Document Actions
Other Broadband Technologies
EvDo (Evolution Data
only)
This is not a mass market technology. It is merely a means of delivering some semblance of broadband (a few hundred Kbps) to a road warrior's laptop. It is not intended as a triple or quadruple play technology. Expect to see roll out in urban business districts and airports, but not to residential areas. A few factors that limit its appeal: expensive infrastructure, (base stations in the hundreds of thousands of dollars) limited market (road warriors or other white collar business users) and limited to licensed spectrum held by cell phone providers (expensive and ergo, must show a rapid return on investment thus limiting it to dense urban business districts).
DSL
DSL has a number of show stoppers: a) it is inextricably tied to the incumbent telephone service providers copper wire infrastructure making it vulnerable to the whims of the in-cumbent's executives and regulatory decision makers and b) it is a fixed wire line solu-tion i.e. no mobility possible, c) a single DSLAM costs tens of thousands of dollars giving it a high cost per subscriber.
Cable Modem
Only cable TV operators can use this technology. In order for this to be a means of access the coaxial cable networks must be bi-directional. Not every operator has made that up-grade or has the financial means to upgrade their network (or at least a portion of it) to bi-directional service capable of supporting cable modem service. So, the chief limitations of cable modem as an access service are: 1) requires the network to be bi-directional and 2) it's a fixed, wire line technology that offers no mobility.
FTTH (Fiber to the Home)
The show stopper with FTTH is its $2,000/home or office served price tag. In addition to trenching and laying the fiber to the subscribers home, massive rights of way issues have to be over come in order to even begin the trenching and laying of fiber. Also, it offers no mobility options.
BPL (Broadband over Power line)
The chief argument against BPL is that, in order to install service in conjunction with ex-isting power company service, an electric company technician must make a physical cir-cumvention of the power line at each residence or business where service is to be installed. Read: big truck roll expense. A second argument is that copper power line, like copper telephone line, offers a good deal of resistance leading to the need for numerous repeaters and a limited number of prospective subscribers per home passed. Finally, it offers no mobility. Truthfully, a power company would be better off in terms of cost per subscriber and return on investment to deploy WiMAX utilizing their existing rights of way and access to power poles for attaching radios and antennas than attempting to roll out service to existing subscribers using BPL.
Competing Technologies Summary
The previous paragraphs detail the disadvantages of the technologies competing with WiMAX. These technologies were initially envisioned as various means of upgrading an incumbent service providers legacy network and not as quadruple play, greenfields deployment strategies. Because WiMAX offers a low cost per subscriber and a rapid return on investment, WiMAX will enable a new market entrant to reach profitability quickly, especially in under served markets where incumbents cannot afford to roll out economical (as compared to a telephone company's data T1 service) broadband solutions.
This is not a mass market technology. It is merely a means of delivering some semblance of broadband (a few hundred Kbps) to a road warrior's laptop. It is not intended as a triple or quadruple play technology. Expect to see roll out in urban business districts and airports, but not to residential areas. A few factors that limit its appeal: expensive infrastructure, (base stations in the hundreds of thousands of dollars) limited market (road warriors or other white collar business users) and limited to licensed spectrum held by cell phone providers (expensive and ergo, must show a rapid return on investment thus limiting it to dense urban business districts).
DSL
DSL has a number of show stoppers: a) it is inextricably tied to the incumbent telephone service providers copper wire infrastructure making it vulnerable to the whims of the in-cumbent's executives and regulatory decision makers and b) it is a fixed wire line solu-tion i.e. no mobility possible, c) a single DSLAM costs tens of thousands of dollars giving it a high cost per subscriber.
Cable Modem
Only cable TV operators can use this technology. In order for this to be a means of access the coaxial cable networks must be bi-directional. Not every operator has made that up-grade or has the financial means to upgrade their network (or at least a portion of it) to bi-directional service capable of supporting cable modem service. So, the chief limitations of cable modem as an access service are: 1) requires the network to be bi-directional and 2) it's a fixed, wire line technology that offers no mobility.
FTTH (Fiber to the Home)
The show stopper with FTTH is its $2,000/home or office served price tag. In addition to trenching and laying the fiber to the subscribers home, massive rights of way issues have to be over come in order to even begin the trenching and laying of fiber. Also, it offers no mobility options.
BPL (Broadband over Power line)
The chief argument against BPL is that, in order to install service in conjunction with ex-isting power company service, an electric company technician must make a physical cir-cumvention of the power line at each residence or business where service is to be installed. Read: big truck roll expense. A second argument is that copper power line, like copper telephone line, offers a good deal of resistance leading to the need for numerous repeaters and a limited number of prospective subscribers per home passed. Finally, it offers no mobility. Truthfully, a power company would be better off in terms of cost per subscriber and return on investment to deploy WiMAX utilizing their existing rights of way and access to power poles for attaching radios and antennas than attempting to roll out service to existing subscribers using BPL.
Competing Technologies Summary
The previous paragraphs detail the disadvantages of the technologies competing with WiMAX. These technologies were initially envisioned as various means of upgrading an incumbent service providers legacy network and not as quadruple play, greenfields deployment strategies. Because WiMAX offers a low cost per subscriber and a rapid return on investment, WiMAX will enable a new market entrant to reach profitability quickly, especially in under served markets where incumbents cannot afford to roll out economical (as compared to a telephone company's data T1 service) broadband solutions.
