Hi, Frank -
I think we are interpreting the Earthlink piece differently.
"But to answer one of your questions about the relationship between WiFi and WiMAX, I've always seen the former depending on the latter for meshing between cells that were outside the reach of WiFi alond, and for backhaul purposes, and someday being coexistent with one another, where handoffs and roaming are concerned. But I think some snags must be ironed out first within the standards bodies before such attributes associated with coexistence could be guaranteed."
I've never bought into the "Wimax is for backhaul" statements. This is a position articulated by Cisco last year, Intel more recently. It's certainly true that many can use a cheaper form of backhaul.
However, if one looks at statements by other WiMax proponents, this is not the only view of how WiMax will evolve.
Samsung and Wi-Bro, for example.
I understand the commercial considerations behind artificially prolonging the life of Wi-Fi, but fail to see the technological ones.
If WiMax follows the typical curve for equipment costs after it gets into production (and at first blush, it looks like WiMax will start much more strongly than Wi-Fi did) component costs should start to fall, and continue falling.
If one accepts that historical truism, then at some point there should be price parity between WiMax and Wi-Fi (which is really 2.4 GHz 802.11b with a lot of cosmetic surgery.)
At the point of price parity, given the inherent advantages of WiMax, why would one purchase Wi-Fi? In the home, for a WISP, or a MuniNet?
(An interesting side-point here is that many vendors have seen a pre-WiMax falloff in sales, as potential customers delayed the purchase decision in order to see what would emerge from WiMax.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On your next point, we're completely in agreement...
"In any event, given WiFi's potential for congestion, compounded by its lower speeds than those of CM and emerging forms of VDSL2/ADSL2 and other forms FTTP, and its perceived problems with security (real or imagined), in general, I don't think you'll see it used as the main source of broadband access by many users where they have other options to select from that are faster, more "dedicated," and perceived to be more secure. Instead, in my view citywide wireless networks will be used by anyone on the move if and when they have a need in addition to their main for of access at home, but it will serve as a main source of access only by the most price sensitive users and/or in grossly un-served areas.
For FIXED residential and SMB applications, Cable Modem, DSL and future FTTP access methods - with each of these potentially complemented with in-residence WiFi or some other form wireless - will present a higher value proposition than Wireless for the reasons mentioned above, except where mobility and other reasons having to do with convenience of use are required."
Yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think there are undercurrents here, Frank.
Perhaps a cautious view of WiMax's future is justified. Perhaps Wi-Fi has "legs".
IMO at 5 GHz and 2.4 Ghz, unlicensed, or at any other frequency, 802.16 (plus) - OFDM - gives you more bang for an eventual equivalent buck.
|
