There were more than 600 WiMAX networks either live or at the planning/deployment stage by the end of 2009.
The number of WiMAX deployments significantly exceeds HSPA and LTE deployments.
Only around 300 cellular networks have been upgraded with HSPA technology and fewer than 70 operators have committed to deploying LTE equipment.
Only a relatively small number of these WiMAX systems offer wide coverage areas; most only offer local or regional service.
Late 2009 saw the introduction of the world’s first commercial LTE networks, with TeliaSonera beginning to offer limited services in Stockholm and Oslo.
2010 is expected to bring further LTE service launches in Europe, the US and Asia.
Where is it? Here's a great WiMAX deployment map from TeleGeography --> (click to enlarge).
LTE and WiMAX services both get lumped in to the 4G category. In the U.S. we're seeing Sprint/Clearwire rolling out WiMAX is selected areas (currently in 27 cities) and we'll see Verizon and AT&T launch their LTE services this year.
Which technology will "win"? TeleGeography analyst Peter Bell is quoted in the report press release:
While the footprint of WiMAX worldwide is still growing steadily, LTE deployments should gain momentum in 2010 and 2011. With LTE receiving strong backing from major cellular operators and equipment vendors, we project that LTE subscribers will ramp up far more quickly than WiMAX subscribers.
WiMAX is not going away however. Here's Peter Bell's response to the question:
The answer to the question ’LTE or WiMAX?’ is both. LTE and WiMAX both have roles to play, and both technologies will be with us for years to come.
I've written here frequently about WiMAX - a couple of weeks ago I even asked if it was dead! However, I have not forgotten about the efforts of Clearwire and Sprint NexTel to build out a national WiMAX network. Yesterday, Clearwire told Unstrung the company is expecting to close the deal, securing a $3.2 billion Sprint Nextel investment ((with $3 billion from Intel, Google, Comcast and Time Warner). The deal has met resistance from AT&T with the company complaining to the FCC about the combined spectrum that would be held by the the two companies.
Clearwire is currently running a "pre-WiMAX" fixed wireless network using proprietary technology from NextNet. The company has plans to go live with its first WiMAX (802.16e) service in Portland, Oregon in the fourth quarter of this year and follow that with Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Las Vegas. Unstrung quotes a Clearwire spokeswoman:
While we are in a great position to launch mobile WiMAX in our Portland market by the end of the year, the timing of the commercial launch is based on a timely close of the Sprint transaction and whether we choose to secure additional financing in the interim.
I can see a place for WiMAX in rural areas - parts of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont could certainly benefit. Earlier this year I heard rumors (just rumors!) Fairpoint Communications was considering building their own WiMAX network after the Verizon territory purchase. I certainly scratched my head doubting Fairpoint would consider the cost of building something like that on their own. Now..... a Fairpoint partnership with Clearwire / Sprint Nextel building out rural areas with WiMAX...... that could be very interesting.
Mike Q sent along a link from Information Week titled WiMax Coming To Remote Regions Of Vermont. The article describes how FairPoint, Nortel, and Airspan Networks are investing in building out the 3.65 GHZ spectrum to help spur the use of fixed WiMax in many regions of Vermont.
Here's a couple of quotes from the Information Week article:
Nortel and Airspan Networks reported this week that they will supply 802.16d WiMax equipment for the Vermont deployment, which, because it will operate in the 3.65 GHz band, is unlicensed and relatively inexpensive. Scott Wickware, general manager of Nortel, said he believes the Vermont rollout is the largest 3.65 GHz WiMax scheduled for installation to date.
Noting that it is less expensive to use wireless in many regions, Nortel said the FCC's decision last year to approve the use of the 3.65 GHZ spectrum is helping spur the use of fixed WiMax in many regions that previously weren't able to obtain broadband technology.
The article quotes range of a few miles with up to 10 miles where signals have little or no interference and have no obstructions. Transmission bandwidths are quoted ranging from 1 Mbps to as much as 5 Mbps in some cases.
Earlier this week I wrote about it and yesterday Sprint Nextel and Clearwire Corporation announced the combination of wireless broadband divisions to form a single $14.5 billion company that will keep the name Clearwire. Also participating and throwing in a combined $3.2 billion are Intel, Google, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Trilogy Equity Partners. Trilogy is run by John Stanton, a wireless veteran who made billions when he sold VoiceStream and Western Wireless.
Back in 2006, Mike Q and I did a podcast on WiMax, Clearwire and Clearwire's Founder Chairman Craig McCaw. Here's what we said about Clearwire back in September 2006:
Craig McCaw is a visionary, who has had an uncanny ability to predict the future of technology. WiMAX has the potential to do for broadband access what cell phones have done for telephony - replacing cable and DSL services, providing universal Internet access just about anywhere - especially for suburban and rural blackout areas.
