Sprint XOHM

jackrodgers · EVDO Addict Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 1131

A rebate is a situation where you give your money for a product and then they return some of it to you, if you are lucky.

Cell phone and wireless broad band plans seemingly give you a $250 product for free for two years of service but what they are doing is charging your for the connection plus charging you to finance they cost of the hardware, nothing is free.

Should you desire to replace the hardware, you would pay full price for it. Unless you have had the contract for the two years and can then create a new one for the 'free' item.

These concepts are so simple and easy to understand I don't see how people see any telco as sinister or bleeding the buyer other than these types of statements have been used carelessly in the past by those seeking attention and donations to their cause.

deparson · EVDO Junkie Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 248

That would be great if it was that transparent. For example, if you could sign a contract showing how much subsidy you are getting and how much more you will have to pay each month for that subsidy.

Then I could see if it was in my interest to sign a contract with ETF or not.

-D

jackrodgers · EVDO Addict Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 1131

deparson · EVDO Junkie Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 248

Ah, if only you were right!

evdoman · EVDO User Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 61

Let me see if I have this right:

Xohm/WiMax's major benefit is better speed and lower latency than competing technologies. Clearly, something extremely desirable per se... more bandwidth and speed is extremely valuable - people will pay, productivity increases.

To employ it, the infrastructure must be put in place. This will be costly, but if Sprint and/or others are willing to pay for it, the consumer shouldn't care. Included in the infrastructure will be significant upgrades to the bandwidth available at the towers, because without bigger backhaul pipes, the wireless spectrum wont be usable. A downside of the technology is that it wont "hand off" as seamlessly (at least not during early deployment) and that it will require new hardware for the consumer. If Sprint/others are willing to pay for the infrastructure and the consumer is willing to pay for the hardware and tolerate the downsides during deployment (hand-off issues, possible coverage issues, etc), then it is a worthwhile venture per se.

Here is the part I am confused about:

EvDO Rev. B, while slower than Xohm/WiMax, would be *much* cheaper to deploy. The infrastructure is largely in place, and although the backhaul upgrades and some software/hardware upgrades will be needed as well, the net investment for both the provider and consumer will be much less (mainly for the provider). Therefore, the question is whether the increased bandwidth capabilities of Xohm/WiMax are really worth the immensely greater costs. The way I see it, ceteris paribus, more bandwidth is better. However, 95% of users are satisfied with something equal or less than Rev B speeds (once deployed). My parents, friends, and a lot of businesses are happy with a couple megs down and something reasonable up. It is only the minority power user who craves more, and when talking about mobile connections, even those power users' requirements diminish. Therefore, the question is whether the massively increased costs involved in launching Xohm/WiMax are worth it for the purposes of providing incremental speed only demanded by the minority. I would pay a premium for a faster mobile (or fixed) connection, but I suspect that the fast majority would choose Rev B speeds for less.

Another thought is that down the road, EvDO Revisions beyond Rev B are lilkely to close the speed gap, making Xohm/WiMax have less of a technological edge in the first place. Then again, maybe Xoam/WiMax could be similarly upgraded in its capabilities. I dont have enough technical knowledge to know if this is possible.

What am I missing? Is the cost of rolling out Xohm/WiMax actually not that much greater than deploying Rev B? Am I wrong to assume that a significant number of consumers arent willing to pay significant premiums to cover the additional costs? Am I wrong in assuming that the bottleneck caused by the need for upgraded backhauls is really the operative factor, not the speed of the connection?

evdoman · EVDO User Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 61

Sorry for the second post in a row, but here is a summarized version of my previously long-winded question:

If a backhaul upgrade is required to support either EvDO Rev B or WiMax and the cost for doing each is the same, then wouldnt the relatively cheaper rollout of EvDO Rev B make more sense, given that the greater Xohm/WiMax speeds would likely command a premium price from a minority of subscribers while EvDO Rev B speeds would satify the needs of the vast majority?

jackrodgers · EVDO Addict Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 1131

evdoman · EVDO User Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 61

Nearly a third of the US population signing up sounds a bit ambitious... they would have to have total domination of the market. Even taking the assumption that your numbers panned out, my real question isnt whether Xohm/WiMax could be profitable, but whether it makes as much sense as proceeding solely with EvDO Rev B/Rev C, which seem to me like they would be *more* profitable.

I did a bit more reading on WiMax (Im sure most people here already knew this, so Im sorry for my newbie realizations!)...

WiMax has theoretical close-range speeds of 70MB down, but in practical application, it decreases with distance, much like WiFi. Therefore, the actual speeds end-users might see are likely to be in the 10MB range, varying higher or lower based upon distance from the tower. This means that its speed advantage over EvDO Rev B would pretty much be wiped out. Additionally, EvDO Rev C (referred to as Ultra Mobile Broadband, or UMB) is still a while from being developed, but once it is, it would have a clear advantage over WiMax in almost every respect and it would be fully compatible with previous EvDO versions. Also, WiMax needs line-of-sight (not as extreme as satellite, requiring precisely-pointed antennas), but quite dependent on a straight shot to the tower to really take advantage of speeds. Therefore, without repeaters or hand-offs to other technologies (including EvDO), it really isnt that functional for mobile or indoor use.

