Recently in LTE Category

The long wait for WiMAX in the Windy City as well as the DFW Metroplex is over -- as we expected, Clearwire is now selling services in both cities, keeping with the company's strategy of "soft launching" markets online before staging an "official" market opening with all the attendant hoopla.

Since it's Nov. 1, time for a new map -- and the one on the Clear.com website now shows Chicago "in the green" of Clearwire services, while adding Dallas/Fort Worth to the list of cities with service in Texas.




In North Carolina, the cities of Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro are also now listed as "live," so it looks like Clearwire should be able to make good on its promise to step up subscriber numbers in Q4, simply by having lots more markets selling services.

The big ones, however, are Chicago and Dallas -- two huge metro areas where Clearwire will see how it fares against existing service providers. In Chicago, Clearwire also has its first true "commuter" city, since thousands there ride the rails every day, to and from work, play, school and in just general getting-aroundness.

Will WiMAX's ability to connect while mobile make a big impression? We are only now just going to find out. We'll have some more thinking on Clearwire market launches later this week. And yes, the launches mean that Sprint's 4G services are available there too. Meanwhile, more detail from the Chicago maps below.

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from our latest quarterly report on all things Clearwire, the CLEARWIRE NTK OCTOBER 2009 (need to know) report, available now for the low low price of $4.95.

In this excerpt we talk about why we think the lack of interesting WiMAX end-user devices (or the overpriced ones that did launch) have kept users from flocking to Clearwire's 4G wireless broadband offering. For the full report, order online here. Report excerpt follows:

Prices and Devices: Waiting for a reason 'Why' to try WiMAX
Without a doubt, the coolest thing about WiMAX is its ability to provide a true broadband connection with cellular mobility. One of Clearwire's biggest problems, however, is a lack of a compelling reason to take advantage of that mobile connection -- and the dearth of devices that would allow you to even try.

The growing popularity and use of smartphones points to another WiMAX weakness -- the lack of truly portable devices that can take advantage of the technology's superior connectivity. As Clearwire CEO Bill Morrow showed during his 4G World keynote speech in September, in a side-by-side download speed comparison WiMAX leaves 3G in the dust.

But even the (videotaped) demo itself showed a bit of the WiMAX underwear peeking out: To make the tricky demo -- it was a side-by-side screenshot of two iPhones in a car driving down the road -- all the "regular" iPhone had to do was connect via the 3G cellular network; the WiMAX powered iPhone had to connect via Wi-Fi to a Clear Spot router in the car, which was connected to the WiMAX network via a plug-in USB dongle.

So: The WiMAX iPhone was faster, yes, but its kit was also more expensive and in need of a stylish European man-bag to tote all the extra gear around. Though hybrid WiMAX smartphones do reportedly exist -- HTC claims to be selling one for the Yota WiMAX network in Russia -- Clearwire's customer base so far doesn't seem to be big enough to convince device makers that producing such a beast is worth it.

The one vendor that did launch a cool handheld WiMAX device -- Samsung's Mondi, unveiled at the Vegas Clearwire launch -- turned out an overly expensive, somewhat confusing form-factor machine that wasn't big enough to do "real" laptop work. It also doesn't contain an alternate cellular link to make voice calls an easy proposition.

To top it off, Samsung and Clearwire couldn't even get their pricing message straight -- in Las Vegas, a Samsung PR representative told us that the device would sell at $450 unlocked, or $350 with a two-year Clearwire contract. But a few weeks later when Clearwire started offering the Mondi, the subsidy discount was nowhere in sight -- the device would be $450 to all users, contract or no contract. Meanwhile, the iPhone 3GS sells for $199 with a two-year contract. Any questions?

For all the Clearwire knowledge you NEED TO KNOW for the latest quarter, order our CLEARWIRE NTK OCTOBER 2009 report today for just $4.95 -- that's right, less than five bucks for a lengthy take on Clearwire market launches, device plans, business news and more.

It's game of inches as they say. 

I have been looking at the reporting about Verizon's App Store activity and find the perspective of some pundits troubling.

As I reported when I went to the Verizon Developers Conference, the goal Verizon has is very different than being the equivalent of the iTunes AppStore.

