In August, Sprint executives told analysts at a company "summit" that they plan to start service in 2008 and expect to generate as much as $5 billion annually in WiMax-related revenue by 2011.
Paul Jacobs, chief executive of Qualcomm and an engineer by training, said in an interview last week that WiMax needs significant upgrades to become a "world-class technology." Qualcomm offers a competing mobile technology.
He argued that WiMax, originally a fixed-wireless technology, does not handle mobility or real-time streaming well and noted that it cannot transit regular phone calls. "There's so much hype and misinformation about its capabilities," he said.
Executives at Sprint, Intel and Motorola disagree. They have said the primary obstacles in the development of WiMax have been overcome. And the fact that it wasn't designed for voice is a big plus, they say.
"WiMax was built from the ground up for data speed and isn't encumbered by technology compromises for backward compatibility [and did not begin its] life as a voice network that had data grafted on," Sprint spokesman John Polivka said.
In choosing WiMax, Sprint passed over the technology Qualcomm believes is better suited for quickly delivering video and other services over mobile networks. Qualcomm has championed MediaFlo, which uses broadcast airwaves as a fast, reliable and cost-effective solution. Verizon already offers mobile-video service to customers over the MediaFlo network, and AT&T has also signed on.
What's more, Qualcomm has patented the wireless technology known as CDMA that Sprint, Verizon and other carriers already use to carry voice traffic and enable subscribers to access the Internet, albeit at relatively slow speeds. If WiMax proves to be a good alternative for future networks, Qualcomm could lose out.
That's' why Qualcomm is exploring WiMax's potential, too. And, just to be on the safe side, AT&T and Verizon Wireless also are looking at WiMax. They have not as yet been won over, though, and continue to experiment with less costly alternatives.
"They're both being very careful about spending billions of dollars on unproven technology," Rethemeier said.
Another monthly bill?
Perhaps a larger question is how much demand exists for superfast mobile Internet connections. Certainly business customers would show an interest, and some consumers might as well.
Yet most Americans already have high-speed access in their homes through a cable or phone company. And a growing number already pay for voice calling and data services such as email on their mobile devices. Do a large number also want to pay another monthly fee so they can watch movies or sports on their wireless phones?
0 comments:
Post a Comment