Just like in the early 1980's Clearwire's Craig O. McCaw has been buying up licensed radio spectrum. You may not have heard of Craig but in the early 80's he recognized local cell permits being sold by the the FCC were greatly undervalued and he started bidding cellular phone licenses. He did his buying under the radar screen of the telcos and, by the time they recognized what he was doing it was basically too late - Craig had already purchased and owned licenses in most of the major markets.
Today - Clearwire, under Craig's direction, has quietly purchased enough licensed radio spectrumto build a national WiMAX network.
Craig McCaw and Clearwire have the spectrum, the money, the partners, superior wireless broadband technology when compared to services like 3G and the experience to make this work..... think about it..... Intel makes the WiMax radio components for computers, Google creates applications that can use WiMax services, Comcast, Time Warner and Brighthouse bundle WiMax products and services and market to their customers.... ..
The new company plans to make its service available to 120 million to 140 million people in the U.S. by the end of 2010, although company officials acknowledged they'll need to raise or borrow up to $2.3 billion more to make that happen. Alternatively, they said they could shrink the size of the network.
The deal has been approved by all companies but still must be approved by Clearwire shareholders and regulators. It is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year.
****** To read show notes and listen to Mike Q and my 17 minute and 20 second podcast (Sept 2006) titled WiMax - Why Not?, click here. Listen to it directly in your web browser by clicking here. If you have iTunes installed you can subscribe to our podcasts by clicking here.
"The WiMAX network is being designed to deliver mobile broadband services in urban, suburban and rural markets, and enable significantly greater depth and breadth of services. The arrangement also is expected to enable each company to increase capital efficiency and reduce overall network development and operating costs".
"Sprint Nextel and Clearwire expect to build their respective portions of the nationwide network, and enable roaming between the respective territories. The companies also will work jointly on product and service evolution, shared infrastructure, branding, marketing and distribution. Additionally, the companies intend to exchange selected 2.5 GHz spectrum in order to optimize build-out, development and operation of the network".
I've blogged about WiMAX and Clearwire last September - that blog is linked here. In that blog I described how Clearwire, under Craig O. McCaw's direction, had quietly purchased enough licensed radio spectrum to build a national WiMAX network. Last September I also discussed how Sprint had commtted to the buildout of a national WiMAX network, at that time in competition to Clearwire.
Here's more from July 2007 the Sprint press release:
"Under the network build-out plan, Sprint Nextel will focus its efforts primarily on geographic areas covering approximately 185 million people, including 75 percent of the people located in the 50 largest markets, while Clearwire will focus on areas covering approximately 115 million people. Initially, the two companies expect to build out network coverage to approximately 100 million people by the end of 2008, with seamless roaming enabled between the deployed areas".
"...Sprint Nextel expects to commence the initial stage of its mobile WiMAX network deployments by year-end 2007 and both companies expect to launch commercial service in the first half of 2008. The companies individually are working with a broad range of manufacturers including Intel, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia and others to create an ecosystem of chips, products and software designed to provide mobile WiMAX access".
I think we'll see more of these kinds of partnerships develop as providers combine forces to offer customers higher bandwidths in wider coverage areas. I wish I has bought some stock last September!
***** Listen to Mike Q and my latest podcast "Skype, More Skype, Goodbye Copper and Casual Gaming" linked here.
Yesterday, at the Convergence Technology Center sponsored Working Connections 2010 Conference In Frisco, Texas I had some time at lunch to talk about emerging mobile technologies. With only ten minutes I had to carefully pick what I wanted to discuss and decided on bandwidth and access (Surprised?!) with a focus on the two current emerging 4G technologies - LTE and WiMAX. Lots of questions and with the time limit (people had to get back to their workshops) I did not get a chance to answer too many. People were asking about the detail differences between LTE and WiMAX. For example, is one technology better than the other? Why would one company decide on LTE while another decides on WiMAX to deliver next generation services? You said they are very similar - what makes them different? Here’s some quick answers: LTE will be/is the 4G technology of choice of the larger mobile carriers like Verizon Wireless (Rolling out LTE this year) and AT&T Wireless (scheduled to start LTE rollout in 2011). These carriers already have FDD spectrum and the money to buy more spectrum. The carriers will also tell you that LTE more easily supports backward compatibility with earlier cellular technologies. WiMAX will be/is the choice of carriers with TDD spectrum and also makes sense for for greenfield situations where backward compatibility is not needed. LTE uses FDD spectrum and WiMAX uses TDD spectrum - what’s the difference between FDD and TDD? Here’s a quick explanation from three-g.net:
Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) are the two most prevalent duplexing schemes used in broadband wireless networks. TDD is the more efficient scheme, however, since it does not waste bandwidth. FDD, which historically has been used in voice-only applications, supports two-way radio communication by using two distinct radio channels. Alternatively, TDD uses a single frequency to transmit signals in both the downstream and upstream directions.
