Paul Kapustka's Blog

In the Journal's unsigned editorial today, the paper says WiMax operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint won't have to deal with regulators or FCC auctions. It also falls into the simplistic trap of calling WiMax just a big brother technology to Wi-Fi:

WiMax, meanwhile, operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint doesn't have to shell out money in auctions to deploy the technology. WiMax is like a wireless home network or a hot-spot in a coffee-shop, but it works over much longer distances, allowing greater coverage and a wider variety of uses.

Such simplifications are just plain wrong, according to Glenn Fleishman, who pens the Wi-Fi Net News site. From a post yesterday, he notes:

I keep seeing phrases like “WiMax is Wi-Fi on steroids.” It’s not. Here’s why: The fundamental difference between WiMax and Wi-Fi is that WiMax is intended for licensed spectrum in which contention among providers with different interests is eliminated; Wi-Fi is designed for a hostile environment in which every party must accept interference within the legal limits without complaint.

Fleishman continues:

Before you get huffy out there and say, hey, there’s going to be unlicensed WiMax, too, or, there’s already unlicensed WiMax, think again. There is no unlicensed profile yet approved for WiMax. Any device that uses 5.8 GHz may be lovely, full of light and truth and the joy in exciting electrons into different states at high frequencies, but it isn’t certified WiMax. Further, the word is that there may never be a certified profile for the unlicensed bands.

The 5 GHz band gets a real workout, especially 5.8 GHz with its special point-to-point rules for higher signal gain, in metro-scale Wi-Fi networks because it’s the only affordable way to backhaul data, and by using highly directional signals, they can bypass quite a bit of the interference issues in that band. At least for now.

The WSJ edit then makes a strange comparison about regulatory opinions -- somehow using the emergence of cable-TV telephony (another network created with monopoly protection) as proof that line-sharing and other competitive attempts of the 1996 Telecom Act were "proven wrong" -- to say that if net neutrality legislation passes, it will happen just in time to throttle a new wave of supposed competition like Sprint's WiMax network.

While we here at the Paul Kapustka blog (that means me) welcome Sprint's WiMax plans, it's pretty optimistic to even call WiMax an operable standard yet, much less a competitor to copper wires or fiber to the home. The only working WiMax in the U.S. right now is the fixed version, and most services (like Clearwire's) apply the "pre-standard" euphemism, which is great unless you expect things to work together. Or expect economies of scale in equipment building.

In reality, the guess is that truly competitive WiMax networks will emerge in licensed, protected bands, which means that companies interested in making a buck in this arena will actually shell out huge dollars for spectrum, as the auction starting today will prove out. And who will be among the bidders? Who can afford it? Big companies, or small independents?

So yes, huzzah for Sprint and WiMax. We wish the deployment well. But in the meantime, let's keep the Internet truly open for the rest of us, and not just those who can afford higher fees.

BONUS LINK: We're not the only ones who read the WSJ piece and were shocked, yes shocked, that the nation's biggest business paper can't even do some simple fact-checking. Mike over at TechDirt follows a similar line of thinking here.