nowwearetalking is about telecommunications and you. It's where you can become involved, have your say, and Telstra listens - on issues affecting all Australians and the telecommunications industry. nowwearetalking is managed by Telstra. Find out more about this site.

Customise Page

Customise topic view

Please select items below for your custom page.

Re-organising your page

Log in here

Forgotten your password?Use ssl security

Register now

Use ssl security

Customise topic view

Customising your topic view will tailor your user experience by only displaying content which is relevant to the topic/s you have selected.

This setting will apply site-wide and will remain applied until you wish to change it.

Customise your modules

Customise your modules allows you to add or remove panels of content which appear on the homepage.

These can be added to or removed from the homepage at any time.

Re-organising your page

WiMAX again



Topic: Broadband , Telstra , Consumer & Technology

Tags:    3g-network  blog  cto  dcita  dr-hugh-bradlow  wi-max


In November and December last year I wrote some blogs on this site about WiMAX. Unfortunately no one was listening because the Government has awarded Optus over $900m of taxpayers’ money for a rural solution called “Broadband Connect” which involves WiMAX.

The Government’s “fact sheet” (www.minister.dcita.gov.au) on the topic of WiMAX makes the following extraordinary statement in relation to WiMAX: “This performance means that consumers will experience the same speed and quality of services on WiMAX as they would on wired services such as Cable and DSL.”

Anyone who thinks that WiMAX is a satisfactory replacement for a fixed wire in delivering broadband services to Australian homes is sadly deluded. WiMAX suffers a number of disadvantages that are inherent in radio-based services. For a start, the advertised peak speeds (such as 6Mbps) are subject to the random variations that are endemic in radio systems. The number of customers who will actually achieve these speeds in the coverage area can be relatively low. By contrast when a fixed line is advertised as offering 6Mbps, all customers within the nominated coverage area will achieve those speeds.

Furthermore, radio is a shared medium, so all users in the same area need to share that 6Mbps (or whatever happens to be available where you are). So if you all want to watch a TV program which runs at, say, 1.5Mbps, then no more than 4 homes out of the hundreds of possible homes in the area covered by the WiMAX cell will enjoy the service at the same time. WiMAX may deliver high speed internet services today but it will struggle to deliver the rich media (audio, video as well as web pages) that are literally coming down the pipe and will grow strongly over the next few years.

In addition, as radio networks go, WiMAX is not the best choice. There are 2 WiMAX standards which are incompatible with each other. You have a choice between ‘fixed WiMAX’ which has been around for a couple years with little uptake. It is effectively an orphan technology because the industry is moving to a newer standard for ‘mobile WiMAX’. Unfortunately this technology is completely unproven because no one has actually deployed a commercial service with this standard yet. By contrast, the technologies on which Telstra’s Next GTM network are based, 3G with HSPA (which we chose after detailed research), have more than 100 networks in service worldwide, some of which have been around for a couple of years. More importantly, most market forecasts show that globally there will be about 200m 3G users in 2010/20011 compared to about 10m WiMAX users. The scale economies are critical in supporting low cost handsets and home units.

There’s more. The WiMAX solution proposed by Optus is intended for rural services. That is a little unfortunate because they will need to build at least 4 times more base stations (and hence roughly 4 times the cost) for the same coverage you would get from the Next GTM network. I wonder if the taxpayers of Australia are happy to be spending their dollars on an inefficient, unproven technology.
Finally, just to emphasise, a radio network does not provide the same broadband capability as a fixed network. But, if you need to deploy radio technology, and there are some places for which this is necessary, you are far better off using the same radio infrastructure that you are already using for mobile services. That way you optimise the investment across all revenue sources. That is why Telstra will use its Next GTM network to provide fixed wireless services (with speeds that are just as good, or better than, WiMAX). In addition, unlike WiMAX, the Next GTM network comes with the voice and video telephony capability built in which again improves the economic efficiency.

In summary, a rational person would need to ask why you would deploy a wireless solution when a wired network is available and where you do need to deploy a radio network, why would you deploy an inefficient, unproven one?