Basically, FDD (LTE) uses two channels and TDD (WiMAX) uses one channel for two-way communications.
Which technology will dominate? It looks like LTE but..... there are issues with expensive and crowded spectrum. There’s a lot more TDD spectrum available than FDD spectrum and TDD spectrum is cheaper. Wouldn’t make sense to develop a version of LTE that could use TDD spectrum? It sure would and that is what TD-LTE does - it uses TDD spectrum. Does it work? Yes! Yesterday, Ericsson ad China Mobile demonstrated an end-to-end TD-LTE solution that achieved a single user peak downlink rate of 110Mbps. China Mobile has also announced it will launch 8 TD-LTE test networks worldwide in 2010.
International telecom advisors Analysys Mason, headquartered in London with offices in over 80 countries, released an interesting report last week on worldwide wireless opportunities for revenue growth. The report predicts cellular technologies will take the largest revenue share between now and 2015. Globally, the study predicts2.1 billion wireless broadbandcustomers will generate USD784 billion in service revenue by 2015.
Here's some detail from the report:
The revenue increase of about 2400% will be underpinned by continued developments in wireless technologies, improvements in devices and more flexible pricing options.
Because W-CDMA to HSPA to HSPA+ is the natural evolution path for GSM operators, the number of HSPA and HSPA+ customers worldwide will increase from 61 million at the end of 2008 to 1.1 billion at the end of 2015.
Cellular technologies will dominate wireless broadband services, with twenty times as many users as WiMAX by the end of 2015.
LTE will take off relatively slowly, but its customer base will reach 440 million by 2015, with associated revenue of USD194 billion.
WiMAX will be squeezed from developed markets by fixed and cellular broadband services and by 2015 will serve just 98 million customers worldwide, of which 92% will be in developing regions.
The report continues:
WiMAX will fail to achieve a significant share of the rapidly developing wireless broadband market, contributing only 2% of global revenue. “By 2015, there will be twenty times as many customers for cellular broadband services as for WiMAX,” according to Dr Alastair Brydon, co-author of the report, “The vast majority of MNOs will not break ranks to WiMAX, but will upgrade to LTE, resulting in over four times more LTE users by the end of 2015.”
It looks like WiMAX may not fit predicted migration paths according to Analysys Mason. You can get details from the report here.
Thanks ATETV.ORG for allowing me to post over on your blog! Here's my post that went up on Thursday:
**********
ATETV adviser Gordon Snyder oversees the Telecommunications Technology program at Springfield Technical Community College, which concentrates on the numerous technologies that deliver information — in the form of voice, data, video or a combination of these.
Today, federal deregulation, growing security requirements, and rapidly changing developments in the areas of fiber optics, ATM, DSL, LAN/WAN technology, Cisco networking, and wireless technology, have all helped to make telecommunications and network technicians highly sought after in the marketplace.
In this week’s blog, Gordon brings us up to speed on some of the latest developments in wireless technology.
I’d like to thank the folks at ATE TV this week for the re-airing of episode #34 to coincide with our Winter 2011 ICT Educator Conference and for allowing me to post here on the ATETV blog. The episode covers why internships are important to employers and employees, the future of Information and Communication Technologies, and Biotechnology career options.
These days, most of us are carrying some sort of mobile device with the expectation of continuous connectivity and availability. With all of the advertising we’re seeing lately from providers like Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless and Sprint I thought it would be interesting to write a little bit about 4G wireless technologies.
4G is short for fourth generation and is a successor to third generation (3G) wireless technologies. 4G includes both LTE (Long Term Evolution) and WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), and sets peak mobile download speeds of 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) and 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps) for fixed services. An example of a fixed service would be an antenna used for wireless access on top of your house.
You may be wondering – if both are considered 4G technologies and both offer the same bandwidths, what’s the differences between LTE technology used by providers like Verizon and AT&T and WiMAX used by other companies like Sprint? Is one technology better than the other? Why would one company decide on LTE while another decides on WiMAX to deliver next generation services? If they are very similar – what makes them different?
Here’s some quick answers taken from a few of my recent blog posts:
LTE is the 4G technology of choice of the larger mobile carriers like Verizon Wireless (launched LTE last month) and AT&T Wireless (scheduled to start LTE rollout this year). These carriers already have LTE spectrum and the money to buy more spectrum. They will also tell you that LTE more easily supports backward compatibility with earlier cellular technologies. LTE uses Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) spectrum.
WiMAX is the choice of carriers with Time Division Duplex (TDD) spectrum (launched by Sprint in 2008) and also makes sense for for green-field situations where backward compatibility is not needed.
