Lately, a new dimension has been added to the fight between WiMax and LTE, which is TD-LTE. Developed largely in China, TD-LTE has started to make inroads into other markets as well. Huawei recently launched TD-LTE network for China Mobilewhile Qualcomm has put in a bid for BWA spectrum in 2300 MHz in India and plans to roll out TD-LTE network. It is reported that TD-LTE networks may also come up in Indonesia. In the US there have been statements by Clearwire that they want to migrate from their current Wimax to TD-LTE deployment. Reports state Russian operator Svyazinvest has also picked TD-LTE for mobile broadband deployment. GSM association has also thrown its weight behind TD-LTE. All in all, TD-LTE has crept out of its Chinese comfort zone and been unexpectedly linked to some of the world’s most influential mobile markets. These developments are a major blow to the WiMAX camp, the technology normally associated with TD spectrum bands.

What is TD-LTE?

There are two versions of LTE. FDD-LTE uses the FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) paired spectrum with two separated channels, one for the uplink and one for the downlink, which is the type of spectrum most mobile operators have. TD-LTE uses TDD (Time Division Duplex) unpaired spectrum channels that combine uplink and downlink, and split resources on the basis of real-time demand. Voice is inherently symmetric in the uplink and downlink so it is well suited for FDD spectrum allocations. Data traffic benefits from TDD spectrum, as it is typically asymmetric but the degree of uplink/downlink asymmetry is not fixed. The development of TD-LTE was initially pushed by China Mobile and regarded as a mainly Chinese standard, similarly to TD-SCDMA.

TD-LTE provides backward compatibility with 2G and 3G networks and hence would work even outside the LTE coverage area.

Why sudden interest in TD-LTE?

All vendors are trying to increase the installations of the network in which they hold the maximum number of patents and not necessarily moving towards development of a standard platform with a clear migration plan. In a statement, Qualcomm made it clear that it intended to act only as a facilitator: If it wins the spectrum auction, Qualcomm plans to partner with an India-based operator to build a TD-LTE network and then exit the business. The bulk of Qualcomm’s sales come from technology licensing agreements. Qualcomm has a veritable monopoly on CDMA patents and is seeking to expand the market for its other intellectual property holdings as the global wireless market moves toward 4G technology. The CDMA evolutionary path is coming to end after EVDO and hence Qualcomm would not like to risk the revenues by allowing the operators to move to a technology (read WiMax) where it has fewer patents. NSN, Motorola, Sequans and other companies are also reported to be active in the TD-LTE space so that they do not miss the bus in China.

In many countries, there are upcoming spectrum auctions for 2.3 GHz and 2.5 GHz spectrum bands that is better suited for TDD. Operators so far found little interest in the TDD band and WiMax had positioned itself very well for the TDD band. Operators are in general opposed to the WiMax roll out as it encourages open ecosystem and moreover was an entirely different technology with no evolutionary path from either GSM or CDMA. WiMAX  is controlled by IEEE, the consumer electronics industry, which is far more open than telecom/3GGP. However, now operators see a clear synergy in rolling out TD-LTE networks if the TDD spectrum comes up for auction. In India, the operators may actually be bidding for BWA to roll-out TD-LTE rather than WiMax.

There is another belief that is gaining traction is the fact that TD-LTE provides a migration path for WiMax players. Bruce Brda, Motorola’s senior vice president and general manager of home and networks mobility, said in an interview with a leading technology magazine that

Carriers can choose to deploy LTE networks either in FDD (frequency division duplex) or TDD (time division duplex) versions. Since WiMax is a TD technology and shares more assets with the latter, TD-LTE presents a more efficient migration option for WiMax operators. Those with broad spectrum rights such as Clearwire in the US have the option of dividing up that spectrum between WiMax and TD-LTE so that they can enter the LTE market without cutting off their existing subscriber base. But a small carrier with limited spectrum will not be able to maintain both business lines, and will have to decide between the two platform.

On the handset side, there is a flurry of activity with HTC announcing TD-LTE handset pilot and RIM’s announcement on TD-LTE Blackberry for China Mobile. Efforts are on to produce a converged LTE device, capable of supporting both TDD and FDD versions of the next-generation technology.

TD-LTE seems to be a technology which is seeing the ecosystem building around it and has a potential to co-exist with FDD LTE. It would be interesting to see if it indeed leaves behind WiMax in terms of roll-outs.

Our attention focuses on recent and upcoming announcements that peg events for rapidly evolving next generation wireless competition.  From the view of the author, among the many events, the top two events that stand out most are:

• Sprint-Clearwire’s announcement of the HTC EVO Android 2.1, 4G WebPhone
• Qualcomm’s intent to bid on the India auction following April 9^th for BWA with TD-LTE

Sprint’s CEO, Dan Hesse, is expected to unveil the HTC Supersonic, officially announced as under the EVO 4G brand name, a leading-edge SmartPhone that will be the first market-leading phone to work on both 3G and Clearwire’s WiMAX network during his keynote address and in press briefings at CTIA.

The EVO 4G is a successor of the well reviewed HTC HD2 model. Specifications include:

• 4.3″ TFT, (~ 1/3 larger than the iPhone)
• 3G/4G WiFi hotspot extension capability
• 8 MP Primary Camera with Dual LED; Auto focus, Digital zoom
• 1.3 MP front-facing camera targeted at BB hogging social networking, web-casting of pictures and streaming video
• Kickstand for stationary use incl. HDTV viewing
• 3.5mm Head Jack
• Clearwire WiMAX, Sprint 3G data network coverage
• Stereo Bluetooth
• GPS, proximity and motion sensors
• Digital compass
• 1 GB ROM
• 512 RAM
• 1,500 mAh battery
• 1GHZ Snapdragon
• MicroUSB and MicroSD card clot
• Micro HDMI
• Qualcomm 1 GHz Snapdragon processor with EVDO
• Sequans WiMAX chip
• Social networking with most popular sites
• Android market access to over 30,000 applications

The EVO 4G represents that the WiMAX ecosystem and deployments have crossed a long anticipated threshold as a competitive full featured converged network.  Clearwire and Sprint will look for entry of this and other subscriber-growth driving Android and Microsoft Mobile 7 devices that will be introduced over the next year to ramp sales sharply.

While it can be argued that Clearwire’s primary strengths lie in wireless broadband, more as an adjunct to other networks rather than as a mobile hand-held device juggernaut, the onus on 4G providers will be to fulfill a pallet of market needs.  The device category that has become the most subscriber grabbing and, therefore, greatest threshold for capturing mind and market share is the leading edge of the SmartPhone and larger form-factor MID devices.  Sprint-Clearwire takes the BB strengths of the NG network to deliver more fully on the promise of 4G: full-tilt-boogey broadband anywhere.

