Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Telcos Consider 3G For Last Mile
Mattygfunk writes "Whirlpool reports Aussie telco R&D labs are scrambling to transform 3G mobile networks into last mile solutions rivaling the best wired broadband networks, as telcos come to grips with lack of consumer interest in 3G mobile services and a likelihood of no payback on their multi-billion dollar investments in the spectrum."
Finaly the telcos have realized what 3G is, i.e. a broadband packet based data network. 2G is already adequite for talking, so 3G must offer good data transfer solutions. It may be files, it may be movies, or any other data, but not soley speach. With the suggested rates for the Swedish 3G networks I doubt that this will get a proper breakthrough, but still, it is cheaper and faster than my crappy 9600 GSM transfers.
The last mile has been a stumbling block for telcos for about two decades, now. Available silicon can easily handle fibre to the curb, but getting it in already existing buildings has been a problem.
The ISDN suffered from unknown physical plant characteristics - stubs, splitting pairs, and other analogue phone cruft seriously debilitated ISDN acceptance. ADSL leapfrogged the ISDN performance by learning from the mistakes in the ISDN development/deployment.
Hopefully, this repurposing of technology may be just the boost that an ailing telecommunucations industry needs. The hardware portion of the high-tech sector has suffered an abundance of losses after the dot-com meltdown.
This is progress?
This may be totally off base, but do any of you Teleco people out there know how many users can get access on a single 3G cell? might this be significantly less people that are within that cell (and wanted access), not only within a city, but in the suburbs too?
If you look at the GSM coverage map of China you will see that it has a large coverage for country so large. From what I undestand the reason for this, which is along the lines of the last mile, is that China did not have any cabled phone network covering that area to start with. Since it was going to cost them as much to wire such a large area and that mobile phones were growing in popularity they decided to go the wireless approach.
The reason I bring the story up, is because once you are in a rural area it becomes increasingly more expensive to connect to homes. The problem is that you get less inhabitants per length of telephone cable, thus making it extremely more expensive short and long term. The long term cost is the inspection of such a coverage of phone lines. The wireless approach allows a much larger area to be covered, and it ends up being cheaper as there is there are less inspection points. It also provides the advantage that the phone company also gets money from visitors to the area and not just the inhabitants. Additionaly, for a farmer, this is great as it allows him/her to phone home when they are somewhere in the middle of their land. This sort of solution could be easily applied to other countries with the last 100 miles problem, not just the last mile.
The only question I ask myself, is whether there are any solutions for solar powered transmission towers?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Anyway interesting concept.
-----
i need a ciggie bbl
The only 3G system I know about is the European UMTS system, whose air interface operates on WCDMA (the same technology as the American system, which I believe is imaginatively called WCDMA).
This system is particularly well known for being resistant to interference. The original CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access - the W stands for Wideband) system was originally developed by the American military to provide resistance to jamming.
The key characteristic of WCDMA is that each handset signal is spread across a wide chunk of the spectrum (around 1.9 GHz in UMTS), by applying a code which is chosen to render the signal orthogonal to those of the other handsets. Applying the code at the other end to retrieve the original narrow-band signal has the beneficial side-effect of spreading any narrow-band interference across the original broad area of the spectrum, thus reducing its intensity. To effectively jam the system would involve swamping the entire UMTS spectrum, which would take a massive amount of power.
As for red lights causing interference in the ~2GHz spectrum - well, that's just plain silly.
Amusing troll, though.
Since 3G seems to be offering higher speeds, will the telco(s) introduce the service at low prices, only to win customers, garner major share of the market, only to raise prices afterwards (price increase follows bandwidth increase; "gotta pay recoup the cost of 3G license")? How are they coping with potential interference issues? What *is* the range of 3G anyway?
Have EVDO, will travel.
Given the number of anti-Telstra stories on that site, I'd advise Simon and Dan to be very careful how they open any bag from Telstra :)
The journalist who wrote the article seems to be assuming there will be no payback at all from 3G, in its UMTS or CDMA2000 incarnations, to make a more exciting story. Some of the developments discussed aren't really competing in the same market as 3G in any case, e.g. the Arraycomm technology is mainly for fixed wireless last-mile access, and doesn't have much to do with 3G. The Flarion flash-OFDM approach is interesting, though.