Therefore, this leaves me thinking that Xohm/WiMax has *no* real advantages in the long run, nor even the short run, with one possible exception... the backhaul issue. Earlier, I had noted that both EvDO and WiMax would require backhaul upgrades to enable their use. In reading further, it sounds like backhauling WiMax might be more feasible/cheaper? If so, this could of course give Xohm/WiMax an edge, though Im not sure if this edge would offset all the other infrastructure cost disadvantages. Also, it is still left with all the downsides of the technology (line of sight, handoffs, etc). I could see it being used to complement EvDO in some respects (assuming backhauling is cheaper), but I dont see how that would really be cost effective.

Im looking for more insight from others who know more. As I am reading this, Xohm/WiMax will fail in the long run, like many other wireless technologies that sounded great but didnt make financial sense. It seems more logical to me that EvDO Rev B (and later, Rev C/UMB) would handle all of the transmission issues and the only massive cost would be actually supplying the backhauls.

xenophon · EVDO Addict Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 1969

There's a much broader vision for networked device ubiquity, which a cell-based system can't deal with. WiMAX's strategic goal (3-5+ years) appears to be for one person to have many devices on one account - a phone, MP3 player, camera, GPS device, PSP/Gameboy, PS4/XBOX720, car, security camera, portable IP radio, etc. The cell-based networks are not designed to allow this flexibility. WiMAX (and other OFDM 4G) is a major paradigm shift built as a true IP network. Sticking with EVDO keeps you tied to a legend CDMA network originally designed for voice, not data.

If I understand correctly, you'll be able to manage/add/remove all of your devices via a web page. If you attempted this with CDMA, you'd be dealing with many ESN accounts and complications like home agents and stuff designed for voice.

WiMAX chipsets should cost a lot less than cell-based chipsets once there is critical mass. It can potentially be used in any consumer product, even refrigerators and home control systems. It just doesn't make sense that CDMA would be put into these products.

BTW, if carriers stuck with EVDO, they would go to RevC (UMB), not RevB. And that is just another flavor of OFDM, like WiMAX, a major upgrade as well and involves royalties to Qualcomm per device (which Sprint particularly wanted to avoid). WiMAX's advantage over other OFDM is that hundreds of players are already involved in many industry sectors, including consumer devices. That likely won't happen with LTE, RevC/UMB, etc, since they involve licensing and control by one entity.

If Sprint were doing this alone, I'd think it would fail (like ION). But there are too many heavy industry players involved, especially Intel. Sprint/Clearwire is just the infrastructure portion. All the other pieces in the pie have just as much momentum. RevC isn't even spec'd out yet and probably won't have this kind of broad industry involvement.

Headtalk · EVDO Newbie Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 1

Me think ... but I could be wrong.

1) Google/Sprint/Clearwire are getting in bed together for the 700-MHz spectrum sale in January 08.

2) 700-MHz WiMax will perform better than EVDO RevX in challenging terrain and 700-MHz WiMax penetrates walls nicely.

3) at&t and Verizon are trying to stop this sale to Google for the obvious reasons. (Open access for mobile Devices)

-G

xenophon · EVDO Addict Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 1969

Here are all the members of the WiMAX forum. It has huge participation.

http://www.wimaxforum.org/about/roster

What's interesting is that Vodafone recently joined, Verizon's primary stakeholder. AT&T is also on the board.

A few years ago I didn't think WiMAX had a chance as it would take too many stars to align. Well it happened.

evdoman · EVDO User Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 61

"There's a much broader vision for networked device ubiquity, which a cell-based system can't deal with...The cell-based networks are not designed to allow this flexibility....Sticking with EVDO keeps you tied to a legend CDMA network originally designed for voice, not data."

Designed for it or not, are you sure that one EvDO-based data account couldnt be used for mutiple devices? Even if it meant different sub-IDs being tied together for billing, I dont see why one user/account couldnt access data on various devices. Sounds like you are saying it would be simpler via WiMax, but it doesnt sound like it would be impossible for EvDO. Also, I would question how important this truly is... I wouldn't mind having multiple accounts that add up to be cheaper than a single account, if that is how it played out.

"If I understand correctly, you'll be able to manage/add/remove all of your devices via a web page. If you attempted this with CDMA, you'd be dealing with many ESN accounts and complications like home agents and stuff designed for voice."

Again, this sounds like a logical benefit of WiMax, but not something that is a killer advantage that CDMA couldnt overcome with some simple account management options. Whatever advantage it does represent doesnt sound like it would be enough of one to justify significant additonal infrastructure expense, passed onto the end user.