So, LTE uses FDD spectrum and WiMAX uses TDD spectrum – what’s the difference? Here’s a quick explanation from three-g.net: Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division Duplex (TDD) are the two most prevalent duplexing schemes used in broadband wireless networks. TDD is the more efficient scheme, however, since it does not waste bandwidth. FDD, which historically has been used in voice-only applications, supports two-way radio communication by using two distinct radio channels. Alternatively, TDD uses a single frequency to transmit signals in both the downstream and upstream directions.
Basically, FDD (LTE) uses two channels and TDD (WiMAX) uses one channel for two-way communications.
Which technology will dominate? It looks like LTE in the United States but….. there are already issues with expensive and crowded spectrum. There’s also a lot more TDD spectrum available than FDD spectrum and TDD spectrum is cheaper.
Now, if LTE is preferred by the larger carriers in the United States and spectrum is in short supply, wouldn’t it make sense to try and develop a version of LTE that could use TDD spectrum? That’s what an emerging technology called TD-LTE does – it uses TDD spectrum for LTE transmission. Does it work? It sure looks like it. Last July, Ericsson and China Mobile demonstrated an end-to-end TD-LTE solution that achieved a single user peak downlink rate of 110Mbps and on Friday (December 31, 2010) China Mobile announced it had finally received approval from regulators and will start large-scale testing of domestically developed TD-LTE technology. This is going to be really interesting to watch!
Want to find out more? Watch (and search) places like ATETV.org and Gordon’s Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Blog (my blog!) for more on emerging information and communications technologies like 4G along with the different kinds of great technical career opportunities community colleges can provide.
I've written in the past and Mike Q and I have podcasted about rural areas and how the lack of broadband availability (Cable modem or DSL) can handicap residents including students. WiMax is one of the more promising technologies that can help solve this problem and it looks like AT&T is moving in this direction. The company launched a trial with their Alascom subsidiary in Juneau, Alaska where customers can purchase WiMax service starting at $19.95 a month. Alascom is using Alvarion IEEE 802.16e-based WiMAX equipment to provide speeds up to 1Mbps symmetrical. According to an Alascom press release:
"AT&T Alascom is fully committed to deliver the benefits of broadband Internet service as widely as possible," said Mike Felix, president of AT&T Alascom. "Our deployment of WiMAX-based high speed Internet service in Juneau is the result of years of research into new-generation broadband technologies that are well-suited for deployment in challenging environments such as Alaska. Today, those efforts enable us to deliver a compelling new broadband choice for thousands of Alaskans, including many who have previously not had access to high speed Internet service."
The press release concludes:
"Outside Alaska, AT&T will evaluate opportunities to deploy fixed wireless technologies in other areas of the country based on customer needs and the results of its existing deployments."
DSL Reports Monday quoted anonymous sources saying the company will likely be rolling this out in some areas in the lower 48 - specifically the south:
"AT&T's limited spectrum holdings could make it hard for the operator to take on serious deployment outside of the South"
"Spectrum will also be an issue for AT&T if it wants to deploy outside the South. The 22 2.3 Ghz licenses that it holds come from the BellSouth merger and only cover some of the Southern markets that operator provided service in. AT&T sold off its remaining 2.5 Ghz licenses to Clearwire LLC earlier this year."
I've written about the Sprint/Clearwire WiMax initiative which is directed towards mobile devices (hand held computers, phones, PDAs, etc). This AT&T project appears to be directed as a residential and business broadband alternative - exactly the kind of technology we need to start closing the broadband divide in the U.S.
**** Read Show Notes and listen to Mike Q and my latest Podcast titled Micro-blogging linked here. Podcasts also free on iTunes. ****
We're seeing some interesting customer movement in the industry - another Fortune piece from May 1 describes Comcast's first quarter earnings, here's a couple of interesting quotes from that piece:
Comcast lost 57,000 basic video subscribers, but added 494,000 digital cable subscribers.
The company said 65% of video subscribers now have digital service, up from 55% a year ago, and 43% have so-called advanced services like digital video recorders or high-definition TV, up from 38% last year.
The company also added 492,000 high-speed Internet users and 639,000 Comcast Digital Voice phone customers.
What's happening? We've got the telcos like Verizon and AT&T chasing new video customers and the cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner chasing new voice customers. Both AT&T and Verizon sell 3G wireless services - it makes sense for the cable companies to add a wireless product and it makes a lot os sense to partner with existing wireless providers like Clearwire and Sprint. JPMorgan analyst Jon Chaplin is quoted in the earlierFortune piece: By creating a joint WiMax venture, "it would cost them a fraction of what it would cost them to build out" their own network or to buy Sprint outright.
Keep watching - the deal could happen as early as this week.
