The "IEEE-SA Standards Board today approved P802.16m/D12 as IEEE Std 802.16m" (from email notice from 802.16 chairman, Roger Reynolds). This is the expected formal approval of the ITU IMT-Advanced, 'True 4G', version of the standard. The WiMAX Forum calls this WiMAX 2.
(BTW I registered and still have the URL WiMAXm.com representing 802.16m version of WiMAX but have not used it - that was before WF decided to use the term WiMAX 2 and WiMAX lost out on 700MHz and other momentum busting moves).
While there remain serious doubts about the supply chain support and momentum, WiMAXm now enters the arena of true 4G networks next to LTE-Advanced. 3GPP was scheduled to similarly approve LTE-Advanced but I have not received a notice and it didn't come up in Google. I'm sure its either approved or will be very shortly.
Now that the ts are crossed and is dotted, the equipment vendors can work on final patches and with operators and other vendors for compatibility and other longer term development efforts that result in commercial grade 'True 4G' networks and devices.
You are just wrong.. everyone should go back and read for yourselves.
My report about Clearwire and Verizon networks discussed the details of the number of base stations and type of coverage that could be achieved and the need for additional capital. it also discussed the benefits of SDWN microcell networks.
You once and then write posts that make sense... now you are so full of it.
I'm amused at your rewriting of history.
You only said Old CLWR didn't have a chance to succeed until after New CLWR was formed. Today you say CLWR was inadequately funded but you weren't saying this more than two years ago when New CLWR signed on some of the most cash rich tech companies in the world as investors. At the time the pitch coming out of CLWR's Wolff was that CLWR could build a network at one tenth the cost of competing carriers. How did that work out for them?
Next you'll be saying you never really thought CLWR or WiMAX had a chance.
You are hilarious.
You nut! Funny.
I've said from the start that New Clearwire's value was as a BB overlay, not primarily as a standalone network and that the funding was far shy of what was needed. If you had followed what I wrote about the former Clearwire you would know that I never thought it had much of a chance to capture a large enough marketshare to become self-sustaining. On the other hand, I gave multiple mode 3G-WiMAX fair odds of success. Despite having missed some of the early expectations for availability of WebPhone and embedded devices, Sprint has gained back lost momentum due to EVO 4G and newer devices.
We will follow your new statements to see how well your biased posts predict future events. Nearly every post is about CW's spectrum being sold?.. wrong on one more point. Thus far your batting average wouldn't get you on a little league team.
"Going forward, Clearwire has little flexibility in build outs or offering services that create friction or potential friction with funding partners."
This was true for New CLWR since day one, but you're making progress seeing the bigger picture.
With the original concept of becoming the primary source of wholesale high-speed data services to leading U.S. carriers dead, it begs the question what CLWR does next to remain operational given the acknowledged constraints and very narrow options.
We should not be surprised that nearly every post and every press release involves CLWR's spectrum getting sold.
OK. Your message wasn't clear.
Clearwire or similar WBB spectrum operator can certainly benefit from making mobile VoIP available IF their business structure allows it. Clearwire is obviously limited in their options for pursuing retail service as a stand-alone network. Mobile VoIP service was never pursued aggressively prior to reaching a stage of 'gas tank near empty' of funding. Going forward, Clearwire has little flexibility in build outs or offering services that create friction or potential friction with funding partners.
Clearwire's operation is based on their spectrum and the technical strengths of the next generation wireless IP platform. The only way that formula could have been successful for building a direct retail business was to somehow achieve parity against entrenched competition - somehow get masses of subscribers to use the service without having to match the ad spending and while having an apples to oranges comparison in coverage full mobility. The fault of Clearwire was pursing that based on the same general approach of other licensed operators.. it was destined to failure to begin with. Clearwire didn't listen to those who suggested alternative approaches.
The King is dead (urban hotsot as the retail juggernaut it has to be), long live the King! (the march of WBB to higher density per subscriber and per network density.. higher freq. spectrum)!
Yaco is packing up the wrong mountain climb: Clearwire is not a head-to-head competitor for fully mobile voice and will not likely become so. The only scenario Clearwire could compete against the operators he mentioned is if CW makes use of a lower frequency band. The other theoretical capability would be if >2.3GHz has evolved to higher density, distributed network topologies which is not in the cards for Clearwire because they do not have near enough capital or self-funding to get down that evolutionary trail.
On the issue of the impact of VoIP/VoLTE, operators face the universal challenge of building out more useful BB based services and continuing along the packaged services and long term contract strategies that lock and entice subscribers into higher total ARPUs. Voice in the '4G' IP world is a commodity. However, extended VoIP based unified communications, social/web communications can add value and revenue layer by layer to more than compensate for the loss of simple voice revenue.
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and others all face the shift in nature of services that compromises voice revenues and pushes them into more diverse but potentially more lucrative revenue streams. A key virtue of voice is that it is so bloody simple. But that is its Achilles heel: is is easily commoditized. The bane of the new services is that they take brains as well as brawn of coverage and capacity backed up with capital.
Whatever the deal is, it won't be as attractive as the arrangement Sprint has right now. You can't get more than 100%.
I agree that CLWR's inconsistent service in its "covered markets" would slightly mitigate Sprint's pain in this one area, but poor coverage raises an entirely new bag of issues.
It depends on the deal. Sprint could justify charging Clearwire a rate that approaches 1/2 what Verizon charges Sprint for roaming. Sprint puts a cap on the amount that a Sprint customer can roam on the Verizon network presumably because the expense is high. I suspect Clearwire would be using Sprint services a lot even while they were in a "4G" area cause there are holes in the coverage.
Where's the logic in that? Today Sprint gets 100% of the voice revenue for all of its 4G smartphone customers no matter where the customer is located or who provides the data. If CLWR offered its own voice Sprint would only get the portion of voice revenue outside CLWR's 120M POPs coverage area.
100% minus anything is less than 100%. This would be a material net loss to Sprint.