accesible. This is particularly true in poorer parts of the world where a CDMA network would fail because nobody coudl afford the devices. Think of parts of China, India, most of Africa there are over a billion customers who won't be able to afford a CDMA device largely because of the costs associated with royalties. Now does that mean lower contracts for you? probably not, will Sprint and it's partners pocket the extra cash for quicker ROI? probably but this is a huge risk and since the market is used to a 2 year contract, then it will be a while before the market demands looser contract requirements. Also if Sprint doesn't have to subsidize the devices there is a higher chance that 3rd party developers will be able to run with the service and provide value-added services that would increase the appeal of the platform. Overall I think if Sprint can capitalize on their monopoly on wire-speed wireless data services and can do things like decrease latency on wireless connections, and integrating WiMAX into current EvDO markets then I think they stand a real chance of having a breakout product here.

ajhenry
ajhenry

Perhaps I misremember, but I thought WiMax required significantly LESS density in its POPs - effective range of the signal was supposed to be an order of magnitude greater than current 3G technologies... This would reduce Sprint's outlay in upgrading existing towers. As a result (of fewer towers), Sprint will need fewer (but higher capacity) backhaul lines. Maybe this is a wash...

zbigniew.galus
zbigniew.galus

It's been a couple of years that I'm waiting for Sprint or any other WiMax opearator that could cover the region of "Les Landes" in south-west France dominated by France Telecom. I hope it will come soon ...

ctsanders
ctsanders

Wi-Max has been out for sometime. Australia has been using Wi-Max technology for at least 5-10 years (which is free to the public). In addition, we really need to start thinking about adding IPv6 to mix of solutions because if Sprint is ready to add new devices to the mix of devices, we will surely be in trouble on the ip allocation side of things (Sprint already has IPv6 running as part of their infrastructure so I am not so concerned with them as with other telcom manufactures in the market). Again, Japan and China are leaders in that market as well, IP v6 that is. But oh well, one day we will catch up with the rest of the world. Todd

toddawilsonk
toddawilsonk

It's a brave new world, especially since my speciality is Networking a lot more to learn. It's very exciting.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

about WiMax. It has potential to provide extreme flexibility in internet access to a huge range of devices, but the security concerns are once again there. Will this technology be any more secure then current wireless or will it be just as easy to sniff? Anyone have any links to the security standards for WiMax?

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

Will be perusing them after I post this. [edit] Well, still mixed feelings. Security is slightly better then I expected, but still not there yet. The radio jamming is impossible to prevent, accepted. But the management frame issue could be prevented with better integration of the encryption i would think. 1000% better then a wifi cafe, but still much less secure then a good ol wired box. But I dont think I would disuade anyone from it based solely on security now.

The Scummy One
The Scummy One

however I do not think that this should replace a wired box in a business, just use it as an extension to the Internet/Cell capabilities. For home use, if you already are using wi-fi, this would make a much better alternative. Now think of it like this for home/business. cut the costs of the existing Wi-Fi and Cell plans. Have access in larger areas (once deployed). And ditch the cost of a home phone or VOIP. At home using WiMax even just as a cell phone, basic browsing from a phone/handheld, and keeping a connection such as Comcast (or other high speed provider) can still save money for a home phone, VOIP line, and cell phone charges. Using it to replace the Internet connection and phone services completely, should show a substantial savings. In my area, a land line phone is $35-$55 a month without long distance. Cable Internet is $63/month alone, DSL is $35 month phone line + DSL provider for Internet (approx $65+ /month). Not to include costs of a cell phone and plan :0 Condense all of that to $25/month :0 :0 not a bad deal at all! However, for myself, I would be keeping my Cable line, and get this to replace phones, and access the Internet on PDA/Phone for better mobility (3G is $60+/month)

enelson
enelson

I can understand the mixed feelings, especially in regards to security. Right now my customers have a fairly watertight security over the AT&T network. On the other hand, having the ability to transmit data at higher speeds all over the country is an exciting thought. Balanced against that excitement is my concern over security again. What will be the security model? Will my customers have to pay a monthly fee for a fixed amount of data transfer (with overage costs)? If carriers go with this pay-by-the-byte style of pricing, how do the carriers prevent customers from being charged for being on the receiving end of attacks from the Internet?