On 6/7, smartphone customers in markets slated for LTE will be notified via text message of the upcoming launch.
The message states: SprintFreeMsg: Ready for some GREAT news? Sprint is rolling out an all-new network in (insert city here). Learn more at sprint.us/sat Reply End to stop.
Sprint’s all-new network launches by mid-summer 2012 in 4 cities: Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta.
More cities launch later this summer and throughout the year.
The all-new network includes the launch of 4G LTE and improvements to Sprint’s 3G network.
Benefits include:
More reliable connection to voice calls, emails, and apps, and the internet
Today Google and Sprint have announced a partnership - Sprint has agreed to provide Open Standard Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to Google, allowing Google to develop applications on Sprint web-enabled devices. Services developed for the WiMAX network will include search, e-mail, calendaring, and social networking. The Sprint/Clearwire WiMAX network is scheduled to launch early 2008. Here's a quote from Yahoo Technology News:
.... analysts were quick to point out that the cooperative agreement doesn't exclude the two companies from competing against each other down the road.
"It's an absolute no-brainer" for Google to increase its presence in the wireless sector by working with as many operators as possible and helping them customize services," said Andy Buss, principle analyst with Canalys.com. "But Google is looking to become an operator in its own right."
"It would be good for Google to control its own platform," he said. "They need to make some risk-sharing investments in the underlying networks to have a say in how they're architectured and developed."
In Europe, Buss didn't rule out the possibility of Google becoming a mobile virtual network operator, piggybacking on existing networks. This approach, he said, would allow the company to establish a "consistent" level of expertise across highly fragmented Europe.
In a separate but related topic Google is also in the market for some spectrum of it's own. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be auctioning off the valuable 700MHz range frequency spectrum next year. There is a lot of political positioning happening now and I'll write about it in a future blog so there is not confusion.
***** Listen to Mike Q and my latest podcast "Skype, More Skype, Goodbye Copper and Casual Gaming" linked here.
In my last post, titled Verizon No Longer Concerned With Telephones Connected With Wires, I described an interview Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, did at a Goldman Sachs investor conference on Thursday. In the inteview Seidenberg described how, by using the decentralized structure of the Internet rather than the traditional design of phone systems, Verizon had a new opportunity to cut costs sharply.
This summer I spent some time reading Martin Sauter's excellent new book Beyond 3G, Bringing Networks, Terminals and the Web Together. In the book Martin describes the movement in the wireless/cellular world away from circuit-switched telephony technologies like 2G, 2.5G (EDGE) and even 3G to 4G based technologies like LTE and WiMAX.
What does wireless technology have to do with copper wires? Like these wireless technologies, the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) uses circuit-switched telephony technology designed around voice. Even DSL (a technology basically designed to extend the life of the copper wire based network by a few years) is a circuit-switched service - Internet based traffic goes to the Internet and voice traffic goes - you guessed it - right to the PSTN.
Circuit-switch based networks have made a lot of sense for the past 100 years or so. They work well for voice calls because by nature they are deterministic. If a circuit is available a connection is made. If a circuit is not available the call attempt gets rejected and the customer gets some kind of message back from the busy switch. Once a connection is made (phone-to-phone) the connection is also deterministic - each call is independent and cannot influence any other calls. A great design for voice communications - whether it be with copper wires or over wireless frequencies.
The problem with these circuit-switch based networks though is they were designed for voice. Sauter argues correctly that when networks are designed for specific applications, there is no separation between the network and the applications which ultimately prevents evolution. In addition, tight integration of applications and networks also prevents the evolution of an application because changing the applications also requires changes to the network itself. The PSTN basically cannot evolve beyond where it is now - it's been tweaked-up to the point where it cannot be tweaked-up any more.
Internet (TCP/IP based) technologies work using exactly the opposite approach. A neutral transport layer carries packets and any kind of application (voice, video, data, etc) can efficiently send high and low volumes of data through the network. For applications the connection process is transparent - the device operating system establishes an Internet connection before the application is even launched. The network and any applications running that use the network are independent of each other.
Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, etc are all moving to non-circuit-switched IP based 4G technologies like WiMAX and LTE to handle voice, video and data traffic. It is inevitable that Verizon's landline division (along with other landline carriers) move in this same direction.
I started working on this post on Friday with the intention of posting today. It seems even more appropriate today with the Verizon strike starting over the weekend......
I've had the chance to speak at four or five conferences over the past few months or so on emerging broadband technologies and services. A good chunk of one of these presentations always covers wireless technologies with a focus on 4G (WiMax and LTE) upgrades. One thing I can count on are questions from the audience about wireless data caps. With Verizon Wireless halting their all you can eat plan on July 6th, these questions have become even more frequent. Here's some of those questions and my answers:
Question: Why are the wireless providers doing this?
