Mannerisms

Intel's Sriram Viswanathan is smoking dope. Who wants to pay north of $50 a month for un-proven broadband, and why does US consumer foot the bill for expensive broadband when Japan, Korea and others are offering below $20 a month and 100Mbps broadband?

I agree with Dave. What the hell are these people thinking with the "Polar" prices? Unless they are not serviced, why would anyone drop their cheaper cable or DSL connection?

It's time these morons went back to Business 101. Offer a good product at a good price and it will fly off the shelves.

How about a 4Mbps mobile service for $25/month? At $50+/month it will die a quick death since cellular data networks are already everywhere and cheaper or about the same price.

I think this article misses the point. Sure its only 4mb at a possible $50 a month. DSL users are paying for less speed all be it at a considerable lower cost. However the one thing this has that may be worth is mobility. For people that travel alot or would like to use their connection wherever this would be a boom.

If you are allowed multiple sub accounts per bill then its even better.

Unlike DSL, cable and FTTH, WiMAX is a wireless technology, although the current Sprint & Clearwire offerings are not that great, that's not the limit of WiMAX as it can output a bit more in real world results.

Intel believes that when the technology has enough spectrum and in right conditions the technology surpasses speeds that of current cable providers. To expect 100mbps on a wireless connection is a dream without having a backhaul and clear line of sight.

The technology is in it's infant stages, and until Sprint does not roll out this wireless technology the penetration of WiMAX will not be felt much here in the United States.

HSDPA is also being deployed and although current results only show 2mbps the technology can reach speeds of 14mbps. This all depends on the amount of bandwidth available per tower, and unlike wired locations, wireless has it's own set of problems in terms of deployment.

Wireless networks are being designed to replace the last mile, and although Verizon is deploying FTTH it only applies to their area, people in AT&T, Qwest, Embarq territory cannot get FTTH.

Also with the joint venture that Sprint has with the cableco's I doubt they will use their wireless network to compete with the cable companies directly.

You are missing an important point (and to be fair, that is because Sriam was confused to the point of being wrong...)

For a start, there is the aspect of mobility or portability.

But beyond that, you are making the point that where there is a wired alternative, WiMAX will lose. That is probably true in general - copper is a better way of carrying data than air (and glass is even better).
That said, Clearwire in US and the Australian operators are doing surprisingly well. Customer service, quality, marketing can all matter as much as "speed".

But the mistake is in assuming that DSL/cable exists. Vasts parts of the USA do not have any broadband (or must use VSAT). Of the rest, much has a monopoly supplier.

And, of course, 90% of the world's population has no access to broadband at at all.

As well Montana there is Mexico City, Mumbai and Moscow who all need broadband but cannot get DSL.

That *is* a significant opportunity