Lets be honest, how many of us have looked at all 65,000 apps, and how many of us really want to.

Verizon announced a partnership with Vodafone, China Mobile and Softbank to deliver applications their way.  Very specfically Verizon was looking to open the interfaces for location, billing and trust (security).  I noted that their strategy was associated with a API that masked alot of the behind the scenes OSS work. 

Carriers and cellphone vendors have procedures for turning on the phone that represent over 100 steps in provisioning and configuration.  Verizon has tried to make the network valuable without having the carrier's internal OSS stifle the developer.  The one requirement is work within a framework. A lot of the companies that are on the iPhone do not like this framework, and it shows in in the blogosphere.

So Vodafone makes its announcement about their efforts to build Vodafone 360 which to me is a another strategy in keeping with the alliance, but is not getting the anger yet.

I think the reason maybe be that Verizon is in the California footprint and the developers are asked all the time "Can I use it on my phone" and since VZW is big in California, the answer frustrating.

There's an overflow crowd here at the 4GWE session on femtocells, so I'll try some liveblogging to keep you in the flow of the discussion if you're not here in the room with us. Keep refreshing this post, we are adding as it goes along.

What is a femtocell? David Chambers from Amdocs, our session moderator, gives the overview: It is basically a "complete [cellular] base station, shrunk to size."

Chambers says North America is a ripe femto market, since it has poor cellular coverage, good wired broadband, and people with money to spend. Theoretically :-)
David Nowicki, VP of marketing and product management from femto manufacturer Airvana, now speaking. Talking about the femto forum -- industry group promoting femto standards.

Femto Forum -- 43 operators, covering 1.3 billion subscribers; 17 of the top 20 mobile operators playing together.

What does the consumer get out of installing a femto? David says there's an 80-page white paper on the forum web site, woof! We'll read that later. Talking now about a family adding a femto to their house... it costs the operator at least $400 up front to integrate the device in -- but over the life of the customer contract it is worth it because ARPU goes way up. Could double the ARPU.

The family uses more data -- adds big-bucket calling plans -- more services, like TV -- so femtos can be a way to bring more bundles into a subscriber contract. Plus it offloads some data from the service provider network -- more savings.

Who will want femtos? Two-thirds (according to analysis) of customers are wireline customers who want mobility as a complementary service. Makes sense since you need a wired connection (ed. note -- or something like Clearwire's WiMAX) to connect the femto.

Now speaking: Don Troshynski, technical director at Acme Packet, going to talk about back end stuff. Why would you use a SIP-based femtocell? Going beyond R99 phone, get ready for IMS deployments.

SIP also means a need for controls... watching for DOS attacks, latency is a worry... so you need to make sure this is a well-engineered box. Worms and viruses, oh my! (little bit of fun animation on the powerpoint). Overall message: You have to consider the overall security solution when you are deploying these as a service provider.

Now up: Barlow Keener, Keener Law Group, on legal/reg issues of femto deployment.

Says the FCC first mentioned "femtocell" in Feb of 2008. They are "taking notice" but no rulemaking or decisions ... yet! 

Macro towers are now surrounded by barb-wire fences... now we are going to put those kind of towers into the hands of consumers, who can hack them, play with them, take them on vacation... "take it to Vermont, because I can't get service there."

Comparing VoIP regulation... net neutrality regulation... "femtocell looks a whole lot like VoIP service." Where will femto links fall when FCC takes a look? (And they WILL look, regulation normally lags the deployments)

Also need to think about 911 calls... triangulation... since you don't know where the antenna is, "much more difficult" to determine where the caller is calling from. GPS chip? Won't get to satellite in a building. "This is going to be an issue."

Billing -- providers don't want to talk about this. Roaming issues created when you move a femto to someone else's licensed territory... minutes that go through femto would be considered roaming... this could get ugly! (ed. note: Will airport security check you for femtos?) Could Internet providers "block" calls coming in through a femto? (ed. note: sounds like the full employment act for those lawyers who don't have net neutrality to argue about anymore)

Now open for audience questions. Any out there in cyberspace? email me at kaps at sidecutreports.com and I will relay.

