On Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:30:31 pm Roger Rustad wrote: > Clearwire's burn rate is insane. Sprint is screwed, as they are a major > equity holder. > > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/sprint-s-technology-lead-at-risk-a > s-clearwire-faces-cash-crunch.html
That I certainly know, but ... > > Couldn't they do the same with WiMax if they did it themselves? I agree > > it looks like they're going to abandona WiMax, but I don't see the > > reason. > > WiMAX is not made for mobility quite the same way that LTE is. WiMAX is > okay if you're sitting in one place (and arguably better for applications > like video, last mile connectivity, etc). We like WiMAX because it > "fixed" some of the inadequacies of WiFi for "last mile" sort of > applications. It has weird quirks, so it's typically on licensed > channels. Are most of us actually moving when we're online? I almost never am. It may actually be best for me to replace Charter Internet if I go that route, and if it's still available next year. If Sprint switches to LTE _and_ keeps their no-cap philosophy for 4G, then I could still use them, but the others all cap. > (WiMAX has all sorts of weird issues with collision, which make many people > shy away from it and use different protocols on that band (e.g. using WiFi > 2.3 / 2.5 GHz). You're almost 100% sure that a WiFi client device will > attach to a WiFi access point. WiMAX, on the other hand, tends to be a > lot more vendor specific.) As an end-user I don't care. I buy what works. > LTE is built from the ground up with everything a telco wants and needs--- > fast roaming, fast throughput, IP-based, backwards compatible with older > legacy technologies. It takes some of the best things from WiMAX, > cellular GSM technologies, CDMA, etc. 3GGP release 10 will be the big one > (LTE-advanced) that is supposed to live up to ITU's true definition of 4G > (100 Mbps roaming, 1Gps stationary). Channels are reserved for those who > want to do TDD and FDD, and operators have many options on how they plan > their networks (700/900/1800 MHz, 2.6 GHz ; 1.4/3/5/10/15 MHz size > channels, etc). Again, I buy what works. Glad I've got a year to wait, though <smile>. > First, no company really hits the 4G requirements set by ITU. Recently, > ITU relaxed their original definition, which allowed AT&T to then pretend > heir HSPA+ upgrades (3GPP release 7) as "4G" (much to the chagrin of the > likes of Verizon and Sprint). > > It's ultimately an issue of shared capacity. The older 3G cell towers have > too many people using them (one YouTube stream takes up like 70 voice > calls), Reason for low limits and high prices. > and the only way that they can increase capacity is... > > (a) build more towers (and shrink the area of those covered), > (b) make a bigger pipe (higher throughput access with technologies like > HSPA+ or LTE, better fiber backhaul links transporting that data back to > the mothership, etc), and/or (c) use unlicensed wireless as a way to > offload data. Their problem, I buy what works <smile>. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman Post Office Box 52200, Riverside, CA 92517 Our jplists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 909 266-9209, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"; _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
