> Hi Giorgio,
> Perhaps I misunderstodd you, but my point was that there will be very
> substantial increases in traffic on cellular networks driven not
> (primarily) by new data services, although those will have a role, but
> by the large-scale migration of voice traffic off fixed networks onto
> mobile networks. And that UMTS gives the mobile operators enough
> capacity to do this. 3's declaration on pricing is part of that jigsaw -
> they, like TIM and Vodafone, have signalled their intention to drive
> such migration once their networks are up to it.
I agree with you that when 3G networks will be up, running and
reliable, operators will use them as a capacity reserve for voice
traffic. However, just remember that GSM took years to arrive at
a good level of reliability, to solve all roaming issues etc. How
much will take 3G to reach a similar level? Conversely, having a
low-quality voice is probably the most powerful factor holding
back people from throwing their fixed line in favour of mobile.
Finally, fixed line is coming to new life thanks to ADSL and
(who knows?) new fancy, multipurpose fixed terminals.
My bottom line is that mobile will never substitue fixed telephony.
They are simply two different things, that solve different (only
partially overlapping) needs.
> In this context, EDGE is a short-term upgrade that is mostly applicable
> for operators in low-population-density countries (like Finland) or
> those in third or forth place who have sufficiently few customers that
> capacity isn't an issue (and anywau such operators generally haven't the
> money to built 3G aggressively).
I can't disclose info, but I know that also big operators in high-density
populated countries are investing *a lot* in EDGE.
Received on Thu Oct 9 18:26:03 2003