Related items:

Comments

Don Williams
21 June 2007
10:50pm

Comment Permalink

"where you do need to deploy a radio network" - this is almost everywhere 4km outside of rural exchanges that Telstra have actually enabled. You say yourself using the Next GTM network, but have you actually looked at the prices for access to this? - It would be fine to have NextG as the provider....IF....price where metro equivalent. If you can't see thats the sticking point by now...then why continue to blog about the rest of it...id rather have metro prices on WiMAX then the current poor coverage at exhorbitant prices from NextG. -Don

Frinky
22 June 2007
8:33am

Comment Permalink

it makes me wounder as well... with telstra already having a network that nearly reaches 99% of the population, why wouldnt the gov subsidise connections for next g network? by 2009, you(telstra) have said the network will be able to go at 40mbs, well opels network will be 12mbs. its been totally crazy how they have gone with the opel plan, 5.8ghz freq, are they mad?, even the Ausalliance had a better plan. some one has to wounder about our elected officals if they think wireless is anything to bet on.

Non Puto
22 June 2007
3:19pm

Comment Permalink

Don, I am assuming that Hugh is talking about locations in remote area's where there is no other choice but radio for any type of telecoms (excluding satellite). It actually makes sense to use next G for both “landline” and “data” than use the OpEl solution as advertised.

CJ ...
24 June 2007
7:25pm

Comment Permalink

@Don, It's terrible that the price of broadband in country areas is higher. But it is obvious why- the cost of providing broadband is higher when the population density is lower. Since there's a cost difference, somebody, somewhere has to pay. Should Telstra drop it's prices and take the loss? Telstra has offered you a service where other providers chose not to. Those operators choose not to for sane reasons- there is less money to be made since the average costs per subscriber are higher. Let's say Telstra is forced to drop its prices. That would *disadvantage* Telstra in return for making a significant capital investment in NextG. That's not right. More importantly, if prices in the bush were lower, why would other operators ever choose to expand their networks into such regional areas? There'd be even LESS profit to be made than there already is! Instead, push for a Government subsidy for consumers, funded by predatory, city-only, broadband carriers.

Van Manhanong
25 June 2007
9:55am

Comment Permalink

Hi Hugh, just wondering if it was possible for yourself or Telstra to write up a specifications table comparing NextG and the proposed WiMax? Atleast then, the facts can talk for themselves and we can truly see which is the better!

Rob Drew
26 June 2007
8:41pm

Comment Permalink

In response to some previous posts,is the reason the government wont subsidise nextG that telstra refuses to wholesale it?. And that one of the main reasons OPEL won the tender is that they actually followed the tender guidelines and agreed to wholesaling both the ADSL2 exchanges they enabled,and the areas covered by their WiMax rollout?. And agreed to commit significant amounts of their own money to roll out both of these networks?. When telstra refused to spend a single cent of their own,and only offered to rollout ADSL1 and that their proposal did not include NextG in any way shape or form?. So the government was left with a proposal from telstra to ADSL1 enable some exchanges,which they commited 0$ to doing?. Is this not a failure of the management of telstra,and that simply the proposal they gave the government was woefully inadequate compared to Opels?.

Briskey
27 June 2007
10:14am

Comment Permalink

WiMax will work along the same lines as Next G, the more people that log on, less speed and more drops will occur.

Geoff Stark
7 July 2007
12:38am

Comment Permalink

Don: Exhorbitant Pricing on Next G? Um lets see, $49.95 for a 1GB plan that you can use anywhere in the country where you can get reception with access to all of the free content available to Bigpond subscribers. That is a damn good deal and very comparable to metro areas. Briskey: The drop outs and speed difference can not be compared to the NextG network. WiMax is far more dependant on distance than the NextG platform. Those that are closer to the base stations will get the greater bandwidth. The WiMax model proposed by OPEL using the unlicensed spectrum is more likely to be hampered and interfered with by outside sources especially in the outer fringes of reception.

Add a comment

 

You need to log in to post a comment