Of necessity, Clearwire’s first priority has been to build out a substantial network footprint.  Regardless of the value proposition of the WiMAX/3G combination, leading edge devices require  large markets to sell into. As Clearwire has reached around 50 million POPs currently and expects to cover over 110 by early 2011, the draw for handset providers has crossed a threshold.

The remaining details of the EVO 4G  are almost unimportant: it follows previous HTC units which have improved over time to become challengers to the iPhone, Motorola DROID, which is similarly based on Android OS. Price and availability of the device and service plans are keys to success.  If married to similar Sprint’s aggressive always connected package strategy, the EVO 4G may carve out a revival for Sprint and a surge in subscriber growth for Clearwire.

No ‘Lines in the Sky’

On the other side of the world, Qualcomm entered the fray for the week of April 9th BWA auction in India. This throws a new wrinkle into the development of 4G and causes reflection on the ‘Clash of the Titans’ between mobile wireless and ITC worlds:

• One of WiMAX’ primary tenets has been that standards should develop based on the merits of underlying technology
• Furthermore, spectrum should be regulated and used as technology agnostic
• IEEE 802.16, 3GPP, and related standards groups have evolved efforts towards use of IP for multiple services from embedded machine to machine, MtM, to high-end mobile devices
• As Qualcomm lost their gambit to promote UMB as a worldwide standard for 4G, they became a strong advocate for LTE with their IPR licensing position ostensibly in long term jeopardy.

The Qualcomm bid could have a number of possible repercussions:

1. Delay of use of a portion of the spectrum.  However, the auctions are arranged so that no bidder can block development in a specific geography.
2. Prying away of some WiMAX deployments to LTE, particularly the TD-LTE version spearheaded by the Chinese.
3. An increased market potential for WiMAX/LTE multiple mode chipsets.

Each of these events portrays how much the industry has converged: WiMAX is crossing the threshold to become more mainstream, even while limited by spectrum access. LTE a close cousin in terms of technology is being positioned as both a BWA as well as next generation mobile network.

Sprint and Clearwire’s recent interviews further clarify that the company is, after all, a network operator rather than a religious technology advocate.   Sprint’s choice of the name “EVO 4G” is particularly well suited and telling: one flavor of technology or the other does not shackle The ‘nature’ of devices on IP networks.  In fact, the major reason for the disruptive shift to open applications development environments and open ‘all-IP’ WRAN, wireless radio access,  has been to allow greater degree of freedom from specific hardware network and device environments.  The introduction of the EVO 4G marks a capstone event for the coming together of broadband and wireless.

Spectrum is a scarce resource and hence the operators scramble to garner as much as they can. In the coming few years, unprecedented amount of spectrum will be freed up in the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial TV which is better known as the Digital Dividend. The spectrum is getting freed as digital TV is much more spectrum efficient than analogue TV.

The Digital Dividend spectrum is located between 200 MHz and 1GHz. This spectrum band offers an excellent balance between transmission capacity and distance coverage. GSMA claims that if just 25%, or around 100MHz, of the spectrum currently used by analogue TV (470 – 862 MHz) was re-allocated to mobile communications, the mobile industry could dramatically speed up the rollout of broadband communications and increase coverage. However, Analsys Mason, in its report to European Commission identified 5 potential areas for usage of digital spectrum

1. Digital Terrestrial TV
2. Broadcast Mobile TV
3. Commercial Wireless Broadband services, both to fixed location and mobile devices
4. Wireless Broadband services for public protection and disaster relief (PPDR)
5. Services ancillary to broadcasting and programme making (SAB/SAP)

In my opinion, the most appropriate use of freed spectrum would be to take the mobile broadband to the masses especially in the rural areas and far flung areas. There is a digital divide amongst developed and developing countries and w;ithin each country between the urban and rural areas. The excellent propagation capacity at low frequencies means fewer base stations are required leading to a cost effective network roll-out with wide and in-building coverage. It is estimated that mobile broadband in 2100 MHz band is 3 times more expensive than that in 700 MHz band (Refer the Capex chart below from GSMA).

Benefits of Mobile Broadband

There are several benefits of mobile broadband:

• Economic Development – there are reports that suggest that with every 10% increase in household broadband penetration, the GDP growth can go up by up to  1.4% (source: McKinsey). Bringing broadband penetration levels in emerging markets to today’s Western European levels could potentially add USD 300-420 billion in GDP and generate 10-14 million jobs.  Mobile broadband would help increase the broadband penetration faster as the mobile penetration is much higher than PC penetration.
• Mobile Broadband can be used for tele-medicine, education and general information to farmers, fishermen, etc. which would lead to prosperity in rural areas and among lower income groups. This is a direct result of productivity increase due to broadband usage.
• Development of human capital as internet can bridge the knowledge gap
• Mobile broadband is cheaper than fixed broadband as the last mile connectivity does not require laying of copper wires for mobile broadband. This means that not only the cost is less but also the deployment is faster.

There are many impediments to allocation of spectrum to mobile operators. Most of the countries are yet to make up their mind on the spectrum allocation, also the timelines vary across countries for switch over from analogue TV to digital TV. In Oct’07, the World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) discussed the issue of allocation of digital dividend spectrum and agreed to identify a chunk of UHF spectrum for mobile broadband services, and a chunk of spectrum in the higher frequency bands to create the capacity required for the next generation of advanced mobile services. The following UHF band identifications were made at WRC 07:

Despite the WRC recommendation, there are a few countries that are planning to adopt their own distinctive band plans for the UHF spectrum rather than coordinating their spectrum allocations with other countries. Given the multiplicity of spectrum bands across regions, there is a need for harmonization of spectrum bands to keep the cost low. The key reason for success of GSM has been the standardization of spectrum bands which kept the terminal costs down. However, in case of mobile broadband, there are multiple frequency bands and to enable roaming, the handset would need to work on all or most of the frequency bands. Frequency harmonization can drive down terminal costs by as much as 50% (Refer the GSMA white paper on ‘The advantages of common frequency bands for mobile handset production’ )

In my opinion, the regulators across the world should allocate the digital dividend spectrum to mobile broadband for bridging the digital divide without any further delay. There is a need to keep the service and terminals affordable that can only be achieved if consensus is attained on allocating the 650-862 MHz for LTE. Given the scarcity of spectrum, it is important for Governments to taken the decision of switchover from analogue to digital TV and the mobile broadband can be used as one of the channels for TV.