Moving about -- can you bring your femto with you? Panelists say no, you can move to an area where your provider has spectrum, but not in other places. Apparently people tried this in Asia -- took their femtos with them, made "local" calls on the road. Providers will sniff this out, block it. (ed. note: Let's get ready to rumble!)

Question now about billing... guess from panel is that there may be "overflow" pricing, where if you don't use femto bandwidth you can roll it over. Might carriers bundle fixed service and femto mobile? "Hard to predict" what the billing dynamics might be. Could it cannibalize mobile services? Answer -- service providers are pricing this different ways. Sprint, $10 a month, all the calls you want. In Japan femtos are free -- create value by "recruiting" other family members to services -- or via apps like parental control, etc., specific to the femto. Too early to generalize how femtos/services will be priced.

Acme Packet's Don -- may be worth it to the operator to sacrifice price for benefits.

Keener -- says "it will come back to the lawyers" because of class action suits like the ones against AT&T and Apple about iPhones not performing. RAN engineers say they can't handle all the new data, femtos a way to offload.

Moderator David Chambers throws this one out: Is Wi-Fi (combined with things like Skype) a worthy competitor to femtos? Is that the real 4G competition, and not WiMAX vs. LTE? Acme Packet's Don: not going to replace the convenience of cellular. Keener: Think we are heading toward true convergence -- use Truphone, Skype... voice revenues dropping, the ability to deliver data will count more. That means ARPU will drop.

Airvana Dave: It will be both... all phones support femto, some will support Wi-Fi. 20 percent of handsets now have Wi-Fi... look at iPhone? Allows you to use Wi-Fi for Internet, but no operator (AT&T) services over Wi-Fi. Use both, for two different services. Keener again: OK to use Skype over your data "minutes"? (ed. note: Guessing this may be part of the next net neutrality battleground, don't you?)

Good audience question: Is a femto a better in-building solution than Wi-Fi? Airvana's Dave: That's what it's all about. If you want to support voice and data, do both. Femto primarily so everyone can make calls... Wi-Fi, good way to do Internet access. You could set up a network with only femtos... both voice and data, think if doing it today, still early days and you would do both. 

Audience: Is there a femto/Wi-Fi combo? Airvana's Dave -- manufacturers have such products, they have not been offered yet. Three years from now, you'll see mainly an integrated product. Keener "takes his lawyer hat off" and talks about the home gateway -- aka Holy Grail for the Netgears of the world. Music, video downloads, etc., to be stored there... (ed. note we have heard this idea before... but Tivos are still a niche... )

OK, got to sign off to do moderator duties. Thanks for reading!

With back to back sessions this afternoon at the 4GWE Conference, it's tough to cram all this great info into short blog posts (but of course that won't stop us from trying). In a panel this afternoon about Giving Voice to 4G, the bottom line seemed to be that given the advanced characteristics of 4G delivery technologies (mainly LTE, but WiMAX too), it shouldn't be a problem to eventually add voice to a 4G wireless service. The harder part? Trying to decide which technological path to take, and how to mix voice in without killing off existing 2G and 3G services, which rely on voice margins for profit.

Mehmet Balos, CTO of Genband, did a good job of explaining the different methods being considered for Voice over 4G -- basically either a 2G-compatible direction, a method called VoLGA, or a full-blown IMS. While IMS is generally considered by most observers as a best-eventual outcome, other alternatives may be faster and cheaper to deploy. (Watch this space for presentations that will bring more "color" to this discussion.)

Any thoughts out there about the best way to add voice to 4G? Might today's sale of Skype throw a monkey wrench into the idea of charging money for voice going forward? Or will customers pay for video, and voice will ride along for free (an idea put forth by panelist Don Troshynski of Acme Packet)?

Lowell McAdam, President & CEO of Verizon Wireless open the conference talking about the future is open.

Here they are talking about being the carrier of choice for apps.  Verizon Wireless mission is to win the application developers need for a reliable network and they see a vision where HD video fits comfortably in the platform that LTE provides. 

Speaking about the SUN Java conference, McAdam shared the view that developers think beyond the traditional view of cell phone.

Billing and network services such as location are being offered in the Network API that is being rolled out here, today.

