% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Clearwire Corporation (CLWRD) Message Board

  • forslaw forslaw Oct 21, 2010 7:48 PM Flag

    Megahurts worst nightmare

    Clearwire LTE trials far out perform any thing Verizon has to offer. We're talking a huge difference in speeds. And don't forget the potential of Wimax 2. Secondly, Clearwire pulls in 3 to 6 billion in their private spectrum auction. With such a massive cash infusion, Clearwire will be able to complete its nationwide build-out and have money left over to burn.

    With such positive Clearwire news its only time Megahurts switches he name back to Sanddollar, or maybe the faded Merlot. Poor guy has to hide is face (post name) some where.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ... he'd argue that grandma's a teenager if he could find a freak rumor that it actually happened.


    • WiMAX/802.16 and LTE share the same basic waveforms, comply with the same laws of physics, and will often use the same or very similar RF head-ends and antenna assemblies. The differences in propagation models is relatively minor compared to the differences due to frequency and other basic factors... in other words, WiMAX and LTE can be expected to operate similarly under similar deployment scenarios. That includes density of deployment strategy.

      700MHz benefits from ease and time to coverage properties which is why it was prized as 'beach front property'. Time is money.

      On the other hand, higher frequency mobile bands, (those under 3GHz. - this number will tend to move higher as technology and markets evolve just as it has already for 2.3-2.7GHz), can be isolated more easily to reuse the spectrum similar to WiFi - each local area has access to the same block of spectrum because the signals don't overlap so much. The 2.3-2.7GHZ bands are prized as 'broadband spectrum'. As the difficulties of shorter range and the bouncing and blocking of signals is overcome through MIMO-AAS and ability to handle multi-path fading using the WiMAX/LTE technologies, and as the market comes to prize broadband in addition to or, in some cases, over ease of coverage, the bands goes up in use and value. That puts the fortune of the band more into the flow of evolution of market demand. And that means it takes more time to reap the benefits and harder to grow organically. Howsoever, since 4G will often be used in concert with 3G, as is the case with Clearwire-Sprint, the coverage vs. capacity market mix is shifted - coverage is achieved using existing networks giving the 4G networks time to develop. Even as a supplement for cable, the product mix changes stripes to meet a different set of user needs.

    • You are significantly confused.

      First you use the future tense "Wimax will dominate in urban areas with LTE for rural areas", then restrict that claim to the present tense "at least in the present spectrum use of LTE and WiMax in the U.S.A.". This is a fundamentally inconsistent statement, but more importantly it is made irrelevant as CLWR is already (as in the present) expending great effort to acquire LTE.

      Again, you are factually wrong on the spectrum WiMAX is designed to operate. THERE IS NO PROFILE for WiMAX below 1GHz. No WiMAX profile means no WiMAX network.

      But the central issue is this. LTE has critical advantages over WiMAX that is making the former the 4G protocol of choice for mobile operators. Here are just a few:

      1. LTE can today operate below 1GHz (ie; AT&T and Vz's LTE netowrks), CLWR's 2.5GHz as well as other RF allocations popular for domestic or use overseas. WiMAX wasn't designed to be used below 1GHz.

      2. LTE's delivers as good, if not better performance than WiMAX on a bits/hz basis

      3. LTE offers superior mobile power management

      4. Since LTE can operate at both 2.5GHz and 700MHz it is easier and cheaper for manufacturers to build dual-band or mult-band LTE gear that operates on networks of other carriers. Similarly LTE carriers are expected to have better opportunities for strategic partnerships and roaming agreements over networks offering vastly different spectrum propagation characteristics.

      At this point in time, when companies like T-Mobile look at the various features WiMAX and LTE delivers they come to the conclusion that LTE does everything WiMAX does and more. Therefore they come to the conclusion that for their needs WiMAX is superfluous, ie; unnecessary.

      Why do you think CLWR is struggling so hard to aquire LTE, when they've not even finished building out WiMAX.

    • You really need to learn to read, "at least in the present spectrum use of LTE and WiMax in the U.S.A.".

      At present VZ is rolling out LTE using 700MHz, CLWR is rolling out WiMax using 2.5GHz.

      LTE is the preferred wireless technology for incumbent carriers, not due to superior technology, but for its support for analog voice.

      Both LTE and WiMax are not spectrum dependent. "There is no uniform global licensed spectrum for WiMAX, however the WiMAX Forum has published three licensed spectrum profiles: 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz, in an effort to drive standardization and decrease cost."

      If VZ decided to use WiMax at 700MHz, then WiMax Forum would publish a profile.

      Please get it though your pretty little head, at present in the US, WiMax will dominate in urban areas and LTE will be preferred in rural areas given the current use of spectrum. The key word here is spectrum.

