PDA

View Full Version : WiMax Business-Case Question


Randy Yates
11-09-2007, 05:30 PM
This may be a stupid question, but when WiMax gets popular, so that a
cell is within range in 98 percent of the populated areas, why would
folks continue to use the cellular networks (GSM, etc.) for voice
phonecalls?
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

Anonymous.
11-09-2007, 06:23 PM
That is why the promoters of WiMax16e jokingly refer to it as 4G.

However, for the moment there is a severe problem. The attraction
of the service is the 20MHz BW version but the leading chip supplier's
version won't run at that speed, despite it being adopted by virtually
all the suppliers and infrastructure providers.

"Randy Yates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This may be a stupid question, but when WiMax gets popular, so that a
> cell is within range in 98 percent of the populated areas, why would
> folks continue to use the cellular networks (GSM, etc.) for voice
> phonecalls?

Clay
11-09-2007, 06:41 PM
On Nov 9, 12:30 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but when WiMax gets popular, so that a
> cell is within range in 98 percent of the populated areas, why would
> folks continue to use the cellular networks (GSM, etc.) for voice
> phonecalls?
> --
> % Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
> %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
> %%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
> %%%% <[email protected]> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELOhttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com

Randy,

I live 6 miles from the nearest cell site. My cell phone just
marginally works at the farm. I don't think WiMax will get near me (my
domicile) anytime soon. Of course if Sprint wishes to place a tower on
my land, I can work a deal with them.

Of course part of the answer to your question has to do with marketing
and sales. Deployment has a cost that will need to be amortized across
the paying public. The already in place technologies have a cost
advantage, and they will continue to upgrade their services. With the
conversion of broadcast television to ATSC, some of the 700MHz
spectrum is going up for auction. I know of one carrier who is already
seriously looking at buying that additional bandwidth to augment their
existing service. So UMTS and EVDO and their future enhancements will
be around for quite some time.

You know the other carriers arn't just going to let their customers
leave without fighting to keep them with incentives and good pricing.

Clay

Eric Jacobsen
11-10-2007, 03:43 AM
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:30:27 -0500, Randy Yates <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This may be a stupid question, but when WiMax gets popular, so that a
>cell is within range in 98 percent of the populated areas, why would
>folks continue to use the cellular networks (GSM, etc.) for voice
>phonecalls?

Oh, man, don't get me started... ;)

*If* WiMax gets popular, and I think that's a pretty substantial "if",
it has limited capacity, just like any system. Consider the number of
cell towers that are currently deployed, and consider the effect that
it would have on the data carrying capacity of a WiMAX (or similar,
e.g., LTE) system to have to carry all that voice traffic capacity. A
device made for WiMAX to be able to carry data at a reasonably good
rate (say, a couple of megabits) won't necessarily be as efficient at
handling voice traffic as a device designed specifically to do that.

A nice thing about the cellular systems is that they're optimized to
do one thing really well. It makes scheduling, power management, and
all sorts of things, much easier when the assumptions about data rate,
etc., are within a very narrow range. Voice traffic places a nearly
fixed resource demand on the system, and that demand is reasonably
constant over the duration of the connection. The requirements to
carry voice traffic are much narrower than the requirements to carry
data at rates that vary over a wide range and for which the demand is
not predictable. That makes scheduling as well as baseband/radio
management (and engineering) a much harder problem for a WiMAX-like
sytstem and strains the compromises much harder than necessary when
carrying primarily voice traffic. Cellular signalling is reasonably
well optimized to reduce power consumption at the user terminal, and
while WiMAX takes that into consideration as well, the scales and
assumptions are quite different. Expecting a voice handset to have
the same battery life using WiMAX is a bit of a stretch, and it is
likely that the cost of the WiMAX handset would be higher as well.

A simple example point is the modulation waveform: Cellular systems
use low-PAPR waveforms in the uplink channel so that low-cost, high
efficiency PAs can be used in the handset. WiMAX uses OFDM/OFDMA.
Doh.

Similarly, if the idea of WiMAX is to provide a fairly healthy data
flow rate to users on demand, then expecting the system to also carry
a lot of voice traffic (i.e., enough to replace existing cellular
systems) may cut into that efficiency fairly substantially. It can be
done, and handling VoIP on a WiMAX system is well within it's
capabilities, I just don't think it's nearly as efficient.

The promises being made about WiMAX or similar systems are creating
expectations that are going to lead up to a lot of disappointed
people, IMHO. Meanwhile EVDO, HSPA, and LTE are either deployed or
waiting in the wings, and generally enjoy more support from the major
carriers than WiMAX.