Mobile broadband is the name used to describe various types of wireless high-speed internet access through a portable modem, telephone or other device. Various network standards may be used, such as GPRS, 3G, WiMAX, LTE UMTS/HSPA, EV-DO and some portable satellite-based systems.

There are currently 184 million mobile broadband subscribers (end 2008). Each of the last two years saw over 80% growths in the subscriber base. Informa Telecoms and Media estimates the mobile broadband subscribers to cross 1 billion mark in 2011 and touch 2.2 billion by 2013. Juniper estimates that the revenues from mobile broadband subscribers in 2014 would exceed $70 billion.

Before I move further, I guess it is important to provide the explanation of the few mobile broadband technologies. The picture below is an illustration of the variation in internet speed across various technologies

Drivers of Mobile Internet usage

1. Mobility – People want true mobility and to be able to use their broadband everywhere gives a big reason for consumers to adopt mobile broadband
2. Flat Fee – Consumers want to have control on the expenditure and hence flat fee acts as a trigger for higher adoption. A number of reports have conclusively shown that the subscriber base increased at a much faster pace after the flat fee introduction by carriers
3. Devices -The portable devices like the netbooks, notebooks, Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs) have been the cornerstone of mobile broadband uptake ever since the USB modems become popular in 2007. The popularity of the modems can be gauged from the fact that at the end of Q3’2008, 15% of HSPA subscribers of Telstra in Australia are modem subscribers. The carriers are offering free netbooks or in some case a free notebook in return of 2 year mobile broadband contract. Launch of mobile devices like iPhone, Android based phones and increasing popularity of smart phones is adding to the mobile broadband subscriber boom
4. Simplicity – Mobile broadband is easy to use and consumers need not shift to fixed internet at home. They can continue to use mobile broadband even at home. This simplicity is a key driver for current adoption and would lead to churn in fixed internet in favor or mobile broadband

The popularity of mobile broadband is making the operators to invest in the HSPA+ rollout. Vodafone recently announced that it has managed to achieve speeds up to 15 MBPS on HSPA+ using 64QAM technology. Vodafone is now preparing for trials for up to 21 MBPS speed on HSPA+. The renewed focus on HSPA+ and the current economic conditions may push LTE roll-outs by a few years. Though the Nordic countries are once again taking the lead in LTE roll-out but I guess the other key European operators would delay their LTE plans.

The main barrier to the take up of mobile broadband is uniform consumer experience. There are economic considerations in network roll-outs leading to limitation on coverage the mobile phone networks can provide. At the same time, there are issues related to capacity and speed in a few areas that is not seen as uniform consumer experience.

The success of mobile broadband is more prominent in the western countries or Japan and Korea as they have small populations to cover. The real test would be countries like India and China which have vast land mass as well as huge population. Providing seamless coverage in these countries would be a challenge. Additionally, the consumers in developing countries are economically constrained and hence it would be a challenge to profitably provide mobile broadband services.

The unprecedented growth in mobile broadband subscription and usage of new portable devices in the last couple of years has lead to even higher growth in data traffic. The data revenues have not kept pace with the increase in traffic due to introduction of flat rates. The mobile broadband users on the portable devices are heavy users and use as many as 8-9 times more bandwidth than a normal user. This heavy usage is choking the 3G networks of most of the operators. Moreover, the highly competitive carrier landscape is leading to severe price erosion. Optus in Australia was recently forced to upgrade backhaul to its base stations to reduce congestion on its networks. Informa estimates that the mobile internet traffic would increase by 1587% in next 5 years but the mobile data revenues would increase by just 84%. This means the carriers would need to substantially reduce the bandwidth cost per megabit or create hindrances to the fixed to mobile substitution. In the meantime, the carriers have started to impose fair usage limits on their customers.

Another barrier in mobile broadband adoption, like any other service, is regulatory policies. The spectrum availability remains a key concern in many countries. The greed of the Governments had raised the 3G auction price in European countries in the past and the same is likely to continue in future auctions. Certain actions by the regulatory authorities are leading to not only higher prices but also hindrances in adoption of VOIP which could be a big driver of mobile broadband. There is excessive lobbying by certain industry players with the Government trying to block the ecosystem players from offering VOIP without realizing that the technology evolution cannot be stopped and what is good for the consumers is good for the industry. The regulatory authorities would do well by expediting the resolution of long pending decisions on spectrum and VOIP

Lack of killer applications especially for mobiles is one of the reasons for lack of consumer interest in mobile broadband. For many consumers, voice is the only killer application on mobile and they do not see any need to expand the horizon of services they use on mobile. A few killer applications with a critical mass gathering around them would make consumers adopt mobile broadband. Email was the killer application on fixed internet, probably location based services could be the killer application for mobile broadband. Adoption of an open mobile ecosystem (Read earlier post on “Wireless Business Models”) would go a long way in addressing the current challenges being faced by the developer community.

Current credit crunch is also likely to stall the network roll-out efforts of carriers. The sources of money have dried out and the cash is king. In such an environment, there are additional pressures on profitability and capital expenditure. The HSPA+ and LTE roll-outs may get hampered by limited availability of money for investment.

The projections made by Informa may look very bullish at the moment but if the industry is able to resolve the issues around mobile broadband, I am sure that we will exceed the projections. The key would be how much the carriers feel threatened by the mobile broadband as there is a strong feeling in the carrier community that there is a real possibility of their marginalization as it happened to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the fixed internet world.

Society is the term to describe human beings together collectively, the sum of their social networks and power networks. According to sociologist Richard Jenkins, how humans think and exchange information makes up only a fraction of human experience. To understand the world, we have to conceive of human interaction in the abstract i.e the society. While this definition may be uninteresting to non-sociologists, let’s hold onto the point of human interaction. I am of the school of thought that believes that a society can only function if its individual members are able to communicate, participate, collaborate and interact without walls. Human interaction is arguably the most essential part of society. The concept of a free market in economics lends itself nicely to this and you don’t have to look very far to realise that social networking websites today are founded on this fundamental characteristic of human nature. The trite clichés of globalisation are not hard to come across in the media and it would not be new to say the internet has caused an accelerated proliferation of globalisation and the formation of unconventional societies.

