Sprint, WiMax, Net Regulation, and the WSJ

by on August 9, 2006 · 4 comments

The Wall Street Journal gets it right in an editorial today, saying that Sprint’s announcement that it plans to invest $3 billion to deploy a nationwide high-speed wireless WiMax network by 2008 is another blow to proponents of Internet neutrality regulation who claim that the broadband industry is not competitive. Hooray for Sprint and the WSJ for pointing out “that out in the real world” competition grows despite the rhetoric in Washington. However, the same editorial gets it wrong when it reports: “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.”

WiMax can be deployed over unlicensed spectrum, but that is not what Sprint is doing. Sprint plans to “put the wireless broadband network together across its 2.5GHz spectrum holdings,” according to The Register and other sources. As I’ve noted before, unlicensed spectrum is great for short-range applications but can’t viably sustain large networks with any serious quality of service.

SHARE: 4 comments

About Jerry Brito

Jerry Brito is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and director of its Technology Policy Program. He also serves as adjunct professor of law at GMU. His research focuses on technology and telecommunications policy, government transparency and accountability, and the regulatory process. Jerry is also a regular contributor to TIME.com's Techland. His personal web site is jerrybrito.com. You can follow him on Twitter and on Google+.

Read more articles by Jerry Brito.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Will TechDirt issue a mea culpa for calling it “HypeMax“?

    Perhaps because of the net neutrality issue, they appear to be resisting the conclusion that more competition is coming to broadband, arguing that another competitive offering might be one too many:

    One significant challenge for [Sprint] will be convincing consumers and investors of the value of this new network, and that it’s not redundant.
    (No offense intended to our TechDirt friends, but I’d enjoy some clarification. Is more competition good? Or not needed?)

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Will TechDirt issue a mea culpa for calling it “HypeMax“?

    Perhaps because of the net neutrality issue, they appear to be resisting the conclusion that more competition is coming to broadband, arguing that another competitive offering might be one too many:

    One significant challenge for [Sprint] will be convincing consumers and investors of the value of this new network, and that it’s not redundant.
    (No offense intended to our TechDirt friends, but I’d enjoy some clarification. Is more competition good? Or not needed?)

  • http://www.jerrybrito.com Jerry Brito

    Looks like Techdirt has more thoughts on this here. Basically Mike says that because Sprint’s WiMax network isn’t proven yet, it doesn’t necessarily mean we have a competitive marketplace. But does that mean that the next logical step is that we plow ahead with regulation just in case, or that we take a wait and see approach to avoid possibly destroying potential innovation?

    At least Mike seems to get the point I’m always harping about, that unlicensed spectrum isn’t good for anything more than local-area uses like cordless phones, bluetooth, and wi-fi. He writes: “While WiMax can work in some types of unlicensed spectrum, it’s fundamentally meant for licensed bands and Sprint paid handsomely for their spectrum. Hell, it was perhaps the biggest reason for Sprint to merge with Nextel: to get all that 2.5 GHz spectrum. In other words, contrary to the central point of the WSJ editorial, it really isn’t that easy for just anyone to throw up a competing service.”

    One petty point: As far as I can tell, I was the first to catch the WSJ error. I’m curious if Techdirt spotted it themselves or if they go it from here.

  • http://jerrybrito.com Jerry Brito

    Looks like Techdirt has more thoughts on this here. Basically Mike says that because Sprint’s WiMax network isn’t proven yet, it doesn’t necessarily mean we have a competitive marketplace. But does that mean that the next logical step is that we plow ahead with regulation just in case, or that we take a wait and see approach to avoid possibly destroying potential innovation?

    At least Mike seems to get the point I’m always harping about, that unlicensed spectrum isn’t good for anything more than local-area uses like cordless phones, bluetooth, and wi-fi. He writes: “While WiMax can work in some types of unlicensed spectrum, it’s fundamentally meant for licensed bands and Sprint paid handsomely for their spectrum. Hell, it was perhaps the biggest reason for Sprint to merge with Nextel: to get all that 2.5 GHz spectrum. In other words, contrary to the central point of the WSJ editorial, it really isn’t that easy for just anyone to throw up a competing service.”

    One petty point: As far as I can tell, I was the first to catch the WSJ error. I’m curious if Techdirt spotted it themselves or if they go it from here.

Previous post:

Next post: