WiMax, Net Neutrality And Basic Fact Checking

from the need-to-support-your-argument-a-little-better dept

With yesterday's announcement that Sprint was going to offer WiMax over their 2.5 GHz spectrum, it was only a matter of time until someone tied the topic to net neutrality. The Wall Street Journal clocks in as the first one -- though gets its basic facts wrong, destroying the core of its argument. The editorial starts off by claiming that this shows the idea that there's not enough competition is bogus. As we've noted repeatedly, it is that competition question that's the real issue. That's why we've always hoped that wireless technologies would come along and make the issue obsolete. The problem, though, is we've yet to be convinced that any wireless technology is really ready to be true broadband competition. Mesh WiFi so far has had a lot of problems scaling. Cellular 3G networks are cutting off any user who uses the system for real broadband uses and satellite broadband remains a joke in comparison to other broadband systems. WiMax (and other wireless broadband systems) have always held promise, but have always been too far away from any serious deployment. The Sprint announcement will hopefully speed this process up, but we've yet to see a single wireless technology that wasn't over-promised and under-delivered. In fact, equipment based on the WiMax standard that Sprint will be using still hasn't started to go through the certification process -- which takes quite a bit of time. In other words, expect this to be delivered late and with quite a few kinks to be worked out (and performance that doesn't come close to living up to the hype). So, yes, perhaps it will eventually add another competitor to the bunch, but it's far from certain that it's a real competitor who can make a difference. We hope it turns out to work wonderfully and keep the competition in line -- but it's a bit early to declare that so.

At the same time, the WSJ article has some serious other problems -- which weaken its argument. First, it declares: "WiMax, meanwhile, operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint doesn't have to shell out money in auctions to deploy the technology." This is basic fact checking that anyone who even looked at Sprint's announcement yesterday knows is 100% false. You'd expect much better from a paper like the WSJ. While WiMax can work in some types of unlicensed spectrum, it's fundamentally meant for licensed bands and Sprint paid handsomely for their spectrum. Hell, it was perhaps the biggest reason for Sprint to merge with Nextel: to get all that 2.5 GHz spectrum. In other words, contrary to the central point of the WSJ editorial, it really isn't that easy for just anyone to throw up a competing service. In the case of Sprint, it cost them billions to get the necessary spectrum, which will only cover a third of the population, and it's still going to cost them another $4 billion to build out the network -- making it quite unlikely that anyone else is going to challenge them on a national level. So, yes, hopefully Sprint's WiMax offering will represent another player in the space, but it's still a long way off from being around or proven, and it's hardly proof that just anyone can show up and compete in this market.

Finally, there's one other big problem with the WSJ piece. The telcos and their supporters all along have insisted that they simply won't invest in any new technology without a guarantee that they can profit from it. However, Sprint is investing billions to build up this network without any such guarantee -- suggesting that whole part of the telcos' argument only seems to apply in markets where (oh, look at that) there isn't any competition and they need extra incentives to innovate. So, let's see what happens. If this Sprint network really represents competition, it seems likely that the telcos suddenly would speed up their new rollouts in areas where WiMax is coming, without necessarily getting those same guarantees. Either that, or maybe they'll just try to buy Sprint, to keep it all in the family.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 10 Aug 2006 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Narrowly correct or incorrect, dependi

    You and I have exactly the same position on Net Neutrality, Mike, so if I'm a "telco supporter" then you must be one too. Welcome to the fold, give me your address so I can make sure you get your checks.

    No, we don't have the exact same position. We agree that the current legislation is bad, but that's about as far as we agree.

    The point is that the viability of WiMax as an alternative to wire for the last mile isn't a function of whether it's running on licensed or unlicensed spectrum, so the error you picked up in the WSJ article is of no consequence.

    Well, that's not quite true. First off, part of the WSJ's argument was that *because* it was in unlicensed spectrum, it would be somehow easier for more competitors to jump into the space. That's false.

    WiMax in unlicensed spectrum is possible (or, rather, will be at some point), but whether it can be a legitimate competitor is a wide open question for a variety of reasons that you most certainly know.

    Actually, if the WSJ had reported on WiMax's regulatory status correctly, they would have had a stronger case. The last mile is increasingly competitive, and lots of people are working really hard to make that continue to happen.

    Again, this is false. Please, please tell me how the last mile is getting more competitive? It may get there eventually, but it's not now. I have one choice for broadband -- and I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. My choices have SHRUNK over the last five years.

    there will be increased pressure from EVDO, WiMax, BPL, and Muni WiFi. And if that's not enough, we'll have 802.21 handoffs among all the players.

    Oh come on. You know that EVDO, BPL and MuniWiFi simply can't handle the usage necessary to actually compete with DSL or cable. EVDO providers cut people off if they actually use the network. BPL is a big joke other than a few small scale tests. MuniWiFi has yet to prove that it can work on any widespread scale.

    Yes, it would be great if these technologies represented real competition for the last mile, but they're not there yet. I'm hopeful we'll get there, but to assume that they're here now or will be in the near future is wishful thinking.

    It amuses me that you think DSL without tiers can't handle bittorrent traffic, but you're throwing up EVDO and muniWiFi as perfectly fine technologies.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.