Social networking sites have kept virtual communities intact while creating new ones in a simple and unobtrusive way – at no cost to the user. Located in different parts of the world, families and people of different race, class, belief, strata and whatever box you choose to put them in, are able to maintain functional societies and relationships over the internet with no limitations other than bandwidth and regulatory threats on net-neutrality. Geopolitical, socio-economic, cultural and generational boundaries are blown to smithereens by the undiscriminating reach of the internet. The Facebook Causes application has more than 30 million active users who are leveraging the power of social networks to raise money for charity. The Save Darfur Coalition’s mission is to raise public awareness about the ongoing genocide in Darfur and to mobilize a unified response to the atrocities that threaten the lives of two million people in the Darfur region. An alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations, the coalition’s member organizations represent 130 million people of all ages, races, religions and political affiliations united together to help the people of Darfur. The potential of social networking can be harnessed to achieve several meaningful causes which people will gladly engage in. Conversely, uprisings can be organized in a short space of time using these Web 2.0 collaborative technologies. Twitter and YouTube played major roles in helping organize political protests in Iran’s recent election. According to a report by deloitte, Web 2.0 is more a shift in culture – one that views the Internet as a platform for deploying services and not just a simple place to post web pages. The first generation to have grown with the internet are now entering the workforce. They bring with them the new concepts and approaches to social interaction, discovery and information sharing. They harness the power of the internet to realize faster, easier, richer forms of collaboration, building vast networks of contacts and knowledge of countless information sources.

 Consumers and businesses do not have to reinvent the wheel but easily use any of these applications to interact and collaborate at virtually no cost: 

Provision of an environment that is conducive for societies to bloom, is in many ways reliant on government policies. The way societies interact has changed in the internet age and governments have been slow to follow suit. If regulatory bodies are slow to see the importance of these new technologies and fail to buy into them whole heartedly, they will pass legislation that may kill innovation. Unfortunately, failed IT projects, inefficient parastatals and overweight systems are synonymous with many a conventional government. However I was pleasantly surprised at the recent Gov. 2.0 summit which showed an awakening in government circles on principles of participation, collaboration, transparency, and efficiency enabled by Web 2.0. There is another upcoming conference in Australia. Did I hear you say ‘it’s about time!’? It certainly is! Governments can indeed leverage the power of social networking, wikis and blogs to change how they engage with populations who are rapidly disengaging. An ideal example of the benefits of collaboration was highlighted in James Surowiecki’s book – The Wisdom of Crowds.

In the 2003 Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a global effort to uncover the source of SARS. The WHO asked 11 research laboratories around the world together to locate the virus. To facilitate the process, the WHO launched a web site where it posted electron microscope images of viruses, analyses and test results. This innovative “collaborative multi-centre research project” was overwhelmingly successful, allowing scientists to pinpoint the source of SARS within a month. Yet, no single country could lay claim to making this life-saving discovery. Success came from an intensive, global collaborative effort that set the tone for future complex global challenges of this type.

The time to redefine policies, share information, deliver Services and ‘modernize’ governments around the world is definitely here.

President Barack Obama was definitely on the money with the statement on CONNECTING AND EMPOWERING ALL AMERICANS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION – “We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberation and decision making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.”

It cannot be over emphasized that governments can boldly do a lot more with existing Web 2.0 technologies which now have an extended reach and great capability. There are a few government agencies using social media and web 2.0.  Some examples of leaders who have ‘led from the front’ and taken advantage of Web 2.0 technology to promote their campaigns are:

Obama’s campaign showed how the power of the web could be harnessed to mobilize an army of supporters, raise funds from the grassroots and ultimately win an election. He is for me the not just the first black president but the first 2.0 president.  His team was able to open up the campaign giving average Americans a chance to offer opinions and information on important policy issues and Americans have responded: over 15,000 policy ideas have been submitted through the barrackobama.com. Through Obama’s leadership, many of the presidential debates are freely available online for mashups, commentary, and other uses by ordinary citizens, bloggers, and others

Gordon Brown – In addition to the blog created for number10 to keep citizens up to date on the no.10′s antics, a youtube channel was created where people can upload video questions about the issues that matter to them. Gordon Brown’s response is also recorded and uploaded for people to watch. http://www.youtube.com/user/DowningSt

Nicolas Sarkozy – President Nicolas Sarkozy’s website, sarkozy.fr, is another prime example of the application of user-friendly web-interactivity in a political campaign. Sarkozy’s campaign website, an über-personable Web 2.0 extravaganza, answers (and in fact, predates) Obama’s slogan “Change We Can Believe In” with the slogan “Ensemble Tout Devient Possible” (”Together Everything Becomes Possible”) (source authenticity 2.0)

These campaign examples only scratch the surface of what can be achieved. During huricane Katrina, the inability of government agencies to share information properly and collaborate effectively to provide a swift response was to be their downfall in the way the disaster was handled.  Besides disaster recovery, the table below shows some other uses of Web 2.0 technology applications. 

So as not to lag behind the general population, government agencies must not be overwhelmed by the somewhat daunting change to web 2.0 technologies. The benefits far outweigh the hurdles that plague government decisions. A 2.0 Society with full collaboration between the public sector, businesses, citizens and all stakeholders, regardless of location, social status or age is one worth looking forward to.

Age of the internet at the time of writing this article : 26 years, 8 months, 1 week, 4 days, 14 hours, and 49 minutes

The primary difference between LTE and WiMAX are the differences in upbringing: like close cousins, there are deep blood ties between the two standards, (similar frameworks of technology), but the ‘families’ that have raised them are different: different goals and different means.  But as each group has now prepared their standards to fulfill proposal requirements mandated by ITU, International Telecommunications Union, IMT-Advanced, the two standards are seeking jobs at the same huge ‘factory’ – the factory of open IP unified communications.

Both WiMAX and LTE have evolved to become ‘evolutionary frameworks’ that are based on the same core wireless and network technologies. Many of the differences can be viewed as specializations upon that core theme:

WiMAX has its roots in the wireless broadband access industry which had used a hodge-podge of non-standard technologies. For that matter, WLAN, wireless local area networking, had been a mix of mostly proprietary approaches until the success of of the IEEE 802.11b/a standard. The IEEE 802.16 effort had been underway and produced its first version of the standard, but until the powerful semiconductors become available at low cost to enable WiFi based on 802.11 to explode in popularity, the 1st version gained little adoption, even among the developing companies.

Success in WiFi helped speed the development of chip designs and clarified what was possible to develop in WWAN, wireless wide area networks. Not alone, Flarion/Qualcomm, and companies providing mobile systems also had considered the day when it would become feasible to use MIMO-OFDM and other advanced technologies. But the 3GPP/3GPP2 efforts also considered other technologies including layering of OFDM on top of WCDMA (wonder why? ; ^).