WiMAX has enjoyed a lot of hype, much of it generated by Intel. Intel
isn't exactly a successful communications company, especially in the
last few years. Also consider that EVDO/HSPA/LTE were all developed
as organic extensions to successful networks and were designed by the
same people/companies that created those successful networks. WiMAX,
on the other hand, was a life-support effort tacked on to a
fixed-wireless IEEE WAN standard that has had little historical
success in comparison.

The real questions center around what people will really need and be
willing to pay for in the future as far as connectivity is concerned.
User models and user behaviors are hard to predict and anticipate, and
often don't work out anywhere near what was expected. A lot of
people do like the existing EVDO systems and they seem to work pretty
well, especially for people who don't have time to find or stop at a
WiFi hotspot. Personally, my mobile connectivity requirements are
fairly sporadic and I don't have a problem either doing without or
using a WiFi hotspot. Since a decent WiFi hotspot can easily be
expected to provide a much higher throughput than the expectations for
WiMAX, I find it a little difficult to see that a lot of people will
be willing to shell out $30-$50/month (or whatever it'll wind up
being) for something that isn't as good as what they might find for
free (or less money) if they just look around a little bit. Some
people will, naturally, sign up for WiMAX just like a fair number of
people are using EVDO. Whether or not there's enough market to
justify building out WiMAX and/or LTE remains to be seen, and I'm very
skeptical.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Randy Yates
11-10-2007, 05:05 PM
Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> writes:

> Oh, man, don't get me started... ;)

Looks like it's too late!

Hey, thanks Eric, Clay, et al. for the responses. It will be
interesting to see how the market unfolds in the next few years.

--Randy

--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

emeb
11-10-2007, 07:12 PM
On Nov 9, 8:43 pm, Eric Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Whether or not there's enough market to
> justify building out WiMAX and/or LTE remains to be seen, and I'm very
> skeptical.

Looks like Sprint and Clearwire may agree with you:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOp-WmVnOafe8vasgAjAZBs3BIFAD8SQDL6G0

EB

Randy Yates
11-10-2007, 07:47 PM
emeb <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]

What made Intel start up this game?
--
% Randy Yates % "How's life on earth?
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % ... What is it worth?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <[email protected]> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

Steve Underwood
11-11-2007, 02:17 AM
Randy Yates wrote:
> emeb <[email protected]> writes:
>> [...]
>
> What made Intel start up this game?

This is a repeating pattern in industry. When a company puts enough
resources into something before finding its a turkey, they will put far
more resources into trying to dress up the turkey to look like a princess.

Example: In the late 80s a UK company thought it was time for a digital
cordless telephone. They commissioned one of the worlds largest PR
companies, who also run a well known technology consultancy, to develop
a product. That product was CT2. While it worked OK, its cost was
unrealistic. Rather than face reality, the PR arm got to work trying to
turn the thing into a widely deployed public system, where it might form
a low end alternative to the expensive cellular services of the time.
Anyone who got involved (I did for a short time) quickly figured out
this was going nowhere. However, many companies, and large sums of money
were dissipated before reality set in.

People aren't very good at doing the economically sound thing, when it
means loosing face and accepting their project is a stinker. They would
rather escalate things, so they can eventually loose face on a far
bigger scale. :-)

Regards,
Steve

Jim Thomas
11-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Steve Underwood wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>> emeb <[email protected]> writes:
>>> [...]
>>
>> What made Intel start up this game?
>
> This is a repeating pattern in industry. When a company puts enough
> resources into something before finding its a turkey, they will put far
> more resources into trying to dress up the turkey to look like a princess.

This is very similar to what happens on a smaller scale when it comes to
code reuse. Code reuse is a practice that can have a tremendous impact
the cost of a project - but that impact can be positive or negative,
depending on what code is reused. Unfortunately, management always has
a tendency to select exactly the wrong code. When some really bad code
gets written, it ends up costing a LOT of money to debug and integrate.
When another project comes up, management naturally tends to ask
"Can't we reuse the code from project X?" because they want to
"leverage" that investment. Of course the code is just as horrible in
the new project as it was in the old, and they end up spending even more
money on code that should have been euthanized a long time ago.

Meanwhile, really good code is invisible to management.

--
Jim Thomas Principal Applications Engineer Bittware, Inc
[email protected] http://www.bittware.com (603) 226-0404 x536
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.