Clearwire Releases 2012 Annual Report

[bigsnake49]

i don't remember which thread was discussing LTE results for Clearwire, but here is an excerpt from Dr Saw's interview abt their LTE tests:

 

 

Clear Blog: Remind our readers, what are these technical trials all about?

Saw: In Phoenix we are conducting 4G LTE technology trials to test multiple coexistence scenarios between LTE and WiMAX radio technologies. The goal is to basically see what we’re capable of and show wireless speeds that are unmatched in the U.S.

Clear Blog: And how are the results looking?

Saw: Fast. We’ve clocked download speeds of 50Mbps using 10MHz channels and 90Mbps using 20MHz channels.

http://www.clear.com...g/size-matters/

There was a question whether they were using 10MHz or 20MHz channels and it seems to me that they were probably using 10MHz channels.

On the other hand from the question and answer session on the 4thQ 2012 results Dr. Saw said they are using 20MHz channels.

Edited February 17, 2013 by bigsnake49

[S4GRU]

i don't remember which thread was discussing LTE results for Clearwire, but here is an excerpt from Dr Saw's interview abt their LTE tests:

 

 

Clear Blog: Remind our readers, what are these technical trials all about?

Saw: In Phoenix we are conducting 4G LTE technology trials to test multiple coexistence scenarios between LTE and WiMAX radio technologies. The goal is to basically see what we’re capable of and show wireless speeds that are unmatched in the U.S.

Clear Blog: And how are the results looking?

Saw: Fast. We’ve clocked download speeds of 50Mbps using 10MHz channels and 90Mbps using 20MHz channels.

http://www.clear.com...g/size-matters/

There was a question whether they were using 10MHz or 20MHz channels and it seems to me that they were probably using 10MHz channels.

 

This is what I remember. That's why I was suspect of this new 20MHz channels with only 60Mbps downlink speeds Prusch was recently touting. That is significantly lower than their trials.

 

Maybe they are thinking they need mondo upload speeds now, and are adjusting their time slots on the 20MHz TDD channels that would result in a slow down to 60Mbps unburdened? However, I'm guessing the drop to 60Mbps is more of a backhaul thing. I think Erik is setting expectations around 60Mbps, because they aren't going to get backhaul that will support 90-100Mbps at every site.

 

Under promise, over deliver comes to mind here. I think that they will have sites that will perform near 100Mbps on a 20MHz channel. But since that will be nowhere near consistent, and many sites will never get backhaul to support that, let's start talking about something more reasonable and consistent...like 60Mbps.

 

That's my two cents on the whole thing.

 

Robert

[bigsnake49]

This is what I remember. That's why I was suspect of this new 20MHz channels with only 60Mbps downlink speeds Prusch was recently touting. That is significantly lower than their trials.

 

Maybe they are thinking they need mondo upload speeds now, and are adjusting their time slots on the 20MHz TDD channels that would result in a slow down to 60Mbps unburdened? However, I'm guessing the drop to 60Mbps is more of a backhaul thing. I think Erik is setting expectations around 60Mbps, because they aren't going to get backhaul that will support 90-100Mbps at every site.

 

Under promise, over deliver comes to mind here. I think that they will have sites that will perform near 100Mbps on a 20MHz channel. But since that will be nowhere near consistent, and many sites will never get backhaul to support that, let's start talking about something more reasonable and consistent...like 60Mbps.

 

That's my two cents on the whole thing.

 

Robert

 

Yeah, I have no idea why they went from 100MBps down to 60Mbps. It will all clear itself up eventually.

[4GHoward]

Yeah, I have no idea why they went from 100MBps down to 60Mbps. It will all clear itself up eventually.

 

I also heard 120 Mbps and 160 Mbps.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

This is what I remember. That's why I was suspect of this new 20MHz channels with only 60Mbps downlink speeds Prusch was recently touting. That is significantly lower than their trials.

 

Maybe they are thinking they need mondo upload speeds now, and are adjusting their time slots on the 20MHz TDD channels that would result in a slow down to 60Mbps unburdened? However, I'm guessing the drop to 60Mbps is more of a backhaul thing. I think Erik is setting expectations around 60Mbps, because they aren't going to get backhaul that will support 90-100Mbps at every site.