So, when the discussion is about ‘What is WiMAX (or LTE)’ the answer should also include a statement that “these are two systems developing along the same lines but optimized to work somewhat differently. WiMAX is primarily aimed at Greenfield (new) fixed to mobile deployments while LTE is mostly aimed at incumbent (existing) deployments that must work with existing networks and business practices”.

But you can quickly see even that is a simplification that does not completely fit the current state of development: Sprint now sells dongles with mobile devices soon to appear that will support both Clearwire’s WiMAX and Sprint’s 3G EVDO. And they are working on doing seamless hand-offs of voice and other communications. That will soon mean users of Google Android or other phones and mobile devices will be able to start a VoIP call on the WiMAX network and keep on talking as they travel to a Sprint or collaborating 3G network. Chips are in the works to also allow that to happen across WiMAX and HSPA/GSM.

Likewise, some LTE developers say it will be used for fixed networks as well as for mobile networks.

The next versions of both, 802.16m WiMAXm and LTE-Advanced, are being designed to meet the same guidelines for IMT-Advanced which calls for an adaptive framework that can be used from local area fixed networks to large scale mobile networks and to use multiple carriers across multiple bands of spectrum. No sense getting into the details but it is important to view both WiMAX and LTE headed to become the ‘Swiss Army knives’ of wireless. Should they merge? They are already on the path of converging at many levels and will eventually be practically merged.

If you liked this article, you may consider subscribing to Telecom Circle to get all the articles in your mail box

There are 124 countries where 3G (Third Generation mobile services, WCDMA and EVDO) has been launched but very few countries outside Europe and US have decent 3G coverage. Many emerging markets are yet to roll-out services and even the big emerging economies like India and China are largely out of 3G ambit. In India, the 3G services have been launched only by state owned operators who have just 13,000 subscribers between them whereas China has just started the journey and are still in dilemma about their home grown technology (TD-SCDMA) and WCDMA. When I started to write this post, I had planned to argue that it would be beneficial for the emerging markets to leapfrog technology and skip 3G roll-outs in favor of LTE (Long Term Evolution) which is a 4G technology (well.. almost!!! It is actually 3.9G as it just falls short of the speed requirements for 4G). However, during the course of research for this post, I realized that it actually makes more sense to launch 3G rather than talking about LTE. I am comparing 3G with LTE and not with other 4G technology like WiMax as I do not believe that WiMax will ever be a viable 4G technology. The figure below details the technology evolution path.

LTE provides operators with several significant benefits like increased peak data rates, increased cell performance, reduced latency, ability to be deployed in scalable bandwidths, coexistence with GSM/EDGE/UMTS-HSPA systems and reduced CAPEX/OPEX. The capex and opex are lower on account of lower number of cell sites required for LTE. The cost of IP backhaul in LTE does not increase in proportion to amount of bandwidth it offers and hence the unit cost of bandwidth is lower in case of LTE (Refer my earlier post on Open Mobile Ecosystem). Despite the above benefits, I feel that it is beneficial not to leapfrog technology and it makes sense to roll-out 3G before LTE. The key reasons for my position are:

Maturity of Technology: 3G has been around for almost 8-9 years now and is a proven technology. The standards are well developed and each of the equipment vendors has decent experience in the 3G roll-out. On the other hand, LTE is still a nascent technology and is expected to mature only by 2013/14. The first BTS was recently rolled-out and the trials are still on and hence I do not think that the emerging markets should take the lead in experimenting with a new technology.

Voice Standard: LTE is an all IP network and it is surprising that VOIP is not a part of LTE as standardized in 3GPP Release 8. Though LTE is backward compatible with WCDMA and CDMA, I am not sure if the technology is ready for voice. I hope that VOIP finds its way in Release 9 scheduled for December 2009.

Revenue Enhancement: Rolling out LTE could be a costly mistake for the operators with low ARPUs and low data usage. Post LTE, if operators in emerging markets are not able to increase the ARPU, we might see some of the operators winding up. The key question in front of the operators would also be how to protect their current voice revenues which is a significant portion of their revenues. As LTE network would be an IP based network and if a subscriber uses voice over IP in LTE, then how the treatment should be different from VOIP on PC or mobile internet.

Capex per Subscriber: The capex per subscriber for LTE is much higher than 3G at $275 per subscriber. The capex per subscriber for 3G is already sub $100 which means there is a huge gap between the two. In 3G rollout, the basic infrastructure is the same and it is just a software update for the core and addition of electronics on the BTS. However, n case of LTE, it is a complete new infrastructure rollout due to the difference in the technology resulting in a higher capex. Most of the emerging markets have vast rural hinterlands and 3G being an evolved technology is seeing a lot of initiatives to cut costs for rural roll-outs. Therefore from the cost perspective, 3G markets more sense. In one of my earlier posts, I had written about the limited viability of 3G in emerging markets and the case for LTE is even weaker.

Devices Availability: Access terminal availability across different price points is another issue which is critical especially in low handset ASP (Average Selling Price) markets. There are almost no handsets available for LTE. It is still not clear if the LTE handsets would work on 2G and 3G networks which means in absence of seamless coverage, the users would need to keep two handsets. I am sure soon there would be multimode LTE/2G/3G handsets but I am concerned about the price of such handsets. In absence of the volumes, it is unlikely that the prices of LTE handsets would come down anytime soon. In some of the markets where operators provide handset subsidy, the operators would need to swap the current handsets with LTE handsets that can result in high initial cash outflow.

Spectrum Issues: Many Governments across the world are yet to spell out their spectrum policy towards LTE. The standard spectrum band for LTE is converging at 2.6 GHz which means that the indoor coverage for LTE would be poor unless augmented by using Femtocells.

Also Read: The WiMAX vs. Cellular Debate … or Is It?

Does 3G have a Viable Business case for Emerging Markets?

Will WiMax Ever Become Mainstream?

