>So, you're saying:
Yes and No.
>*Wideband CDMA is not substantially more spectrally efficient than GSM
I am saying that spectrum efficiency advantages of the access method are
greatly offset by other developments and at the same time that spectrum
efficiency comes at a price that may not justify it's use. The fact that
quality cannot be guaranteed with CDMA due to the degradation with numbers
of users remains a problem in the number one application, which is voice.
>*EDGE is available off-the-shelf today to GSM operators
As far as the availability of EDGE goes, there are software upgrades
available for existing GSM BTS, yes. But what is more important is that
EDGE is in production on a large scale in Japan and there is more
operational experience with EDGE than there is with 3G. It is a choice by
the 3G license holders not to deploy EDGE. That desn't mean that EDGE is
not available and deployable when some networks choose to deploy it.
>*GSM operators are not experiencing capacity constraints
Not necessarily. I said that 3G gets it's capacity from vast amounts of
spectrum allocated to it and further due to the fact that 3G requires
smaller cells at the frequencies most of it is going to be deployed.
My point is therefore that sufficient capacity could have been made
available based on GSM or CDMA or PDC, by simply applying the very same
methods: allocate extra spectrum and build smaller cells.
Again, the reason for 3G is not that it was the only or best way to provide
more capacity. The reason for 3G is that they wanted a broadband wireless
system that could challenge broadband wireline, an ambition I am skeptical
about. And I am not the only one - I am in good company with that criticism.
>You keep talking about 'CDMA' as though this is 3G. It isn't. What on earth
>is the relevance of comparing the cost of a 'CDMA' base station 'a few years
>ago' with the cost of GSM, as though that tells us anything about the
>relative cost of providing high density service in three to five years time
>using 3G v. GSM?
The point is that GSM and PHS are economies of scale today and they will
remain to be for some time. Whether 3G will ever become an economies of
scale model remains to be seen. ITU forecasts 40m 3G users by 2006 (or
might have even been later). Now that doesn't indicate a steep rise to
economies of scale.
>EDGE is not 'available'. 'Available' means I can go out and buy a working
>solution. EDGE will become available for European GSM operators in late
>2002/early 2003- about the same time as their 3G networks are being turned
>on.
EDGE is available to 3.6m users in Japan today. My friend Eric, who also
reads this list has an EDGE phone. Sure, it is a Japanese flavour of it,
but it is operational and stable. 3G is not operational nor stable as yet.
As I said before, once GSM networks want to roll it out, for one reason or
another, it will be less trouble to deploy than 3G.
Handsets may well take longer - especially given that they'll hardly be
>a priority for the vendors.
Which may change in an instant. 3G enthusiasm is fading by the day in
Europe, and with lower customer interest 3G may drop from the vendor's
priotity list just as easy as it got there in the first place. It's all
about demand.
BTW, one could also say the very same about 3G handsets.
>Why would I deploy EDGE if I've got a 3G licence?
And what about those in Europe who didn't get a 3G license ?
What about those in the US who have to wait another 6 years before the
spectrum becomes available because it's still licensed to other uses ?
What about those in the developing world who haven't got the cash to roll
out a new network ?
> I have to build 3G anyway
>- or write off the licence costs.
Some companies are expected to face that tough choice, yes indeed.
> EDGE actively reduces my voice capacity.
>It confuses my customers. It won't let me offer the services that my
>competitor is offering over 3G.
What if that 3G competitor delays their deployment and the trend is heading
elsewhere ?
What if those services don't become the cash-cow killer apps as everybody
hoped they would ?
> And my cash position has nothing to do with
>that. The only people who *might* deploy EDGE are Blu and Bouygues - but Blu
>will get bought by a 3G new entrant and Bouygues will get a licence next
>year - so no deployment at all.
Western Europeans appear to become just as self-centered as they used to
criticise US Americans to be. If both only realised that the world has a
few more countries than they can spot from their ivory towers. It's a pitty.
>>GSM, allocated only a fraction of the extra spectrum allocated now for 3G,
>>would be able to handle all the voice >traffic you can possibly think of.
>
>That's a staggering assertion. Would you really claim that a technology
>concieved for maybe 4m customers per country is best suited to replace the
>entire fixed access voice infrastructure? Do you think doubling capacity is
>enough?
I think scarce resources, such as radio spectrum should not be used in a
wasteful manner. It's against economic principles. 3G is doing just that.
Who needs to see video clips on a mobile phone ? People didn't want to see
TV or movies on those mini TVs some years ago, so why should they suddenly
have a demand for it ? There is better uses for radio spectrum.
I think mobile telephony should be optimised for efficient use of voice
with guaranteed service levels and data should only come in on an as-needed
basis, espcially for higher bandwidth. It is far more efficient use of
radio spectrum and other resources to build WLAN in places where high speed
data is needed and let mobile data be the fallback, then combine this into
hybrid devices.
3G doesn't point that way. The aim of 3G is to create bandwidth in
abundance so that it is cheap. The same philosophy is used in the US in the
energy sector and as a result US Americans, while only accounting for 4% of
the world's population account for 25% of energy use and the system
discourages preservation of energy. The very same Europeans who challenge
the US on that wasteful energy policy are now telling us the very same
philosophy is right for using another scarce resource: radio spectrum. I
don't buy it. Nobody with reasoning should buy it.
>>As far as fast data goes, it is more likely that this market will be >taken
>>by WLAN and 3G will be too late for it. WLAN is yet another 3G >alternative
>>that is again far more cost effective and it is much >faster today than 3G
>>will ever be.
>What makes you think mobile operators will lose a moment's sleep if no-one
>ever connects a single laptop to 3G?
What makes you think that WLAN will remain a plug-in-your-laptop service ?
Experience shows that once a network has reached a critical mass, if it's
cheap enough, people will come up with all sorts of new applications for
it, that weren't thought of in the first place.
3G operators stand to loose a lot of sleep if devices come out that you can
use in any cafe, hotel lobby, office, pub, restaurant, etc etc etc to allow
VoIP telephony (and some other services they hope to sell over 3G) via
WLAN, bypassing their networks entirely, which obviously means that revenue
will be less than what they expected, especially as their entire business
model is centered around broadband.
regards
benjamin
Benjamin Kowarsch
Email: benjk@mac.com
Tel: +44 7092 295-685 (mobile)
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Jul 26 12:12:43 2001