pagemks
pagemks

Can't wait for it to come to Detroit and hope AT&T follows Sprint and Verizon.

davidt
davidt

I'll bet the Big 2 are quaking in their boots - and it's high time they were. Bring on the WIMAX!

sitaifun
sitaifun

I agree that monthly cellular charges are steep, expecially compared to asia where it is roughly a quarter of the US cost. The consumer who occasionally uses their cell phone here would pay a buck or two per call even with a minimal plan! Hard to find the ROI. Secondly, I find cellular voice quality really poor, especially for those premium prices. Hopefully when voice calls begin flowing over WiMax the quality will improve. It would be interesting to plug a magicjack (USB phone interface) into a WiMax enabled laptop and see what happens. So kudos to the WiMax pioneers; competition can only help to drive us forward to the next level of service, and spawn so many innovative uses. Today's mobile status quo will be comparable to where we were with fixed data services in the early 90's before the internet really took off. Long gone and nearly forgotten are the days of using a dial-up modem to connect to CompuServe to access technical support threads! And it can't be soon enough that we forget about pricey, sub-standard cellular services!

buddyfarr
buddyfarr

quaking in their boots...that's a good one. I wish. But unfortunately it will be the vhs vs. betamax wars again. This is a great technology but the top two don't have it so they will do everything they can to stifle it and keep it from coming out until they can up the speeds on their own systems.

dobestpossible
dobestpossible

Anything that can put these cellular corporations at a loss is great news for everyone. $50 or more a Month for a cellphone service! Really, is that how much its worth to consumers so they can be seen talking on one? They can be very convenient but they don't provide a ROI to justify the excessive cost and the cellular service providers are liars if they claim that much needs to be bilked from the consumer just to maintain networks. I hope that WiMax is accepted with unprecedented acceleration and Verizon, ATT&T, and the numerous others fall so quick that they call for a government bailout. The 2 year contracts with early termination fees are a clear sign of what they think of potential customers. We are not of any concern to them except when it comes to paying the bills. WiMax will enhance society by allowing monitoring peoples vital signs and alerting emergency services when necessary, allow everyone to have mics and cameras stream what we see and hear which will reduce crime significantly as alerting police will take only a voice command or push of a button and can limit false accusations because you have solid evidence showing where, when, and why you were somewhere. Of course I see negatives too. Petty laws being passed just to raise State Income revenues and many people turning others in for breaking the petty law. But overall, the positives outweigh the negatives.

bushneat
bushneat

I live in rural NC about 10 miles outside New Bern. Even though I'm only 2 miles from historic route 17, I can't get cable TV. I also can't get ISDN, DSL or any other broadband other than Satellite. My dial up is sometimes spotty when it rains and my cell phone only works on the front porch if I'm facing the right direction and don't move. And for all this convenience I pay more than the bundled rates available in town. What a deal! Since my local provider is Sprint, I really would rather they put a fiber optic cable down the road in front of the house. It would be nice to have a cell tower within a little better range too.

Stimpi
Stimpi

You would be amazed at who all is funding this company Clearwire. Did you know that all new drivers licenses and passports have chips in them now? Wi-max is simply a more flexible mobile internet connectivity device done at considerable cost, well funded by what I call "profiling" companies. who says it will not attach itself to your chip wireless, then you every movement will be tracked. hummmm

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I think you are referring to RFID, a completely different technology and chip. It is possible that years down teh road, passports and DL's will use a different chip than the new RFID chips but RFID and WiMax are on completely different ends of teh spectrum. Lon grange RFID is not in the books, YET, but also wouldn't make any sense for the industries and usage it is being implemented for. Pretty sure they would need to introduce a completely different/new form of chip that wouldn't be an RFID chip at all.

Editor's Picks