Wimax makes you mobile

FeedBurner makes it easy to receive content updates in My Yahoo!, Newsgator, Bloglines, and other news readers.

Learn more about syndication and FeedBurner...

A message from this feed's publisher: This is an XML content feed for WiMax Blog. Copy/Paste this URL into your Blog Reader or aggregator http://feeds.feedburner.com/Wimax-WimaxcomBlog This page is intended to be viewed by a RSS feed reader (blog reader) or syndicated to another site, subject to copyright and fair use.

Current Feed Content

• AT&T/Bell South Merger Approval and WiMAX

  Posted: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:18:10 -0600

  Last week, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger of AT&T (in reality, the former Southwestern and Pac Bells) and Bell South. This leaves the US with 3 RBOCs (major telcos) and one telco covering some of the largest markets (California, Texas and Florida). What does this have to do with WiMAX? Let me forward a few of scenarios:
  
  1. AT&T execs identify WiMAX as the best possible 4G access solution, and, like Sprint Nextel, announce plans to deploy WiMAX. WiMAX vendors succeed wildly in sales to AT&T (many are called, maybe 3 are chosen)
  
  2. AT&T execs ignore WiMAX in favor of NOT upgrading the network, but rather milking the circuit switched copper wire infrastructure (remember there are decades of dissimilar vendor platforms comprising the former Pac Bell, Southwestern Bell and Bell South networks) to the bitter end. Gives rise to new market entrants armed with WiMAX and IMS core infrastructures offering quadruple play of services highly competitive to anything AT&T can offer. AT&T loses market share to those more nimble market players
  
  3. AT&T bets on fiber to the premises (FTTP) at $2,000 per home passed for triple play (not quadruple play) of services. How does AT&T compete at $2,000 per home passed vs. an estimated $15 per home passed for a WiMAX-based service provider?
  
  Of course there is the potential for a 500 page study on evaluating the new AT&T's options vis-à-vis WiMAX (what about Cingular?). Tune in next year to see which way AT&T turns….
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• Nokia/Sprint/WiMAX: Analysis

  Posted: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:12:36 -0600

  Last week's Wall Street Journal reported that Nokia had been invited by Sprint Nextel to supply WiMAX products for their upcoming US roll-out of WiMAX services. What wasn't clear is exactly what Nokia would be selling Sprint Nextel and if Nokia's merger partner Siemens would be a player as well. A few, not necessarily connected thoughts here:
  
  1. By bringing Motorola, Samsung and Nokia to the table, Sprint Nextel is ensuring it has a wide variety of vendors for this open source technology. This "Big 3" of cellular handsets will also ensure a steady supply of innovative subscriber devices. Assuming that the major difference between a CDMA and WiMAX handset is merely the air interface, cellular handset vendor veterans should have little challenge in providing a a wide variety of WiMAX subscriber devices to Sprint Nextel. This is wise management for any service provider.
  2. If the Nokia deal will also involve Siemens base stations, this provides Sprint Nextel with a wider variety of base station vendors. Diversity is good, but having too many dissimilar vendors can be problematic in the end. Three vendors is a good number.
  3. Nokia brings a capable systems integration piece to the table. If Sprint Nextel intends to reach as many markets as possible as soon as possible, then an experienced systems integration team that can ramp up quickly will be needed.
  
  In summary, bringing Nokia, one of the larger handset vendors, to the table, Sprint Nextel adds greater legitimacy to WiMAX as a technology. I don't think its too early to point to this deal as yet another major validation of WiMAX as the de facto 4G technology for North American service providers.
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• FCC and cable franchises

  Posted: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:17:49 -0600

  Last week the US Federal Communications Commission concluded that the process where municipalities in the US award a franchise to a cable TV company to be the sole cable TV operator in their town is broken and ordered it fixed. In the age of online video, IPTV, and WiMAX, I have to ask: for how many more years will cable franchises be relevant? I give it five years.
  
  The basis for cable franchises lies in the need for cable TV service providers to have copious rights of way through a city. In addition, "flower nazis" in city governments and homeowners associations do not desire to see great spider webs of coax cable from multiple, competing cable providers flowing through their city or neighborhood. Therefore, early in the history of cable TV the notion of one franchise to one service provider was enshrined in municipal code, state and federal law. In return, municipal governments get cash from the franchise service provider.
  