The debate surrounding the new entrant into wide area wireless standard developments has tended to be constructed as being WiMAX versus Cellular technologies and market development.  That seems fair, but industry shaping debates should start with a clear understanding of the framing of the premise of the debate.  Judging from recent white papers, panel discussions, articles and interviews, WiMAX is being opposed as WiMAX being an anti-cellular effort rather than an alternative development that fits into cellular mobile and the broader context of fixed-mobile convergence.  While WiMAX appeals to alternative service providers because some spectrum is designated specifically for use by wireless broadband, and all IP systems will cause significant shifts in business models, it and the cellular 3.5-4G are heading on the same convergent change path that renders the dichotomy viewpoint a Swiss cheese argument:

• WiMAX and LTE are developing according to goals for evolution to the 4G multi-service wireless broadband platform that addresses both mobility and high bandwidth applications.
• While WiMAX has broadened to become more mobile and capable of being used for media services, 3G cellular has become increasingly broadband resulting in practical convergence between these fields of development. What’s more, both are driven to use the same core sets of technologies, authentication and handoff, network management, dissimilar network roaming that align goals for network operation and user experience.
• Multi-mode SoC and device designs are increasingly capable of delivering a user experience that disregards the differences between WiMAX and cellular.  If the user can make use of services that transit from WiMAX to cellular networks, the argument in favor of control of the huge market share currently held by cellular becomes mute.
• The argument that the huge investment in development of the cellular industry sets it apart from WiMAX also breaks down in light of the fact that many of cellular’s most prominent contributors are also contributing their technology, design, production and marketing capabilities to WiMAX. Operators may convert or cross-sell their cellular customers to WiMAX to gain additional revenues.
• Mainstream regulatory organizations, including ITU, are setting the requirements for next generation wireless systems to which both WiMAX and 3GPP/3GPP2 aspire.
• Next generation wireless will be based on OFMDA which causes a similar discontinuity of air interfaces from 3G for LTE and WiMAX. 

While practical differences in technical implementations, market momentum, regulation of spectrum, and corporate support between WiMAX and LTE remain, the gap continues to shrink such that it looks increasingly like the gap between one generation of mainstream cellular system and the next.  As with every cellular system, operator decisions regarding adoption of WiMAX depend on detailed business case analysis that takes into account all known factors for successful deployment and business development.  This includes how established business will be affected as more open broadband access is adopted.

 It can be easily argued that the wireless industry is at the threshold of fundamental changes caused by a plunge into open IP environments that run on top of the wireless networks.  Regardless of whether the network has a WiMAX or LTE label pasted on it the change threatens captive service models if the transition is not pursued deliberately.  The adversarial position being fostered on WiMAX is more to do with WiMAX forcing the inevitable, not the end result.  And the reasons for success will have more to do with how effectively business opportunities are developed and how immediate they force new service delivery paradigms.  Having good WiMAX chips, systems and software is essential but to building useful networks, but from the operator’s perspective this is similar to how PC and networking hardware is essential to creation of the networked paradigm of computing: an enabler of new applications and business operations.  The competitive details of how this disruptive change comes about are basis for arguments, some with major impacts on business decisions and results.  But the posturing of the overall debate as being WiMAX versus cellular as if they aren’t both headed toward the same end game is increasingly being seen as ridiculous.

We contend that WiMAX is another variant of cellular which faces the same hurdles for adoption as a major new system development, such as LTE, that is cast within the traditional cellular standards development groups. While the approach of WiMAX and 3GPP/3GPP2 started out from a different set of objectives, fixed-nomadic data versus mobile voice, the technologies and market demand has evolved over the past seven years to become very similar.

What’s more, the evolutionary path directs both fields of development toward the same basic goals and sets of technologies, making arguments that these are distinct impractical:

• WiMAX 802.16e-2005 looks very likely to be accepted as a member of IMT-2000 cellular.
• WiMAXm 802.16m/j will be proposed for IMT-Advanced
• LTE, the next generation of systems from the 3G camp, will similarly use OFDMA and be proposed for IMT-Advanced.
• Major goals for IMT-Advanced include an evolutionary framework upon which multiple classes of services and scale of operation can be developed.  The goals of ITU for 4G look very similar to what WiMAX has become over the past three years as major telecommunications companies and operators have influenced development.

Incumbent Suppliers Argue the Differences

Ericsson, the world’s largest supplier of cellular infrastructure, has renounced the importance of WiMAX. Earlier this year, Ericsson announced that they were pulling the plug on development of WiMAX and would devote their B3G efforts to develop LTE.   Ericsson has resold WiMAX equipment from Airspan but has never committed significant effort to development of WiMAX internally.  Strategically, it has never made sense for them to push WiMAX, or any alternative, that may dilute their own market position.

Ericsson executive vice president Bert Nordberg contends in the June 18th issue of the Globes online magazine, “We have nothing against WiMAX, but I have to say that it has no business model. This at least is Ericsson’s conclusion about the matter. Therefore we’re not investing in this area at all. What is supposed to work on WiMAX already works on cellular 3G.”

Counterpoint: One thing that is unarguable is that the cellular industry has evolved and managed to survive adoption of new wireless interfaces that were not directly backward compatible.  This has been driven by the need to deliver better levels of voice and higher bandwidth data service.  Operators would prefer to see systems evolve on the same technology platform long enough to enjoy profits, but have been driven to adopt new cellular systems that provide a commercial advantage despite the need to commit large capital expenditure to displace or deploy next generation systems into new spectrum.  The business case for 3G deployment is clearly demonstrated, but as the need for bandwidth continues to grow, so the case for a shift to B3G (beyond 3G) systems based on OFDMA technology is progressively strengthened.

Bert Nordberg says, “They talk about WiMAX having 30 million customers in 2010,” says Nordberg. “But by that time, cellular broadband will have 500 million subscribers. These are completely different orders of size. If we have learned anything from the history of technology adoption in the telecommunications market, it is that standardization has huge power, and cellular is the standard.”

Two points:  1) The wireless industry has broadened and matured to be focused on multiple classes of service.  The vision for IMT-Advanced evolution to 4G is for highly scalable multi-service evolutionary platforms.  While the path of development is likely to be dominated in numbers by mobile applications, the trend is for more diverse and specialized services commanding higher profit margins that may prove more fundamental to overall business development.  The majority of future profits will likely come from extended data networks and services, not from basic voice or data connections. 2) Ethernet is the predominant standard for wired data communications and business more directly extends to the WiMAX.  Open use of Internet communications and applications is part of the converged landscape of fixed-mobile technology and market convergence.  It is myopic to consider cellular mobile market momentum as a sole defensible position, particularly since WiMAX can translate that via multi-mode to new IP service networks. Although wireless communications has been defined within various standards development groups and sets of companies that have technology and commercial agendas, WiMAX is a cellular technology, for the most part indistinct from established cellular by virtue of the increasingly overlapping road maps for development.  If a cellular operator adopts WiMAX which is multi-mode compatible with their existing cellular network, their customers hardly need to know.  WiMAX does also appeal to alternative service providers and various classes of service that are distinct from mainstream mobile cellular.   However, these can take advantage of cost dynamics achieved in mobile markets and roaming agreements to extend the user environment.  Standardization does have huge power in helping to drive costs and market adoption.  Convergence between IT/Networking, Internet, radio, music and TV media and new interactive PtP viral music and video as well as mobile and fixed communications drive multiple participants together to influence overall product and market development.  While mobile cellular dominates in terms of volume, it does not dominate in terms of applications, content or dollars and openness of development and user participation.  The WiMAX standard comes about at a time that opening up of many classes of service to the benefits of standardization is practical.

