Newsletter
Google Left Banner
Does Open Access Doom WiMAX?
07 Dec, 2007
All of the recent news about open access may have some interesting competitive implications, and WiMAX may not be a benefactor. The success of open access initiatives is very dependent on the availability of “open” devices. In other words, the proliferation of "open" wireless devices will drive the success or failure of open access. If there are limited devices, there are few opportunities to connect to an open network. Many analysts think Verizon’s new openness centers around meeting the challenge of Google. The prevailing thought is if Google puts its influence and market power behind “openness”, well then Verizon better respond. But there is another way to look at this new found openness. Maybe Verizon’s moves have more to do with pre-empting WiMAX, than worrying about Google.
An early premise of WiMAX has been the openness it will bring. Sprint has been on record for some time about their intention to make the Xohm network open to all appropriate devices. Now Verizon says they will do the same for both their 3G and 4G networks. AT&T even recently got in the action, saying through the USA Today that they are officially open as well. T-Mobile announced long ago, their intention to be a part of the Google led open handset alliance movement. So here’s the rub. If everyone is all of the sudden open, and device availability drives the success of openness, where will the device manufactures put their focus? After all, there’s only so much silicon to go around. As a device manufacturer, I can focus my efforts on the 160 million plus subscriber universe of GSM/CDMA networks (U.S. market only in this example), or the potential of the unproven WiMAX marketplace. I think I’d place my bet with the former. So where does that leave WiMAX, Xohm, and Clearwire? Hard to say. Sprint appears to be shopping Xohm, and Clearwire had big hopes of partnering with Sprint/Xohm, which obviously didn’t happen. It’s certainly too early to declare WiMAX in serious trouble. It still has the backing of powerhouses like Intel, Motorola and Samsung. But time will tell whether WiMAX will be able to generate the device availability necessary to succeed over the long term. If I’m Clearwire or Sprint, I’m a little nervous.
Post new comment
About Telecompetitor
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?

digg this story
google

Doubt it
This might make sense, except Intel and others have committed to make tens of millions of WiMAX devices. I don't think their talk is cheap because they've invested hundreds of millions in Clearwire.