  Memo to cable TV providers and municipalities involved in franchise agreements: make nice soon, the death of your cash cow is at hand. When a WiMAX based service provider comes to your town, there won't be much you can do to protect your cable franchise gravy train. When Brand X WiMAX comes to your town, you will have no legal footing to bar them from offering services much less video services that might cut into your cable franchise moolah. First, all things wireless are governed by the Feds. Don't like the ascetic appearance of a WiMAX base station? It WILL be a federal case if you think you can do something about it. Don't like the content coming through on a WiMAX broadband internet connection from a server in Finland? That one you'll never win.
  
  Initial reactions from some municipal concerns was: what about our freebie PEG channels (by FCC mandate cable TV franchisees have to offer city governments their own tV channels on the cable service) that enable us to get out our message to our citizens? Reaction from cable TV industry: too darn bad, they're going away. Disclosure: yes, I actually do watch Channels 8 and 54 here in Denver for municipal news, even City Council proceedings (yawn).
  
  Frank's advice to municipalities: 1) establish your own online video presence for all the stuff you were doing on your PEG channels 2) adopt a WiMAX IPTV strategy for your town to replace lost PEG channels and franchise revenue 3) keep in mind that a WiMAX cloud over your city is simply a means of access to the outside world just like the streets and other infrastructure you built and maintain.
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems, LLC
  
  

  

• WiMAX IPTV HDTV?

  Posted: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:40:27 -0600

  "You can't do HDTV on WiMAX," said the guy in the front row at the seminar I gave in Utah last week for regional telcos. Given the necessities of their rural market, these service providers were already well-versed in triple and quadruple play. I admit the contrarian had a point for a fleeting moment in time. When we look at the advances in WiMAX throughput necessary to support HDTV and compare it with the cost elements of other telecom technologies, the other technologies don't look so hot. My hosts offer HDTV to their cable TV subscribers. Bandwidth needed per set is 19 Mbps.
  
  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal (19 DEC 06) discussed AT&T's IPTV over copper wire product U-verse. It can do HDTV but only one TV per household can run HDTV. The article went on to mention Verizon's ambitious fiber to the premise project that will cost them $18 billion. An earlier WSJ article put the cost at about $2,000 per home served.
  
  True, a simple fixed WiMAX radio running in unicast, assuming 40 Mbps per channel, might support all of two HDTV simultaneous sessions at 19 Mbps (assumes no special compression techniques). That simple radio + antenna + CPE might cost $5,000. Very, very simply put, that might be $500 more than what Verizon is spending per subscriber on their fiber to the home ($5,000/2 = $2,500/home or TV in use). Obviously, these are not very enticing numbers for any service provider.
  
  How will WiMAX do HDTV IPTV over WiMAX? Lets fast forward one year and look at a matrix of opportunities. First, IPTV compression schemes will benefit all forms of access (copper wire, coax, satellite, and WiMAX). Getting the bandwidth demands down to a few hundred Kbps will help all concerned. Second, incorporating multicast technologies into WiMAX radios will improve the economics for HDTV IPTV over WiMAX. Third, great gains are being made in MIMO and other radio + antenna technologies such that the simple radio described above will have four times the throughput. Supporting that throughput is an ever- improving range of backhaul technologies. GigE backhaul radios now offer 2 Gig of throughput over a few miles. At $20,000 to $30,000 per link, this beats the financial pants off a fiber to the premise or U-verse copper wire scenario.
  
  Against this sort of "cheaper, simpler, smaller and more convenient to use" (definition of disruptive technology) copper wire access technologies will not be able to compete with WiMAX in delivering HDTV IPTV. Ultimately, coax and satellite will not be able to compete with WiMAX in cost per sub and ARPU either.
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  
  

  

• Qwest "triple play" exposed

  Posted: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:12:50 -0600

  Partnership with DirecTV IS window dressing
  
  Big thanks to Andy Vuong of the Denver Post for his interview with Qwest CEO Dick Notebaert (see http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4863836 ). In the interview, CEO Notebaert refutes analysts who say the arrangement where Qwest resells DirecTV satellite TV service as part of their triple play of landline telephone, DSL broadband internet access. A quadruple play is achieved by reselling Sprint Nextel cell phone service. Notebaert states that there is positive margin on reselling the satellite TV service in lieu of selling video services off their own infrastructure and that "this is a good thing."
  
  I agree that all positive margin on reselling another service provider's service is a good thing. But how much of a margin, or "good thing" is that to make the Wall Streeters happy? Would there not be more "good thing" if your own infrastructure could generate high margins on as many services as the market would bear? Wouldn't the investors love that?
  
  The article goes on to mention Qwest's flirtation with IPTV in a "few select neighborhoods" across the 14 state service area. The article also mentions quotes from CFO Oren Shaffer regarding a "deceleration" of wire line losses (like the almost 800,000 lines lost in 2005).
  