 

Under promise, over deliver comes to mind here. I think that they will have sites that will perform near 100Mbps on a 20MHz channel. But since that will be nowhere near consistent, and many sites will never get backhaul to support that, let's start talking about something more reasonable and consistent...like 60Mbps.

 

That's my two cents on the whole thing.

 

Robert

 

Would think it'd be smart to come in behind sprints upgrades and then they will be able to ensure backhaul shouldn't be a problem as most all sites will have fiber run to them by some vendor so wouldn't be a big deal for clear to use existing backhaul vendor at the site... As opposed to going microwave route or using what they have currently...

 

Least I don't see the backhaul excuse less they are trying to save major money and not pay for the pipe size they fully need.

 

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[4GHoward]

I was reading through a few of Clearwire LTE News, and I found some interesting information to point out.

 

Source: http://gigaom.com/20.../clearwire-lte/

 

What happens to WiMAX?

But amid the Clearwire move to LTE, what happens to the existing WiMAX network? Saw says it will remain intact. The company will use 20 MHz of spectrum for LTE and reserve 10 MHz for WiMAX and operate both networks side-by-side. In most cases the equipment is designed to do just that.

[bigsnake49]

Boy Kevin Fitchard goes off on the wireless industry on coopting the LTE - Advanced moniker for marketing reasons when they actually are not adopting Release 10.

 

http://gigaom.com/2013/02/17/lte-advanced-is-the-new-buzzword-hype/

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Boy Kevin Fitchard goes off on the wireless industry on coopting the LTE - Advanced moniker for marketing reasons when they actually are not adopting Release 10.

 

http://gigaom.com/2013/02/17/lte-advanced-is-the-new-buzzword-hype/

 

Haha funny read there. Bet he was foaming at the mouth writing that. Lol

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[WiWavelength]

Boy Kevin Fitchard goes off on the wireless industry on coopting the LTE - Advanced moniker for marketing reasons when they actually are not adopting Release 10.

 

I am in a Google+ private community with Kevin, Brian Klug of AnandTech, Neal Gompa of ExtremeTech, and a few others. There were some differences of opinion about what constitutes LTE-Advanced, but we had a good discussion tonight about Kevin's GigaOm article.

 

AJ

[bigsnake49]

I am in a Google+ private community with Kevin, Brian Klug of AnandTech, Neal Gompa of ExtremeTech, and a few others. There were some differences of opinion about what constitutes LTE-Advanced, but we had a good discussion tonight about Kevin's GigaOm article.

 

AJ

 

Do you set them straight, AJ?

[WiWavelength]

Do you set them straight, AJ?

 

Eh, most of the other guys lean toward the GSM side of things. So, I like to prod them a little bit. I basically said that the 3GPP standards are a convoluted mess -- and they are. And that is a big part of the debate over Kevin's article. What is LTE-Advanced? Does it have to meet just one, all, or some set proportion of the Release 10 standards to be considered LTE-Advanced? There is no clear cut answer.

 

On the flip side, the 3GPP2 standards are practically an exercise in simplicity -- EV-DO Rev A, Rev B, Rev B multi carrier. I long for what could have been...

 

AJ

[Fraydog]

The most important part of LTE Advanced might be things like cooperative multipoint and the intercell interference reduction techniques LTE Advanced incorporates. Unfortunately that's not going to be hyped up nearly as much.

[bigsnake49]

The most important part of LTE Advanced might be things like cooperative multipoint and the intercell interference reduction techniques LTE Advanced incorporates. Unfortunately that's not going to be hyped up nearly as much.

 

Yeah, but carrier aggregation will be, because that's "teh new sexy", even though from an average user's perspective it matters very little and it might be detrimental to battery life because it requires two RF paths to be active at the same time.

[bigsnake49]

The most important part of LTE Advanced might be things like cooperative multipoint and the intercell interference reduction techniques LTE Advanced incorporates. Unfortunately that's not going to be hyped up nearly as much.

 

Yeah, the intercell interference reduction techniques might actually enable LTE to have the same coverage radius that the CDMA standards enjoy now. Which will be a good thing.