Answers:
Expensive to maintain landline divisions of the big providers (AT&T and Verizon), still comprise approximately half of their business. In comparison, wireless is less expensive to install and maintain.
Average wireless subscriber voice plan revenue has dropped from $50 per month in 2005 to approximately $33 today. Wireless voice plans have become commoditized.
Smartphones with expensive data plans have allowed the wireless providers to replace the loss in voice revenue.
These same smartphones have put incredible demand on wireless bandwidth, wireless spectrum and fiber backhaul connecting cell towers. 4G technologies operate at approximately 10 times the rate of 3G and will continue to challenge the providers when it comes to capacity needs.
A recent Business Week article refers to cellular upgrades by the major providers in the U.S. as "Money Pits". In 2010 the telcos cost of capital exceeded their return on invested capital - which may mean they're throwing good money after bad.
Question: My students, my own kids, grandkids, etc are constantly texting. Hasn't text messaging provided some nice revenue for the wireless providers?
Answers:
comScore reports 69.6 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers used text messaging on their mobile devices in 2010.
The same Business Week piece referenced above estimates text messaging represents 16% of Verizon Wireless revenue and contributes as much as 40% to total profit. AT&T numbers are likely similar.
Text messaging was designed for voice phones - basically phones that do not have alphabet keyboards. You don't see too many of those around anymore. Smartphones have more capabilities and options.
The problem is, with a smartphone you don't need a text plan from a wireless provider to send text messages. Smartphone users can send and receive unlimited text messages using free apps like Skype, Google Voice, TextNow and GroupMe using the smartphone's data connectivity. Using many of these apps users can also text from there computers at work, laptops, iPads etc as long as they have an Internet connection.
Text message revenues are going to drop rapidly as users move to apps that run on smartphones.
Capping data is one way wireless providers will try to recover some of this revenue. There is a bit of a flaw in this strategy though - the average text message (unless pictures are attached) uses very small amounts of data bandwidth.
Question: 4G services are fast and a monthly 5GB cap is not going to last long. Are you concerned?
Answers:
Right now I'm a little concerned. For example, I'm on an unlimited data plan now from AT&T and I'll keep that as long as I can. Even though I never come close to 5GB per month, if I were to end up switching, I'd go with a provider that does not cap bandwidth. I would not lock into a long term capped data plan with any provider.
Right now Sprint is still offering unlimited data plans - the big two (AT&T and Verizon) are not. If you are concerned about caps I would take a close look at Sprint.
In places where I do use my phone for data I would estimate over 50% of the time I'm in a location where I have secure WiFi access. As long as I've got the WiFi radio on I'm not using wireless (3G/4G) bandwidth.
I live in a small town that only has a couple of gas stations. The price per gallon is always high. The next town over has a number of gas stations in a relatively small area and price per gallon competition is fierce. When one drops their price the others follow almost instantly. Competition is good. Right now AT&T and Verizon have agreed to implement caps. If one of them cracks or another alternative provider comes along (Google, Microsoft or who knows who?) with unlimited service at a competitive price they'll all have to drop their caps fast to prevent customer churn.
Over the long term, I'm not really worried about data caps.
According to a recent ABI Research report, 4G devices are moving rapidly from the assembly line to retail stores.
Here's some details:
Refers to a range of
4G-enabled mobile devices, from USB dongles, smartphones, tablets, 4G
portable hotspots, and wireless broadband CPE modems
4G devices are expected to generate 87
million in unit sales in 2012, up 294% year-on-year.
61 million 4G handsets being shipped in 2012.
26 million 4G non-handset products (e.g. USB dongles for legacy laptops and netbooks, by premise equipment, home modems, etc) will be shipped
The lion’s share of the market
is now backing LTE as service provider and vendor support has fallen
away from WiMAX.
There is a natural evolutionary demand from 3G end-users, both
business and consumer, to jump onto the 4G data bandwagon.
Mobile device vendors are experiencing intense competitive pressure, which is expected to bring down LTE handset prices, estimated at 10 to 20 percent over the next two years.
It's not all good though. There are still some big technical issues that need to be worked out including the recent Australian iPad 3 promotion fiasco, when iPad 3s were being promoted as being ‘LTE-ready,’ even though the modem is unable to access the Australian LTE spectrum band.
In addition, some customers will not be ready this year to pay a premium for 4G handsets and 4G services.
As a reference, in a February 2012 report Forrester predicted by 2016 one billion people will own smart phones.
The 59 page report starts with some introductory information that I've covered here in prior posts. The FCC hopes to establish these four primary goals and benchmarks:
Defining Broadband Capability
Defining Access to Broadband
Measuring Progress
Role of Market Analysis
Today, let's take a look at Defining Broadband Capability.