  And now the brutally "Frank" analysis: Until Qwest (or any other RBOC) can offer a high margin video service, Wall Street will remain unimpressed. The experimentation with IPTV in "a few select neighborhoods" is an indication that IPTV over telephone copper wire is pretty CAPEX intensive otherwise we would see a national rollout tomorrow. In other words, Qwest is only willing to offer IPTV in markets where they can't miss in terms of cost per sub and ARPU. This means only rich neighborhoods can expect to see an IPTV service from Qwest. Also, the time necessary to wire so many Central Offices/pedestals/remote terminals for IPTV (need ADSL2+ boxes everywhere) is sure to be many years.
  
  Free advice to Dick Notebaert (and you don't even have to invite me down to the Starbucks on the 16th St. mall for a tall mocha, no whip): ditch the copper wire! Put WiMAX base stations on every CO and run IP services over the ATM that links 'em all. Go VoIP (just oen big softswitch will serve every sub)! Go IPTV (forget all those expensive ADSL2+ boxes)! Oh and don't forget you can go mobile, too, from those same base stations on the same CO's your company paid off a long time ago. There is no wired service you are selling now that you can't replicate on WiMAX. Think of the margin. And, that's a good thing.
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• Military/Civilian 3.5 GHz Coexistence

  Posted: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:04:26 -0600

  Or. why can't we get along? They do in Europe.
  
  Further to my earlier thread on civilianizing the 3.5 GHz spectrum for civilian use, I see that the German government recently awarded 3.5 GHz licenses throughout Germany to cover a market of over 82 million people. The good news for WiMAX aficionados is that it went for $23 million or .07/MHz/POP, an almost unheard of figure (low cost wise) for commercial use spectrum (some 2.5 GHz spectrum is trading in the teens cents/MHz/POP (population for the given market for the given spectrum). Memo to WiMAX operators: remember, the market is global, if Tier 1 US cities are too pricey spectrum-wise, your capital and technical expertise may be better served elsewhere.
  
  I recall the 3 years I lived in Germany (1985-1988, it was called West Germany where I lived). I was a Naval Intelligence Officer assigned to Headquarters, European Command, near Stuttgart. Any drive down a major autobahn could be an exercise in military jet spotting given all the US and other NATO nation jets practicing low-level navigation. I found it a thrill to see a US F-111 or Luftwaffe Tornado cross the autobahn directly in front of the hood of my car. Yes, they can do things like that thanks to precise radar navigation (3.5 GHz). With the passing of the Cold War, I'm sure the operational tempo has slacked off and there is no doubt that the US and other allied air forces will continue to do low level navigation exercises in Germany and elsewhere in Europe where 3.5 GHz is in use by commercial operators. Why can civilian and military uses coexist on that band in Europe but not in the US?
  
  Did the respective militaries stop flying low-level navigation now that 3.5 GHz spectrum is in use by commercial WiMAX operators? Me thinks not. They can coexist there, why not in the US?
  
  Memo to DoD spectrum managers: prepare to pass 3.5 GHz control over to the FCC. You can't logically defend reserving this band nation wide 7x24x365 for solely military use against the commercial demand for it.
  
  Memo to FCC: if 3.5 GHz can't be used for unlicensed WiMAX operations, think of the cash you could gather in a 3.5 GHz FCC spectrum auction!
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• Spectrum sword to plowshare?

  Posted: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0600

  In a previous blog, I detailed US Department of Defense concerns over 3.5 GHz use as a WiMAX band outside the US will create interference on US military radars operating in those countries. If those radars functions will be degraded by WiMAX operators, what's the point of maintaining radars that can operate only in the US or far out to sea? The DoD would be wise to move that function performed by 3.5 GHz radars to another technology as soon as possible. Any radar that emits on its given frequency gives away the location of that platform.
  
  That brings up the question: what to do with the 3.5 GHz spectrum in the US? Answer: turn it over to the FCC for allocation as an unlicensed WiMAX band. Why unlicensed and not auctioned off as licensed spectrum? Answer: there is a danger that some deep pocketed legacy service provider seeking to protect its market share using legacy infrastructure will bid up and buy the spectrum and then sit on it, thus denying its use on the open market (the original purpose of Causian Economics in spectrum auctions).
  
  My vision for unlicensed 3.5 GHz is that it would serve in the "best effort" internet connection offered by Wi-Fi today. Instead of seeking out an open Wi-Fi access point (range of about 100 meters), an open WiMAX base station would be available on the "open band" of 3.5 GHz.
  
