I see a lot more "will deploy", "is deploying", and "has licenses for" (or "will sell licenses for") than "has deloyed" or "serves" on that list. And, of the ones that have deployed, they seem to mostly be small deployments (small countries, or just cities within small/medium regions).

I'm not sure which of our perspectives that really sides with.

Will isn't relevant. Has is relevant. Has, at this point, WiMAX deployed thoroughly and widely enough to compete with (at a large regional level) EDGE/HSPA? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Thus my point.

I'm sure they will. But they don't now, and they certainly didn't when the N810WME was first announced.

I think you've just contradicted yourself... If it's not "Existing", then it's not an "existing WWAN".


I'm also sort of dubious about what you go on to speculate as a multi-protocol strategy that sounds sort of like "LTE in cities, WiMAX in rural areas". Sorry, that doesn't work for me. I'm fine with "high speed in cities, low speed in rural areas". Or "newer in cities, older in rural areas". But not "you need an oranges WWAN in cities, and a bananas WWAN in rural areas". (can't say "apples to oranges" because that might apply to Apple)

What I mean is: having 4G in a city, and 2G/3G in rural areas if fine. Having 4G flavor 1 is the city, and 4G flavor 2 in rural areas is not. It would be like requiring that my phone be able to do both CDMA and GSM (or I have to carry two different phones), because CDMA is only available in cities, and GSM is only available in rural areas. Sorry, that strategy doesn't fly for me. I'm ok with only getting 1xRTT in rural areas, and EVDO in cities; or only getting GPRS/EDGE in rural areas, and HSPA in cities.

IMO, LTE and WiMAX will end up complimenting/competing with each other in the same way CDMA and GSM have. I don't see them being mixed into the same devices.