Slashdot Mirror
Is 3G Irrelevant?
An anonymous reader writes "Network Magazine asks 'Are We Better Off Without 3G?' in which the author notes that many networkers are giving up on 3G as a data services alternative due to high deployment costs and slower speeds vs. Wi-Fi. Given these issues, are we likely to see carriers like Nextel bypassing 3G for 4G technologies such as OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) by Flarion Technologies?"
I just tried to visualize that... I think I burst an artery.
OFDM is an encoding, not a protocol. Both Wi-Fi and WiMax (802.16) use OFDM, and I wouldn't be surprised if 4G (802.20) systems end up using it as well.
hell, we don't even have 3g in the us at this time. we're still on 2.5g, hopefully to have 3g by the end of 2004-2005. with ntt docomo testing true 4g in japan recently, it makes you wonder why even bother with 3g?
if it wasn't for that horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.....
As a daily user of Nextel's services, I think they should be concentrating on improving the reliability of their service before they even think of what technology they are going to move to next.
Most people have no desire to pay for another upgrade to their voice service. This is a lesson that must be learned, and re-learned. Customers don't want convergence unless it is cheaper than the sum of the parts. Joe Average is fully prepared to pay $40 each for 3 products and services that give him exactly what he wants, but is unwilling to pay more than $80 for one product and service that provides the total package.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
How about high USE costs? AT&T Wireless seems to think that I personally am going to pay the entire cost of building their network - $5.99 for a megabyte of data a month?
And meanwhile they're happily signing up Blackberries with unlimited data for peanuts.
Is it any wonder the average joe is telling them what to do with it?
I'd like to see mobile providers concentrate more on getting their 2G (voice) networks rolled out and matured across America and Canada. You in Europe are lucky -- you have almost 100% coverage. Here in America that is patently not the case - even in large cities such as San Francisco, Dallas, and Los Angeles.
Have you SEEN the GSM map of the US? Looks like a road atlas with smudges.
Fix what you have, mobile providers, and then start dreaming of 3G.
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
It's not any more irrelevent than IPv6 or .
Seriously, there will always be standards and technologies that make it from being in the right place at the right point of the implementation/budget curve and those that end up being skipped or never really fully implemented because it doesn't make sense for most to do so.
The end result of course is, if you didn't spend years on the standard yourself and your company isn't betting the farm on it, then: "Who cares?"
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Given the huge investment in 3G licensing throughout Europe which nearly bankrupted many of the phone companies (and incidently made goverments such as the UK lots of £££)
I don't see 3G going away too quickly, the phone companies have too much invested to throw it all away and start again, video services are just starting to be offered, the companies CANT afford to use alternate systems.
{[ www.insightdynamiks.com ][ psychedelic trance parties]}
4G is the future. It's supposed to be a combination of all these techniques. When I'm in a city I'm connected trought high speed Wi-Fi, when I get out of range i move seemless over to 2 Mbit UMTS (3G) getting further away I'm on 115k GPRS.
All this is great. The problem is how to get operators to cooperate, so I can move seemlessly between different networks and know what price i pay.
The US never was in large parts.
It was almost like a trip back in time when I moved from Europe to the US. Why?
A lot of the appliances etc. etc. are technology wise WAY behind the stuff you can buy in europe standard.
TV's same thing. 16:9 (Pal PLUS) is pretty much standard and you can get TVs for a decent price (HDTV? Yeah right).
Mobile phone? Things like "SMS" that are not touted as the "next big thing" in the US is something I had almost 10 years ago in Europe.
Reality is that a lot of high tech companies are in the US, maybe even do their research here, but ironically enough it's mostly foreign places who profit from it.
Sure, high-tech is available in the US (and sure, if it exists SOMEWHERE and can be bought you can most likely buy it in the US as well) but for the average Joe that isn't the case.
Couldn't agree with you more. I have a SonyEricsson P800 running GPRS, and I can use it to check stock prices and sports scores, and, at a pinch, to send email. But in reality, I don't need to use it that much.
If I need to contact someone when I am out in a car, then I can call them. Almost any situation when I am going to do something that I normally do on a computer (eg. edit/read documents or spreadsheets) I am going to want to sit down and do it, whether I do it on my phone, or on my laptop. And any phone that is small enough to be portable is going to be too small to be useful for anything that needs a decent sized screen and a keyboard. Is it so important to be able to send an email from the bus stop? More importantly, you aren't going to be compiling a megabyte sized spreadsheet or document in the brief intervals when you are completely unable to sit down and take out your laptop, or get to an internet cafe.
These limits mean that I don't need that much bandwidth - if you haven't got that much screen to fill, then fewer pixels are required, which means fewer bytes. I've been at conferences with mobile operators, and the only use that these guys can claim for 3G is video, and increasing the amount of bandwidth so they can have more 2G users on their network at one time. I remember having similar conversations with them about WAP - they were hard pressed to come up with an application that I could imagine myself, or a mass market, using. All they came up with for WAP was betting, and for 3G, it's sports highlights. My experience is that if you really care about a sports event, you are going to organise yourself so that you are near a TV while it's on. There is a high-end, limited niche, that will buy 3G to watch video while mobile, but you can't base a billion dollar investment on this segment.
My guess is that operators will roll out 3G networks, but they will be mainly used to increase bandwidth for 2G applications. No one wants video phones in the fixed wire world (except for high end users, who videoconference), and my guess is that they will not want them in the wireless one either. Some people will pay for sports video and similar, and there will be some revenue from this, like for pay-per-view sports. The problem for 3G is that it took so long in coming, that 2G had time to catch up.
...is it just me or does it seem like WiFi is going to replace everything??
... different goals. 3G is the next step in mobile phone communications. Much like 2.5G (GPRS) was the next step after dialup gsm data connections. Ofcourse, having the 3G standard hyped as "Watch streaming DVD movies on your phone" or the likes doesn't help it much.
:) )
:D
It's weird. First, people complain about bluetooth, saying:
"Hey, Bluetooth is slower and doesn't have the range of WiFi, it won't have a future."
*duh* Bluetooth is a replacement for IRDA and cables. Which means that it has an entirely different set of goals than WiFi, thus, it supplements WiFi and should not be considered an alternative to WiFi. Works great for connecting my PDA to the internet using GPRS, or when I use the BT headset. Playing a game against a friend over bluetooth during a boring meeting is also nice (and doesn't look as strange as when you use IRDA and need to point the damn thing against eachother)
And now:
"3G is to slow/troublesome/expensive, lets use WiFi instead, its faster/easier/cheap"
Again, *duh*
Yes, I've tried it in real life (Malmoe/Sweden, using 3's phones & networks) and it works. Okay, so I might get a better image if I had a laptop + webcam + WiFi, but then, it isn't really that mobile, now is it? (Imagine making a call with that thing whilst riding a bicycle or something
Besides, if you compare the powerusage, you'll soon find that you probably wouldn't want a "wifi-phone".
To conclude this post, WiFi is great, but so is 3G and Bluetooth. They are all different technologies, designed to fit different goals. I for one would love having a PCMCIA card that did WiFi, 3G, BT and GPRS. This way, nomatter what, I could always, somehow, get online.
Anyway, this is my take on it... Bash away
The mobile phone service providers are frantically adding extra features to their phones and networks to prevent cell phones from becoming a commodity. Companies don't want to compete on the prize because that cuts right into the margins. So they try to compete on value. If they stopped adding those features to your phone, cell phones could be treated like land line phones where it looks like the only reason to switch providers is to enjoy lower prices. When have you switched your home phone because somebody else offered a new/better feature not related to pricing?
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"