John Stratton EVP & CMO, then shared the reset of development with Verizon.  

He made clear that the move was to Java while still supporting the history of Brew.  However, Java is a platform with an open community and the goal is to support all sorts of developers.  The Verizon plan is to provide over 70% of the revenue to the developer and to provide the ability to launch on their app store in 14 days.

The App store is not aimed at an SDK but a toolset that brings the Verizon's support services to the application

I am in San Jose for the Verizon Developer Community Conference,  It should be an interesting an event, they have brought their execs here to speak to folks in California.  One thing I expect to here is the need for LTE for future applications.

I am going to be listening for the way that people react to the ideas Verizon has for their network app store that is independent of a device, and their vision for a network API that is not independent of the carrier.

My friend Andy Abramson recently highlighted the Gizmo5 to Google Voice which can also support Skype connection.  For the end user, this is great stuff the more you can make a free call the better.

From the view of a network operator, the question is why are these types of applications compelling?  Is the price the only thing that matters? Or is the value connectivity something that should be enabled on their network.

I will be very interested to hear the conversations at the event.

Very different press about Ericsson being acquired by Nortel, then when Nokia Siemens Networks "won" the bid a month ago.

NSN was talking integration, had customers talking about synergies of support and you got the general sense that the deal was about customer acquisition and enabling a smooth transition. I think NSN, even in the loss,  may have benefited from the early win as well with the customer base.  They looked like they were about service and kept a lot of good will.

This time, the customer is being acquired and so are the patents for CDMA, a technology that is not normally of interest to Ericsson, since its portfolio with CDMA is not as strong as its GSM/UMTS patents.

As we head toward Release 9 of the 3GPP standards effort, it will be interesting to see if some of CDMA creeps back in. 3GPP crushed CDMA in previous releases forcing Qualcomm to end its efforts.  However CDMA has been credited with Verizon's success in the past and it maybe they are willing to regret the termination of CDMA now that Ericsson is no longer an antagonist.

The acquistion also has implications for Sprint and the cable operators since they partner and the cable operators like Ericsson's view of service delivery strategies.

My normal rule of thumb is any acquisition takes a year to digest. Now this calls into question the Avaya deal.  So we will stay tuned to discussion.

Jack Gold who has consulted many friends in the industry and provide great analysis now at J Gold Associates has done a more thorough analysis of the Intel Nokia deal that I highlighted yesterday.  Having talked to friends in both companies, I think Jack understands the considerations very well.  Take a read.

 

Today, Intel and Nokia announced a long term strategic relationship. There are 3 key parts to this agreement: Intel will license Nokia's technology for 3G HSPA cellular technology for use with its chips; Intel and Nokia will collaborate on making their respective open source implementations of Linux for small devices (Moblin and Maemo) more compatible; and they will collaborate on future Intel architectures (IA) for mobile devices. This is a compelling partnership for several reasons.

 

 

 

First, Intel has had difficulty producing competitive cellular radio chips, going back a number of years to when it had the XScale product line before divesting it to Marvel. Nokia, on the other hand, has had compelling Intellectual Property (IP) in radio technology that clearly made it the world's largest manufacturer of cellular phones. Intel rightly understands that it needs to be able to offer a competitive cellular modem to fill in its communications product offerings (e.g., WiFi, WiMax). This is critical in the netbook and Mobile Internet Device (MID) space where it has targeted its Atom processors, and where it hopes to eventually make a play for smart phones as well with future, lower powered models of Atom. Having 3G HSPA cellular chip competence is therefore critical. Intel would not specify which chip family it would announce products for or when, other than to say it is for the IA set of products. However, we expect the first products using this new capability will be Atom-based systems, and we expect first products to be released in early to mid 2010.

