Martyn Roetter
In response to some of the comments on WiMAX versus HSPA, I would like to add that: 1. I think it is likely that if mobile WiMAX had been able to achieve the stage of development and deployment that is only just emerging this year (2009) say three years ago, then it might well be in a position to establish itself as a mainstream next generation broadband wireless technology. But unfortunately for its advocates it is too little too late. 2. The comment that a clear distinction should be drawn between fixed WiMAX (802.16d) and mobile WiMAX (802.16e) - the former uses a different air interface, i.e. OFDM not OFDMA - is a valid and important one, even though mobile WiMAX, like HSPA, is being used in fixed (or fixed/nomadic) applications in some cases. Many statements of the number of WiMAX customers fail to identify clearly which ones are connected to mobile and which ones to fixed WiMAX networks (or even to pre-standard or proprietary WiMAX-like networks), and hence can be misinterpreted to exaggerate the pentration of mobile WiMAX. 3. The message from South Korea, that for various reasons HSPA networks have been orders of magnitude more successful than WiBro/WiMAX is separate from the question of how much users of these respective services are generating in terms of data volumes or revenues. The point is that WiBro/WiMAX is a commercial failure in this country, in some respects the home of WiMAX, despite the support it has received from the Government. 4. Where WiMAX in South Africa is the only viable and decent alternative to the ADSL that is available is exactly the kind of environment in which it has the greatest opportunities. It is undeniable that these opportunities exist, but in the overall global scheme of things they are not large enough to establish mobile WiMAX as a mainstream technology, only a niche.
