Skip to main content

Pioneer Vendors Still Dominate WiMAX Market

According to In-Stat, while better known equipment vendors like Samsung, Nokia Siemens, and Motorola received extensive press coverage in 2006 due to their high-profile service provider wins, it was still the original market entrants -- Alavarion, Aperto, Redline, and Airspan -- that held the dominant market positions.

The high-tech market research firm does expect that will change as Sprint starts its network deployment. The company has not selected any of those early market pioneers as an infrastructure partner.

I believe that Sprint may end up regretting that decision, but only time will tell. Conventional wisdom says that, in an emerging technology product category, the larger vendors are often the safe bet. However, traditional telecom equipment vendors tend to design overly-complex "carrier grade" products to justify their intentionally high price. In contrast, nimble WiMAX service providers will likely need to be frugal, and contain their infrastructure costs.

"While the early pioneers of WiMAX should lose their market share dominance over the next couple of years, they should continue to grow their revenues, benefiting from the overall growth of the market. These vendors continue to win larger contracts with higher profile service providers," says Daryl Schoolar, In-Stat analyst.

In-Stat's market research found the following:

- At the end of 2006, there were 213.3 thousand WiMAX subscribers, worldwide.

- Almost all of those subscribers were found in Eastern Europe, North Africa or Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific Region.

- Due to delays in 802.16e certification, In-Stat now believes the life cycle for 802.16d equipment will be longer than originally forecast.

Popular posts from this blog

Bold Broadband Policy: Yes We Can, America

Try to imagine this scenario, that General Motors and Ford were given exclusive franchises to build America's interstate highway system, and also all the highways that connect local communities. Now imagine that, based upon a financial crisis, these troubled companies decided to convert all "their" local arteries into toll-roads -- they then use incremental toll fees to severely limit all travel to and from small businesses. Why? This handicapping process reduced the need to invest in building better new roads, or repairing the dilapidated ones. But, wouldn't that short-sighted decision have a detrimental impact on the overall national economy? It's a moot point -- pure fantasy -- you say. The U.S. political leadership would never knowingly risk the nation's social and economic future on the financial viability of a restrictive duopoly. Or, would they? The 21st century Global Networked Economy travels across essential broadband infrastructure. The forced intro...