Frank, thanks for your comments. This discussion is becoming circular in some ways that I don't understand.
From early days it was widely proposed (and accepted) that WiMax could be used for mobile backhaul. Only lately has this become a contentious issue, for reasons for that are unclear. I have my suspicions, though.
You state: "But those wireless bachhaul alternatives should take second chair, in my eyes, to fiber where fiber is available. We're well beyond the stage today when fiber was too scarce to consider, especially in urban and suburban areas where incumbents bring fiber in the form of xDSL-, FTTP-, PON- and HFC- backbones down to field nodes and block distribution points, respectively."
Absolutely. For the last decade, that has been my understanding, too.
"There's so much optical capacity in the ground and strung between poles today, and so little of it that is actually needed to accomplish what we're talking about, that it's nothing short of a travesty being committed against common sense that it's not being used."
Also agreed.
So why would RF backhaul questions even arise, when the majority of backhaul need originates with (and can easily be satisfied by) incumbent-owned fibre for incumbent-owned operators?
It seems to me that incumbent-owned mobile operators "second- and third- tier situations" will be few and far between, and I've yet to see any statistical evidence that other RF solutions are clearly superior to using a portion of an adjunct WiMAX network itself for backhaul. I'm not denying that it exists - I just haven't seen it yet.
Understand, I'm speaking (again) as an observer at the chess match, not as an end-user disadvantaged by the still-preferential position of incumbents.
It looks like things are shaping up as the incumbents and WiMax against Silicon Valley. This particular issue is beginning to look like a battle in the greater Holy War.
Jim |