      Please restrict the marketing term "beach front spectrum" to your SPAM posts, as anybody that has any basic knowledge of RF understands that frequency is measured in wavelengths with suitable uses for many purposes. 500, 700, 2.5, 3.5 are examples of frequencies that can be used for WiMax or LTE. The lower frequencies have the strength of supporting high bit rates over longer distances, but suffer from interference from same frequency base stations in close proximity. The higher frequencies offer high bit rates over shorter distances, but have less interference from same frequency base stations. The key here is the measure of the wavelength.

    • You really should learn more about RF communications before you and your alto egos post here.

      Neither WiMAX nor LTE is spectrum, they are merely a basket of technical specifications. LTE can operate at 700MHz and LTE can operate at 2.5GHz.

      To illustrate, Vz is launching LTE at 700MHz, and last week you saw CLWR present the results of its LTE trials using its 2.5GHz spectrum in Phoenix. What does this tell you? LTE is quite capable of operating at high and low frequencies, serving both the high-density urban and the wide spaces of the rural areas.

      On the other hand, the WiMAX FORUM never developed a profile for WiMAX below 1GHz so there are no WiMAX implementations in the "beach front spectrum" of the lower frequencies. In this respect LTE offers far greater flexibility for operators.

      When T-Mobile could use either WiMAX or LTE for its 4G plans you have to question why they are so insistent that it must be LTE. The T-Mobile CEO said WiMAX was a niche technology because he meant it.

    • Exactly and case closed.

    • Mega... you are at best naive, Longer waves, i.e. 700mhz will always do distance, but never will do density. You need shorter waves, i.e. 2.5ghz, to cover density, but not distance. There must be Wimax and LTE. Wimax will dominate in urban areas with LTE for rural areas, at least in the present spectrum use of LTE and WiMax in the U.S.A.

    • Wrong again.

      What was made public was that Intel and CLWR renegotiated the agreement and CLWR "could terminate" the restriction with a 30 day notice. "Could be terminated" doesn't mean "was terminated". Show the SEC filing that reports this material change to the CLWR operating agreement. If this had happened there were would be official notice.

      Also note that when the CLWR exec presented the LTE trial data this week he was very specific to say CLWR had not made a decision to deploy it commercially. CLWR is free to trial anything - just not commercially deploy.

      LTE is the winner of the 4G standards war and virtually everyone in the industry (save a few holdouts) knows it. LTE winning the 4G war doesn't mean WiMAX has to disappear. As the T-Mobile CEO said, "WiMAX is a niche technology" and manufacturers are free to make mixed-mode chipsets. Beceem began as a WiMAX play then joined the LTE camp like many others to have a future. For them mixed-mode makes sense.

    • ... multi-mode wouldn't exist, then why are you characterizing LTE as "the winner" in this post?

      I see nothing "flawed" in Teamrep's post but if you're going to refer to Intel as restricting CLWR's protocol to WiMax, you can at least keep THAT from being misleading to a newbie reading your post and mention that Intel has dropped that restriction...

      ... but then, that would detract from the effectiveness of the bash, now wouldn't it.


    • Clearwire demonstrates a 'clear' spectrum advantage in terms of broadband capacity but the technology is on par between the two rivals.

      Statements like this one: "With such a massive cash infusion, Clearwire will be able to complete its nationwide build-out and have money left over to burn." are lame... what are you trying to prove? That you treat what you invest in like it was a fond lover/infatuation? "I love Clearwire until my attention turns to some other hot dish after this one grows old/cold."

      The amount of money Clearwire can get from this auction will not be so lush that anyone should hope they treat it as 'money to burn'. Its merely money to plow fields and plant seeds in what is proving to be fertile ground in hopes that rapidly changing circumstances prove favorable to harvesting a bumper crop.

      Clearwire reaps much greater bits/HTz/POP than AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile using HSPA/HSPA+ or EVDO 3.5G and maybe than LTE in the low 700MHz frequency ranges. But this is relative to the spend and market reach: VZW and AT&T spend easily 10X CLWR, paid for by their huge market shares.

      • 1 Reply to teamrep
      • ... as I read the post. It's nice to hear the phoenix test went well but it was an ideal environment and empty network.

        I do think there will be a sense of relief if CLWR gets something north of $4bil for the auction and a higher stock price under such a scenario will demonstrate a relief that another capital raise is far off if CLWR indeed drops cap-ex from $11 a share this year to $5 and $2 in 2011 and 2012 respectively as is projected.

        Your "hot dish" analogy is good... I don't own this based on it's potential alone but also on it's market cap relative to book and liquidating value, which is helpful for minimizing downside potential. If it rose to 70 or 80% of book without a corresponding jump in potential, I'd ring the register.