Broadband is defined lots of different ways and the FCC is seeking comment on how the definition should capture the various issues that should be considered as the FCC defines broadband capability, including how to take into account the various existing and emerging technologies.
According to the NOI, the FCC currently uses the terms advanced telecommunications capability, broadband, and high-speed Internet. Most of us think of broadband as data - high speed data but just data. That's changing for many of us - we're in the middle of the migration to all IP networks and I believe voice and video must be included along with data in the new broadband definition. I'd be fine with just calling it just broadband.
We're also dealing with a wide range of technologies - Fiber To The Home (FTTH), Fiber To The Node (FTTN), WiMAX, LTE, DOCSIS, ADSL, etc. Each of these provides a different range of bandwidths depending on distance, signal strength, etc. I'd like to see specific bandwidth ranges that can be easily adjusted as we ramp up speeds. This is the way we did it with dial-up data access using analog modems - 300 bps became 1200 bps became 2400 bps, etc. I also believe we need to define both upstream and downstream bandwidths for these ranges. Here's the way the FCC started defining bandwidth tiers of service last year:
First Generation data: 200 Kbps up to 768 Kbps
Basic Broadband : 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps 1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps 3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps 6.0 Mbps and above
A service is categorized if bandwidth in only one direction (the faster direction) meets the ranges listed. Most consumer services are asymmetrical with more bandwidth provided in the downstream direction that the upstream direction. I'd like to see these tiers broken out further and include separate listings for upstream and downstream bandwidths.
I'd also like to see average speeds calculated over the course of 24 hour/7 day a week periods be listed. It makes no sense for my provider to list maximum speeds that I can only get at 3 in the morning when all of my neighbors are sleeping.
In addition, these tier levels must be dynamic and adjust up with technology improvements. I hope I'm not still sitting at the 3-6 Mbps tier (in one direction) a year from now.
I don't believe there should be different definitions or standards for the type of broadband service provided. For example, we don't need separate definitions for mobile broadband services (e.g. wireless) and fixed broadband services (e.g. cable modem). Bandwidth is bandwidth so keep them all the same.
I also don't believe rural and other hard to get to areas should have lower tier standards and definitions. We must make every effort to provide equal service to as many people as possible in our country.
For details be sure to see the entire 59 page report. In the next post I'll discuss Defining Access to Broadband.
This is a significant technological event for a number of reasons:
Both LTE and WiMAX (4G technologies) are 100% Internet protocol based - voice, video and data. 3G and earlier technologies still switch voice calls.
Verizon is using the Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) codec which offers better sound quality. AMR-WB is commonly referred to as "High Definition (HD) Voice". It is a significant improvement over existing mobile voice.
LTE network setup, configuration and maintenance is simpler and will ultimately cost providers less. This should speed implementation and ultimately drive consumer costs down.
By the end of 2013, Verizon will have the existing 3G footprint covered with LTE. Between now and the end of 2013, users will have the option of using the Verizon 3G network or 4G VoLTE. 4G calls cannot be handed off to 3G service and phones will come with both 3G and LTE radios.
Cox Communications released some interesting results at the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona, Spain yesterday. The company has been testing Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless delivery on both its AWS and 700 MHz spectrum in San Diego and Phoenix. I've written here in the past about the 700 MHz spectrum range - back in 2005 Congress passed a law that requires all U.S. TV stations to convert to all digital broadcasts and give up analog spectrum in the 700 MHz frequency band. This law freed up 62 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band and effectively eliminated channels between 52 and 69. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held a 700 MHz auction in 2008 with Cox and others buying some of that spectrum for technologies like LTE. The Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band is similar to 700 MHz but operates at a higher frequency, representing 90 MHz of spectrum in the 1.7- to 2.1-GHz range.
Some industry people have been saying fourth generation (4G) technologies LTE and WiMAX will effectively backfill areas where high speed "wired" broadband services (Cable, FTTN, FTTH, etc) are not available. I've been one of those with my fingers crossed, hoping 4G technologies will eventually provide high-bandwidth services to underserved areas of our country. If Cox's test results are any indication, it does not appear this will be the case though. Stephen Bye, Cox's vice president of wireless services presentation is referenced in a Fierce Wireless post yesterday:
Cox's LTE trials showed peak speeds of around 25 Mbps with 2x2 MIMO technology over a 2x5 MHz channel in the carrier's AWS spectrum. However, those speeds were for a single user very close to the cell site.
On the cell edge, that same single user would only get around 10 Mbps, according to Cox's tests.
Multiple users on the cell edge would see far slower speeds.
To put those numbers into perspective, Bye said Cox's wired Internet subscribers average around 8 GB per month of data use, and the top 1 percent carrier's most active wired Internet users access 200 GB of data per month (those users enjoy wired Internet speeds of up to 50 Mbps, he said).