 

 

 

It is interesting to note that Intel and Nokia did not discuss any relationship for 4G cellular technologies (Long Term Evolution, or LTE) which will achieve significant market share in the next 3-5 years. Although we will see some LTE systems in place in 2009/10, we do not expect critical mass to be achieved until 2012 at the earliest. So Intel does have some time to assess what it needs to do. However, Intel does have a stake in a competing 4G technology, WiMax, which it is pushing aggressively. We hope Intel does not assume that it will not need an LTE solution going forward, as we are sure that it will, and it will need one no later than 2010/11 to stay competitive. This will complement, not replace its WiMax offerings. Nokia does have significant IP in 4G as well, so an extension of this relationship in the next couple of years to cover 4G, assuming all works out well, is likely. This means that Intel will not have to depend on third party solutions for cellular chips as it does currently. It also eliminates Intel's dependence on major suppliers like Ericsson for modules and Broadcom and Qualcomm for chips. Qualcomm, in particular, is attempting to move upstream into mobile processing (Snapdragon) which puts it in direct competition with Intel for its Atom processors. This deal therefore eliminates the need for Intel to buy from a direct competitor.

 

 

 

In working with Intel, Nokia gets to have input on the long term evolution of the IA architecture as it relates to wireless communications. This provides Nokia with some important benefits. Nokia is currently dependent on the ARM chip architecture for most of its smart phones and its Internet tablets. Yet it rightly understands that the ARM architecture falls short as it tries to move upstream and impact the netbook and MID market. By working with Intel, Nokia gets to influence the design of Atom chips specifically targeted where Nokia needs to go; expanding from its smart phones base and into more wireless entertainment devices. Using an Atom core built around the IA architecture has great benefits for these higher level devices (e.g., existing application code, programmers and compilers), and Nokia's collaboration with Intel will influence these chips to include more wireless friendly capabilities. We do not envision Nokia abandoning its core dependence on the ARM architecture in the short term, but longer term (2-3 years) we expect Nokia to offer devices based on Atom, especially with System on Chip (SOC) designs. This could provide Intel with a very large marketplace as such devices will be sold in the millions or tens of millions of units per year.

 

 

 

From the Operating System (OS) level, this partnership provides an advantage to both Intel and Nokia. Both have competing Open Source solutions that are built on a Linux kernel, but provide a non compatible user interface. Working together to build more compatibility into Moblin (created by Intel but now Open Sourced, although Intel is still the major contributor) and Maemo powering Nokia's Internet Tablets will have some important effects. First, by making the user interface (UI) compatible, it will allow application providers to build a single application that runs on both Linux distributions. Second, Nokia's expertise in wireless requirements for an OS and UI, together with Intel's expertise in optimizing software for specific chips (with its compiler and newly acquired WindRiver expertise) will make a more compelling and better/faster running system available to the end user. Finally, this collaboration could limit the impact Google's Android OS will have on the netbook market, as Google's stated goal is to make Android netbook and MID friendly. We would expect to see other companies (e.g., Novell, Canonical) support the Intel and Nokia efforts in this regard, as both are already committed to supporting Moblin, and likely see Android as a long term threat.

 

 

 

Bottom Line: This strategic relationship is a win-win for both Intel and Nokia. It is also a win for the marketplace, as it should allow more capable wireless devices to make their way to market in the next couple of years. And a more converged Linux landscape in the MID and Netbook market will allow the market to expand more quickly as fewer incompatibilities in applications and peripherals will exist. We expect to see further relationships develop between Intel and other major stakeholders in significant niche areas of the market where Intel does not have the IP it needs. The days of "do it all ourselves" are over for Intel. And Nokia also understands it needs more partnerships to stay ahead of its competitors

 

Jack Gold is the founder and principal analyst at J.Gold Associates, an information technology analyst firm based in Northborough, Mass., covering the many aspects of business and consumer computing and emerging technologies.

One personal note.  I think the reality of the death of CDMA has impacted Intel's WiMAX strategy.  Its not that they wont go forward, but supporting LTE is a must for Intel.

One of the reasons Verizon is so aggressive in its LTE deployment is Apple's iPhone deal with ATT is only for the 3G generation of iPhone.  As we have reported before the iPhone has given ATT an additional 5M subscribers mostly from the Verizon customer base.

Verizon executives see LTE as a way to align itself with Apple and regain customers.

Its unclear where Verizon's API strategy overlaps or competes with this desire. 

Verizon is agressively seeking to enable some network widgets over the course of the next year which will be available to third party developers.

Other than the iPhone the plan is to have LTE be offered for data services to start.