Several more arguments can be made for a shift to B3G platforms that take better advantage of evolving trends in smart antennas and granularly adopted smart wireless broadband networks.  The cellular wireless approach can be criticized in it’s entirety as being too constrained to pursue the coming generation of wireless development: without a major re-write that will make LTE more similar to WiMAX than 3G, incapable of being granularly organized and deployed into open IP use scenarios.  ITU’s goals for IMT-Advanced appear quite bold: A multi-service platform capable of providing per-user bandwidths of 1 Gbps fixed-nomadic and 100 Mbps mobile.  Asking Ericsson how they plan to achieve 4G performance in LTE or beyond has delivered a response that is very close to the path of development WiMAX is already well on the way to achieving.  That flips the debate about continuity of technology developments to place LTE as the follower rather than the leader of the dominant emerging mandates.  And the inevitable reorganization of wireless business models along lines of open rather than prescribed content and applications conspires to shift the debate to a matter of when not if new operator revenue models will emerge.

The gains in performance needed to deliver 4G will not come from advances in either CDMA or core OFDM interface technologies but from how networks are organized and deployed to make multiple use of available spectrum and source content and applications resources within the distributed network.  Delivering the performance gains has more to do with building of smart networks that incorporate wireless than wireless itself.  4G is a wireless broadband network with everything that implies.  OFDMA is the core link technology for WiMAX and LTE 4G, but the performance gains must be built upon through an evolution more to do with how networks.  The impact of the evolutionary shift to take advantage of the ‘spatial’ and architectural domain of wireless development will be to greatly increase bandwidth density while reducing costs. Suffice it to say that the shift is to a new evolutionary platform with all that this implies: An additional dimension of development that will deliver 3X-10X total network throughput improvement over cellular wireless.  What may be the factor that scares up protests to WiMAX the most is the recognition that it is rapidly evolving to deliver on a frontier of new developments that have just started to unfold.

Is the debate about WiMAX being a development that is outside the mainstream of cellular development or is it that the entire field of wireless is converging and that brings into play additional industry participants and markets?  Put directly, who owns wireless broadband?  Is it a select group of mobile companies or a broadened field of development that increasingly includes networking, IT and media interests?  We think the momentum is shifting to allow a new contender: Both WiMAX and LTE will battle in the ring for the 4G crown.

This may appear to add to problems of harmonization, but systems are increasingly harmonized at higher levels of functionality and converged via multimode at the user device level.  Spectrums are also increasingly harmonized through device integration.  An enlightening example of this trend is incorporation of Qualcomm Flo/MediaFlo into 3G devices in Europe and the United States: the dissimilar technologies are converged at the chip-set and device level with integration into higher levels.  The decision to use MediaFlo/Flo becomes the operator’s commercial decision, not so much a standards debate.  Likewise, we expect decisions regarding WiMAX to resolve on practical concerns and for discussions about what is or is not cellular to become meaningless.

3G

Martin Varsavsky, CEO FON (largest Wi-Fi network operator) once said “We are sorry for telecom operators who made the mistake of 3G but it’s not our fault”. Another top executive at one of the European operators had once remarked that “For operators, 3G is essentially a waste of money”. There is a lot of media hype in the emerging countries like India and China on 3G roll-out but the business case for 3G is still far from being viable. The expectations of high consumer adoption leading to increase in ARPU are yet to be realized.

In the emerging countries, either the 3G services are yet to be launched or the 3G subscribers are below 10% of the total subscriber base. Only South Africa and Malaysia have higher then 10% subscriber base with 3G subscribers at 10.7% and 18.3% respectively. It is not surprising that these are the only two countries that have high 3G base as the ARPU in both these countries is higher than that in rest of the emerging nations and data ARPU is also higher. I have a theory that either the total ARPU should be over $10 per month or the data ARPU should be over 15% of total ARPU for the 3G services to gain traction. Any country that does not fulfill any of the above two criteria will find it difficult to have a viable 3G proposition. The reason for taking these two as criteria is that if the ARPU is low, it would take a long time to breakeven and it is very difficult to increase the ARPU in any market unless there is a genuine appetite for value added services which is reflected in the greater than 15% data ARPU criteria. In the chart below (click the chart to enlarge), the countries that fall in the lower part of the graph are likely to be less successful in the 3G space while the countries in the blue area are more likely to be successful. China, Indonesia and Philippines are the other three countries apart from Malaysia and South Africa that are likely to succeed in making the 3G a viable proposition. Sri Lanka is a borderline case but given the low ARPU of this market, I am more inclined to say that it would find it extremely difficult to be successful.

The consumers in the emerging nations are highly price sensitive and hence it is not surprising that most of the tariff related innovations have come from such countries. The fall in 2G tariffs led to increase in penetration but the falling tariffs could not compensate by the increase in usage (MoU) leading to sharp fall in ARPUs. Given the income levels in emerging nations, the average amount spent on communication services as percentage of total income is very high and hence I do not see the ARPU levels going up even if the quality of service improves. The consumers are well aware that for the price they pay, they would need to compromise on the quality of services and hence so do mind if the services are not at the same levels as some of the more developed countries. Hence, the consumers are not going to shift to 3G unless there is a killer application that would make them sit up and take note. Unfortunately, there is no killer application on 3G. Most of the current applications like email, chat, social networking, internet radio, etc. work well on the current 2G and 2.5G networks. It is only the experience that is better on 3G due to higher data speeds but there is no 3G only application that has a mass appeal. People initially were gung-ho about the video telephony but now it appears that not too many consumers are enthusiastic about it.

Another common myth is that 3G is more efficient than 2G in terms of operating expenses (OPEX) and hence it would result in higher operating margins for the operators. I do not deny that 3G is much more efficient than 2G but at capacity. 3G has three times more capacity than 2G but since most of the networks across the world are on 2100 MHz, the number of sites required to provide coverage are 2.5 times more than that for 2G on 900 MHz. This means to provide coverage, 3G would be more expensive as it needs more sites but the requirement for capacity sites would be smaller due to higher capacity of 3G. Hence, only if the network utilization were to cross a particular threshold, 3G would be beneficial.