Bye said Cox has witnessed a 200 percent growth rate in 12 months in its customers' wired Internet usage.
In his presentation, Bye described wireless as "complementary" to the MSO's wired network and explained that LTE will never handle the traffic loads that fully wired Internet users generate.
A dose of reality - unfortunately - I have to agree with him. The consumption and desire for more and more bandwidth is not slowing. Even if a wireless provider like a Cox, Verizon or AT&T could provide 25 Mbps sustained to underserved areas - in the end it is still not going to be enough when compared to much higher bandwidth "wired" services we're seeing in many parts of the U.S. and other countries.
Last week I was off on vacation relaxing and pretty much shut down. While I was away, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) released the National Broadband Plan, a 376-page document summarized in the six goals listed below:
Goal 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second. Goal 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation. Goal 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose. Goal 4: Every community should have affordable access to at least 1 Gbps broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and government buildings. Goal 5: To ensure the safety of Americans, every first responder should have access to a nationwide public safety wireless network. Goal 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption.
Good stuff - but - can it happen? Here's an interesting quote from an interview Ars Technica did with FCC broadband advisor BlairLevin. The interview was done a few weeks before the national plan was released. Levin's commenting on regulator/industry relationships and the reaction to policy, comparing the U.S. to more broadband-successful countries (like South Korea):
You.... have a different relationship between.... regulators and the industry. In those countries, when a regulator says to do something, what happens is that within a very reasonable, short timeframe, those things are done. What happens in the United States is that, when a regulator says something—I'm not complaining about it; I'm just pointing out reality—it's challenged in the courts and you have a time lag. So that, I think, is an important consideration.
Like Blair Levin, I see the potential for significant land-line connectivity progress in our country getting buried in legal black holes. There may be some hope though - Goal 2 and mobile connectivity may end up saving us in a couple of ways:
First - we're looking at the roll-out of fourth generation technologies (LTE and WiMax) by the major wireless providers over the next couple of years. Wireless broadband will soon become a competitive option to land-line services and available in areas where there is currently not a land-line service available. Second - and maybe more significant - wireless broadband competition may discourage land-line provider court challenges, removing those time lags Levin refers to.
You can download the full FCC National Broadband Plan here and you can watch progress at www.broadband.gov
Here's some interesting numbers from a new ABI Research report:
Global pay-TV subscribers will number more than 730 million by the end of 2011.
North America has the highest subscriber penetration and should reach 115.4 million by the end of 2011.
Western Europe has the highest Telco TV penetration rate and continues to increase in subscriber numbers, especially in France, Italy and Germany.
North America and Asia-Pacific regions are the second and third highest in Telco TV penetration. The numbers of subscribers in those regions are forecast to exceed 9 million and 15 million respectively by the end of 2011.
In the Asia-Pacific region South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan are the leading countries in Telco TV adoption.
Telco TV subscribers will number 47 million by the end of 2011, with a CAGR of 22.5% over the next five years (2009-2014).
Traditional Telco providers (like AT&T and Verizon in the U.S.) should continue to push hard and try and lock customers into broadband-based voice, video and data (triple play) contract offerings. What about the other providers? ABI Research associate Khin Sandi Lynn is quoted -Other type of pay-TV platforms, satellite, cable and terrestrial are also found to be increasing, although at a slower rate.
Wireless providers are not specifically mentioned in the summary but I'm guessing they will be next year as higher-bandwidth fourth-generation (4G), LTE and WiMAX service offerings grow in 2010.
You can get more information on this ABI Research report here.
Thanks for visiting. I'm Gordon, past National Science Foundation Funded Centers of Excellence Director and Co-Director at Springfield Technical Community College and University of Central Florida, past Visiting Engineering Professor at the University of Hartford, currently an Adjunct Professor at Pace University and an Engineering Professor at Holyoke Community College in Massachusetts. I’ve authored four engineering and engineering technology textbooks and have over 40 years of engineering, technology, communications and IT teaching experience. In addition to my teaching and work with NSF Centers of Excellence, I've served as the Verizon Next Step New England telecommunications curriculum leader and on several business and technology boards around the United States including the Microsoft Community College Advisory Council, the Massachusetts Networking and Communications Council and the National Skill Standards Board.
I am one of the co founders of the Hi-Tec Conference that annually brings 500-600 academic, business and industry representatives to explore the convergence of scientific disciplines, engineering and technologies.
In 2001, I was selected as one of the top 15 STEM faculty in the United States by Microsoft and the American Association of Community Colleges and in 2004 was selected as the Massachusetts Network and Communications Council Workforce Leader of the year.
I am also certified by the International Distance Education Certification Center as a Certified Distance Education Instructor.
S and Asia. 
