WiMAX’s first impact will be felt overseas, not in the U.S., as the first certified equipment expected to emerge late this year and early next with solely target international spectrum bands unavailable to carriers in the States.

The WiMAX Forum’s first wave of certification will validate only equipment operating in the 3.5 GHz frequencies, spectrum commonly available in Europe, Asia and developing markets, but not in the U.S. Forum members said that the first compliance tests of equipment available in a U.S. band, 5.8 GHz, will begin the second wave of testing, which most likely won’t kick off until next year.

The reasoning is simply one of economics said Gordon Antonello, chair of the WiMAX Forum’s Technical Working Group and senior technical advisor for Forum member Wi-LAN. Spectrum at 3.5 GHz is available all over the world and its initial deployment potential is much greater than U.S. frequencies.

“Our view has always been more global,” Antonello said. “The cost of these tests is not cheap. We have to start with the equipment that will have the broadest impact.”

The first wave of WiMAX 802.16-2004 testing will consist of two 3.5 GHz profiles: Time Division Duplexing using 3.5 MHz channels and Frequency Division Duplexing using 3.5 MHz channels. The Forum is now concluding the first phase of the wave 1 testing process, which consists of validating the benchmark tests that will be conducted on vendors’ equipment at the Forum’s testing facility in Malaga, Spain. Compliance testing will begin in late September, gauging each base station and CPE individually against individual performance standards. Once three vendors’ kits from the same profile have finished the lab can start phase 3 interoperability testing, Antonello said.

The first equipment for the 5.8 GHz bands will hit the labs in Wave 2, which will begin after Wave 1 is finished. No timeline for Wave 2 has been set since the first Wave’s conclusion depends on how quickly the equipment moves from the compliance to the interoperability stages.

While many U.S. WISPs have committed to deploying the fixed WiMAX networks, they will have to wait until the completion of Wave 2 before they can received certified equipment. At least one carrier said it wasn’t too concerned about the exact release date.

“If vendors get their 3.5 GHz gear certified, we’ll be well on our way,” said Jeff Thompson, chief operating officer of metro WISP TowerStream. “They’re not going to make their 5.8 GHz gear any differently. It’s merely a change in frequency.”

TowerStream will continue to deploy Aperto Network’s legacy gear in its networks, Thompson said, but it will begin beta trials of WiMAX-track 5.8 GHz gear as soon as it is available, and launch commercial networks when that equipment becomes certified. “It will definitely be exciting once this stuff gets certified,” he said. “A lot of things in this industry will start escalating.”

Almost all of the major vendors said they have either already developed a 5.8 GHz kit or will have one ready by the end of they year. A few vendors like Alvarion and Aperto have committed to making 802.16-2004 equipment for the 2.3 GHz and 2.5 MHz frequencies in the U.S., but so far neither of those profiles have been scheduled for a future of wave of certification testing.

The problem is that those frequencies are not only specific to the U.S., but also specific to a few license-holding carriers, notably Sprint and Clearwire. While Clearwire has committed to deploying WiMAX and Sprint is planning on launching WiMAX trials, both of their plans involve the next version of the standard, 802.16e or Mobile WiMAX. Without any specific carrier commitment to deploying the fixed WiMAX in those frequencies or a large enough group of vendors committed to making equipment for it, there’s little point in compliance testing those bands, Antonello said.

Even if a major carrier like Sprint were to commit to fixed WiMAX using its 2.5 GHz Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licenses, if it only selected a single vendor, there would be no reason to perform certification trials, Antonello said. “You have to have sufficient vendors to do interoperability testing—in this case at least three,” he said. “Otherwise there’s no point to interoperability.”