Any operator while launching 3G services would go through the following three phases:

1. Roll-out for Retention: This is the first stage of 3G network roll-out. In this phase, the carriers are not too sure about the 3G potential and would launch the 3G services in the areas where the high ARPU consumers reside or work. This is essentially a step to retain their high ARPU base and the cost involved in launching full scale 3G services is very high.
2. Roll-out for Capacity: As the 3G usage increases and more consumers start to adopt 3G services, the carriers need to increase capacity and the coverage area. The business case starts to look better but this phase is the most capital intensive one as well.
3. Rollout for Cost Efficiency: This is the stage in which the real benefits of 3G services start to appear. The focus of the operators in this phase is to have an optimum mix of 2G and 3G subscribers and looks to switchover to 3G completely as the capacity benefits of 3G come into play. This stage has so far been crossed only in Japan and Korea. In Japan, the carriers stopped offering 2G services around two years back to reduce OPEX and complexity in managing multiple networks.

It is a mistake to assume that 3G services are more cost efficient as the cost efficiency roll-out is the last stage and it can only happen when the first two stages have been crossed. The high population density in developing countries does not mean that the first two stages can be crossed quickly.

I have my doubts on the business case for 3G services in developing countries and unless it can provide a compelling reason for its adoption, the 3G services would continue to pull the EBIDTA down for the carriers.

Also Read: Mobile Broadband-Drivers and Inhibitors

Which technology has a better future – Wimax or 3G/LTE (Long Term Evolution)? Will the operators adopt WiMax as 4G solution? This has been a hotly debated subject on the internet/blogs and there are die-hard supporters of both the technologies. I would not like to comment on which is a better technology as this debate is very much like CDMA vs. GSM. Though the jury is yet to be out on which is the better technology of the two (CDMA or GSM) but the business issues like ecosystem development, open platforms, etc. have weighed in favor of GSM and this is evident from the world-wide market share of GSM. Similarly, proponents of WiMax may claim that WiMax is a better technology as compared to LTE or at least similar to LTE in terms of performance as both are OFDMA based. Agreed that LTE is completely a new installation over CDMA based 3G networks and the cost of new installation is similar for both WiMax and LTE. However, the fact of the matter is that the success of any technology is dependent on its ecosystem and the players who offer the technology.

WiMax is being supported by equipment manufacturers like Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco and chip manufacturer Intel. WiMax is being propped as an alternative to LTE for high speed data networks by these companies. However, it is unlikely that any major operator across the world would migrate from 2G/3G to WiMax. It is clear that the majority of the operators would opt for the 2G/3G/LTE route as the LTE standards for 4G are much more developed than that of WiMax. Even the spectrum band for WiMax has not standardized and is currently available in 3 spectrum bands in different parts of the world. Moreover, with larger number of installations of the GSM networks, there are many more options for consumers for inter-operator roaming. Role of the open and developed eco-system is cannot be ignored in the success of any standard. None of the current major mobile handset and equipment manufacturers barring Motorola are enthusiastic about WiMax. There is no debate in my mind to the fate of WiMax. I believe WiMax as a technology is here to stay but as a support to the LTE or in the area of fixed broadband. It would be complementary to the LTE. The WiMax deployment could happen in the profitable way for the following applications:

Back-haul: WiMax could be used by 3G operators as back haul from cellular base stations to the radio controller instead of copper wire line T1 connections/microwave links/satellite

Last Mile Connectivity: WiMax could be used for fixed broadband access in residential areas where last mile connectivity is not available. Intel is likely to launch dual chips supporting both WiFi and WiMax which would be embedded in all future laptops. This would be a big push for fixed WiMax. Moreover, there are rumors that Intel is contemplating chips for camera that would allow the users to upload the photos directly from the digital camera using WiMax. All this would push fixed WiMax but the mobile WiMax is still out of the picture. The top mobile device vendors have no/limited handset models with WiMax chip and the landscape is unlikely to change anytime soon

Rural: WiMax is likely to be successful in the rural areas in emerging markets due to the vast geographical coverage each WiMax site can provide thus lower the cost of deployment. Fixed WiMax has its reach up to 30 miles radius from the base station though longer distances may result in drop of bit rates. The broadband connectivity will be a boon for tele-medicine, e-Governance and distance education

Back-end Connectivity: WiMax would provide connectivity to Wi-Fi spots

Complementary to 3G: In a few countries like India were the spectrum is scarce, all the carriers may not get the 3G spectrum. In such instances, the not so fortunate carriers may opt for WiMax. Moreover, it is possible that carriers offer a combination of 3G/WiMax to lower the costs. Urban areas could be on 3G and rural areas on WiMax. If this situation develops in many countries, the handset with dual chip (3G+WiMax) would benefit

To summarize, the winner is likely to be LTE purely due to the business issues of developed standards and eco-sy

stem rather than on strength of technology. WiMax may never become the mainstream or predominant technology but it would have its own space as a technology complementary to 3G/LTE. It is likely that in future, WiMax may converge with the LTE-TDD standards as evident from the quote of Alcatel-Lucent’s CEO, Ben Verwaayen – “Alcatel-Lucent intends to lead the long-awaited convergence of WiMax and LTE-TDD standards in the coming years, as we believe the market cannot afford to support two competing 4G technologies”

3G spectrum auction in India has had many false starts in the last 3 years. The non-availability of spectrum for 3G (defence had to vacate the spectrum before it could be issued to operators) ensured that India remains the only large economy without 3G licenses. China issued the licenses last week after its own troubles with its proprietary technology.

Till a few days back, it was almost certain that the 3G auctions would take place in India in Jan’09. However, due to difference in opinion on the base price for auctions, between the Finance Ministry and DoT, it is unlikely that the auctions can be held before Feb’09. Any further delay would mean that the auction would be postponed indefinitely till the new Government is installed at the center as the moral code of conduct will come into play after the announcement of general elections.

I do not think anybody is going to shed tears on the postponement. The operators themselves are not interested in the auctions right now due to credit crunch and in this economic situation, they do not want another uncertainty. The low spectrum availability would have ensured that there would have been a few operators who would have been first among equals. The Government is also not sure of the money that they can rake in from the auctions. Apart from the top end users, there are very few consumers who have interest in 3G or even know about 3G. All in all, I would not be surprised if the auctions are indeed postponed till the later part of the year. By that time the entire debate on 3G vs 4G (LTE) would make a comeback.