"WiMAX chipsets should cost a lot less than cell-based chipsets once there is critical mass. It can potentially be used in any consumer product, even refrigerators and home control systems. It just doesn't make sense that CDMA would be put into these products."

If true, this indeed sounds like a notable advantage. Are you sure, however, that CDMA chips couldnt come down to a comparable level as they continue to explode in popularity? Also, since WiMax doesnt penetrate walls well (at least as I understand) and doesnt work well with mobile hops, wouldnt a "hand-off" be needed anyway for tower data to wind up interfacing with appliance data? If so, then EvDO doing the same (handing off to a different spectrum once indoors, to communicate with appliances) shouldnt be any more of a downside, right?

"BTW, if carriers stuck with EVDO, they would go to RevC (UMB), not RevB. And that is just another flavor of OFDM, like WiMAX, a major upgrade as well and involves royalties to Qualcomm per device (which Sprint particularly wanted to avoid)."

Are you saying it wouldnt be possible/logical for them to upgrade to EvDO Rev B and not bother with WiMax NOR UMB (EvDo Rev C) until a much later date when the incredible bandwidth is truly needed and it is more feasible to upgrade the infrastructure? In other words, Im wondering why they wouldnt just move to Rev B soon (since it is relatively cheap and quick), knowing that the speed and indoor penetration and applicable use is more than enough for the vast majority of the population, and just focus on upgrading backhauls. In metro areas where the backhaul upgrade will be most needed (most bandwidth used because of population density), running fiber to the towers should be pretty easy. In remote areas where it is more difficult to upgrade the backhaul, not as much bandwidth is needed anyway, so the problem is self-adjusting.

"WiMAX's advantage over other OFDM is that hundreds of players are already involved in many industry sectors, including consumer devices. That likely won't happen with LTE, RevC/UMB, etc, since they involve licensing and control by one entity."

Qualcomm has the licensing power, but they have the ability to flex what they demand in royalties if it means ensuring wider deployment. Also, dont lots of other players outside the chip department have extremely vested stakes in the already ubiquitous EvDO networks?

"If Sprint were doing this alone, I'd think it would fail (like ION). But there are too many heavy industry players involved, especially Intel. Sprint/Clearwire is just the infrastructure portion. All the other pieces in the pie have just as much momentum. RevC isn't even spec'd out yet and probably won't have this kind of broad industry involvement."

Does having lots of players interested now, pre-deployment, ensure they will stay on board? I dont think there is much barrier t bandwagon-hopping from WiMax to EvDO Rev B (or C), is there, before significant money has been burned? (Sprint has, I dont think the others have yet.)

Not really arguing with ya... just trying to learn and play devil's advocate because while some of what you said makes sense and seems to favor WiMax, it isnt enough to convince me that going to EvDO Rev B (or C) wouldnt be the better solution (and more profitable for the carriers).

Other guy said:

"700-MHz WiMax will perform better than EVDO RevX in challenging terrain and 700-MHz WiMax penetrates walls nicely."

Is this a fact? I thought I read that WiMax relies much more on line-of-sight with the tower than EvDO/CDMA and that the latter is superior at indoor penetration?

xenophon · EVDO Addict Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 1969

evdoman, I don't have enough technical understanding to answer your questions but would point out that while other 4G could have potentional momentum, WiMAX already has real industry momentum, already more participating than Rev0/A. Now they need to deliver WiMAX as spec'd.

This is a really good article out today that addresses some of our discussion...

http://www.wimax.com/commentary/spotlight/zoom-on-xohm-2013-an-update-from-the-sprint-technology-summit

Note that it says Sprint wants to sell the service, not devices. This is a big shift from the clunky ESN method of CDMA-based device management.

JGZinv · Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: reply

Engadget has posted a new article on Sprint's activities in the WiMax
realm, evidently it will be a continuing story so check back for more.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/28/switched-on-the-wimax-window-part-1/

evdoman · EVDO User Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 61

After reading those two articles, Im even less convinced than before that WiMax can succeed, for two reasons:

1) The one article noted claimed speeds of 2-4MB for Xohm... this is slower than I had presumed and puts it in the ballpark of EvDO Rev B in the sense that it wouldnt have a huge edge in speed.

2) While it talks about the unified access for multiple devices previously discussed, I have yet to see any reason that one CDMA/EvDO account cant be billed for multiple devices - even if sub-accounts are used.

3) While all of the "on board" partners are repeatedly mentioned, EvDO has plent of partners "on board" already and the tone of many of the WiMax articles smacks of idealism and theory. I've seen such wishful thinking, even where many partners were "on board" with the dream, fail before.

The bottom line is not that WiMax doesnt hold promise, but that I still cant see any real reason why it would be *better than* EvDO Rev B. Backhauling is needed in both cases, speeds would be similar, but the infrastructure for WiMax/Xohm would be much more costly and the technology itself would have downsides as applied to the end user.