  What's the next step? In January, a new US Congress will be seated and committee assignments will be made. At that time we can start writing members of Congress for this change. More in January…
  
  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• WiMAX Blog International WiMAX and the DoD

  Posted: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:29:58 -0600

  The news this past week from DoD officials said at the ACEA DOD Spectrum Summit (Dec. 6) was that WiMAX threatens DoD radars. While the article was not specific enough for noncognoscenti, allow me to translate: 3.5 GHz is perhaps the most popular frequency for WiMAX. In most nations outside the US, 3.5 GHz is one of 3 things: unregulated, lightly regulated and where regulated, it is officially known as "The WiMAX Band". To the US Department of Defense, 3.5 GHz is "air navigation radar". Its been 15 years since I left the US Navy and 20 years since I left the EA-6B (tactical jamming) squadron to which I was attached. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one use of "air navigation radar" is the radar in the nose of the aircraft that enables it to fly in pitch darkness and driving rainstorms and deliver "bombs on target" in same (ie "all weather attack").
  
  In the looming battle between the US DoD and the Rest of the World over 3.5 GHz, here's my free advice to former comrades in arms at the Pentagon: find a new frequency or even a new technology to replace "air navigation radar". You won't win this one. Many were the NATO and other exercises I worked in where close coordination among military and civilian agencies was essential to ensure open frequencies for radios and to ensure our jammers did not spark an "international incident". That Cold War era spirit of cooperation is past.
  
  Let me cut to the chase: the Cold War is over. Giving priority to the US military for 3.5 GHz use over basic civilian telecommunications needs would be political suicide for any non-US politician. Countries like Mexico aren't going to give up their drive to radically boost teledensity and its subsequent boost to economic development to please the Pentagon. Ditto for Canada. Colombia is handing out no fewer than 25 licenses in 3.5 GHz. You won't hear of Bogota going back on those licenses to please some far off DoD bureaucrats. You can REALLY forget European Union nations reserving 3.5 GHz for the Pentagon at the expense of new telecom (especially WiMAX) products.
  

  Truth be told, staying with the 3.5 GHz is not all that smart. Its time for new thinking. First, "the bad guys" can track US aircraft whenever 3.5 GHz is emitted. Moving to another technology that is not so easily detected would be a wise choice. Second, WiMAX will be as prolific as WiFi, ergo, intentionally or unintentionally, there will be interference on 3.5 GHz. We don't need our air navigation radars being jammed by what could be a ubiquitous wireless technology. I can envision a "poor man's jammer" using a WiMAX radio, amplifier and directional antennas.
  
  Finally, knowing that 3.5 GHz air navigation radar will have problems outside the US, why have an air navigation frequency that can operate only in the US or far out to sea? Why not "bite the bullet" now and move to a frequency or technology that WILL be useful in a time of conflict? While we're at it, lets shift that 3.5 GHz band from Pentagon control to FCC control and open its use to WiMAX service providers?

  
  

  
  

  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  

  

• Veraz and Aperto partner on IMS

  Posted: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:39:29 -0600

  
  

  I liked last week's joint press release from Aperto and Veraz announcing a partnering initiative to promote "IMS over WiMAX". VoIP is one of many applications possible in IP Multimedia Subsystems (IMS).

  VoIP is also one of the more mature IP applications and represents "the killer app" of WiMAX. I have blogged before urging WiMAX and VoIP softswitch vendors to partner going into sales opportunities. Other vendors have picked on this as well. Namely, Airspan bought a softswitch company and has been integrating that technology into their product line as well. "IMS core" may be one of the more over-used terms (buzz words) in telecom today and the standards may not be even half baked, but WiMAX vendors would be wise to a) have a short list of softswitch and other VoIP ecosystem partners and especially b) a list of successful joint deployments with their VoIP partners.
  
  Prospective buyers are always going to be skittish until the vendor can demonstrate successful (and especially joint) deployments. WiMAX with IMS and VoIP in successful deployments, no matter how small will go a long way in proving technologies and vendor product.
  

  
  

  Frank Ohrtman
  WMX Systems
  
  

  

YouTube on Verizon cell phones

Posted: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:33:45 -0600

YouTube is a video service that is essentially a website where Hollywood mogul wannabes forward their often home made video. It was recently acquired for $2.3 billion. Verizon has announced it will offer that service on their cellular Vcast service. What I like about this is that it's a half step toward mass market mobile TV using WiMAX. Vcast is available on my Motorola RAZR phone. I assume that Motorola will soon have a WiMAX version of the RAZR, ergo a mobile WiMAX TV service in the US is probably only a year away.

Happy viewing