Sidecut Reports

Without having seen any full report, it’s perhaps not fair to take a shot at the analysts at Frost & Sullivan for having what looks like some weak takes on the WiMax market. But there are certainly some questions folks should be asking about the press release put out Wednesday by F&S that all but predicts Mobile WiMax’s death before the technology’s even out of the cradle.

Since we have just completed a rather thorough look at the U.S. WiMax market ourselves, we are wondering why the F&S press release got such wide play across the techno-newsosphere without too much questioning along the way. (At least our good pal Loring Wirbel over at EE Times did find some time to wonder if there was another viewpoint on the matter, and kudos to dailywireless.org for poking some holes.) Actually, we’re not wondering why the release got so much play, and we’ll explain why later. But first some questions for Frost & Sullivan “Programme Manager” Luke Thomas, who is quoted at length in the release as being the guy ready to stick a knife in WiMax:

1. Why do you think it makes sense to compare WiMax to Wi-Fi as an operator choice for metro networks? When you say that “In terms of indoor wireless broadband, Wi-Fi fits well in this space and with the emergence of 802.11n, which includes MIMO, throughputs would be far better than what Mobile WiMAX can deliver,” are you proposing that service providers will install wireless access points in buildings all across metro areas, providing for broadband backhaul to each spot, and then guarantee service in the unlicensed bands that Wi-Fi operates in? And that this is a better metro delivery choice than licensed-spectrum WiMax?

2. In terms of handing off to cellular networks when WiMax coverage isn’t complete, you argue that “With respect to outdoor mobile broadband environments, users would expect Mobile WiMAX to seamlessly hand off to cellular networks in the absence of WiMAX reception. In reality this is not possible as Mobile WiMAX is not backward compatible with existing cellular technologies.” Hmm, then why is Sprint already talking about a combined WiMax/3G phone (due out Q4)?

3. When you say that “any operator looking at Mobile WiMAX has to consider the current environment in which 97% of laptops are shipped with Wi-Fi technology,” are you at all aware that Intel — WiMax’s biggest backer and supplier of many core chips to those same laptops — will essentially be giving away WiMax connectivity with its planned WiMax/Wi-Fi chipset due out later this year? What do you say to operators when those chips start shipping?

4. Do you really believe the LTE assertions in your press release, which state: “LTE is expected to be a fully ratified standard by the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009 with deployments slated to occur in late 2009 or first months of 2010 offering peak data rates of up to 170Mbps.” And can we bet a pint or two on whether or not there is an operational, commercial 170 Mbps LTE network running by 2010? (You can guess which side of the wager we might take.)

To be fair, the Frost & Sullivan press release did state that “the work carried out on Mobile WiMAX has the potential to spur new ventures, which could potentially lead Mobile WiMAX to merge with 3G LTE.” But this info was in the second paragraph, buried beneath the linkbait headline of “Mobile WiMAX on the Way Out?” and the lead-graf conclusion that “the technology is facing a range of challenges that are likely to make it unfeasible as a mobile ‘access’ technology.”

In this day of short tech staffs and the pressure on bloggers and reporters to blindly turn copy around, it’s no surprise that such a powerful take from a known entity like F&S would be quickly turned into a Analysts Predict WiMax Death post or report. While some of the challenges F&S assert are certainly hurdles WiMax needs to overcome, the incompleteness and oranges-to-apples comparisons noted by our questions above should have raised more red flags than it apparently has.

(We do have a request in to Frost & Sullivan to see any full WiMax reports they have written; more as we hear more from them. UPDATE: Well, we did get to read through the full “report” from Frost & Sullivan, and it’s not much more than the press release and only raises more questions than it answers — for instance, why does the report not talk about the May 7 “new” Clearwire deal but instead state as fact that Sprint has “terminated its partnership with Clearwire”? Sounds like recycled hash to me. In the meantime, if you would like a 37-page deep look at the state of the WiMax market in the U.S., with complete analysis of the “new” Clearwire deal (based on real interviews and not outdated opinion), please order our report, available for instant download.)