While it may take a lot longer to get a payback than people planned, it's mainly a question of pricing and services. The real issue is delivering, at reasonable price points, services that are of interest, e.g. multimedia messaging (zap a photo to your friends/family), location-based services (where's the closest garage/ATM, and how do I get there?), multiplayer gaming (already happening with text messaging, one game lets you zap combatants who are in the same part of the physical world as you are), and much more. An open market for 3G services is critical, the idea being that anyone with a bright idea can put together their own service.
Of course, it doesn't make such a good story if telcos aren't 'scrambling' to fix 3G - in any case, these are all post-3G developments and will be competing with next-generation WiFi as well.
At AU$0.20/Mb for anything over the base plan, data costs are what's keeping the internet expensive here. The current pricepoint is AU$80-90/month with a 3Gb cap. It doesn't matter what the delivery medium is used to deliver the data, that cost sets a lower limit for any pricing scheme.
Cable is severely restricted to the highest areas of population density in the south-east of the country, ADSL is available in a high percentage of exchanges(both metropolitan and regional), and satellite is used for those areas where copper doesn't reach and can afford it($$$$$).
A 3G infrastructure depends on a good underlying data network - which basically describes ADSL(plus ISDN, ATM, etc).
As far as I can see, the areas which have that infrastructure, but where 3G is the only solution are extremely limited. Add that to the very limited market of high-speed-mobile-data users, and you have a solution which has an extremely small number of users for a high development and setup/intrastructure cost.
I doubt it will be a competitive or affrodable "last mile" solution for the forseeable future, outside of a few PR "success stories".
It's obvious that doing the last mile wireless is going to be cheaper than via copper. What baffles me though, is why making calls on my mobile is so much more expensive than a landline when the implementation/maintenance of wireless networks is so much cheaper than copper or fibre. It costs far less to stick a mast up than to start digging the road up.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Not specifically aimed at your comments:
3G is just a faster mobile data pipe. What services someone wants to run on it is up to them.
You're right that there are more masts required.
You may well be able to get a mobile always-on net link with a 3G service provider. You may well find that some licence holders don't offer this sort of service at all.
3G will be a profit-making technology but not tomorrow and not next year. It's a long-term investment which so many analysts seem to forget.
bandwidth per cell is 388,800kbps
resulting in connection speeds of
2000 kbps for 194 subs
384 kbps for 1013 subs
144 kbps for 2700 subs
64 kbps per 6075 subs
Note cell size is > 1Km but I don't have a figure for max cell size.
Source was from a industry report from an investment house.
384Kbps would probably be the most cost efficient and marketable solution giving a similar user experience as ADSL. However cost per Kbs will be hard to get as low as the monthly connection charges and unlimited connection time we see in most ADSL contracts these days.
Still, any to get money back into telco's cant be bad for the industry as a whole.
If you get modded down for a first post... What do you get for a last post?
A little company by the name of ArrayComm is currently testing a technology they call I-Burst here in Sydney. Basically, it (should) offer pervasive, roaming wireless internet access across every major city in the country, at 1Mbps per user.
What does this mean? Well, it means that if you've got I-Burst capable NIC's, you'll have a 1Mbps Internet connection at any point across all our major cities (as long as you're not moving too fast) on your laptop, PDA or even your phone (assuming there is phones to take advantage of the tech - doubtful perhaps).
This is beyond what any of the 3G's (W-CDMA, CDMA2000 etc) can offer. The only reason Australian telco's are pimping 3G is because they all spent small fortunes purchasing spectrum to run it on. Considering that these 3G solutions are a long way off, and that we should have a working commercial I-Burst service here in Oz sometime next year, 3G may just die a very quick death.
We conducted an in-depth breakdown of the technology behind I-Burst, including the special directional antennas that make it possible. You can check it out here if you're interested.
Janie took my gun...