| 3G Wireless.-A Wrecked Paraphernalia | | | | At fixed performance level, moving the trade-off |
| Third Generation or 3G Wireless was introduced in | | | | curve upwards can also be achieved by: |
| 2002 in Europe, America, Japan and other parts of the | | | | Ø Larger investments in physical infrastructure |
| World simultaneously. It is yet to get more that 5% of | | | | (more base-stations) |
| the market share of the worldwide mobile market. In | | | | Ø Higher transmitter power (causing higher |
| Japan it has a mere 5% penetration in spite of the | | | | radiation) |
| hype that has been built on 3G.For another two years | | | | Ø Economics of Scale + the experience curve |
| it is not going to provide global coverage. Even in most | | | | gives falling equipment prices Logaritmic diagram gives |
| developed countries it is still not offered Nationally, | | | | a straight line for product price fall.(The global user |
| wherever 3G coverage is given it is not purely 3G. | | | | base today is in the 100s of millions) |
| Coverage. The mobile switches between different | | | | New handsets and infrastructures will quickly move |
| technologies like 2G/2.5G in various regions of a | | | | down the learning & volume curve and hence give low |
| country. It is now more than 4 years since 3G was | | | | prices. As electronic equipment becomes very cheap, |
| offered, why has 3G not come up as promised. To | | | | maintenance, service and physical infrastructures as |
| analyze the deployment and failure of 3G so far let us | | | | masts, buildings and cables will become the dominant |
| understand what factors are inhibiting the adoption of | | | | part of costs. And the prices will get standardized at a |
| 3G in a big way and why 3G has not been able to | | | | point. |
| stand ground till now and that too even when people | | | | It has been seen that Standardization freezes |
| have started talking about 4G. | | | | performance at a certain technological level and |
| The wireless landscape in 2006 | | | | performance jumps when a new standard is fixed |
| Ø Several competing infrastructures: GPRS, | | | | which also demands a total infrastructure changeover |
| WLANs, 3G + dark-horses | | | | The Rule-of-thumb |
| Ø Both large WLAN operators and 1000s of local | | | | New infrastructure must offer at least 10 times better |
| hot-spot operators. WLAN clearinghouses offer global | | | | performance to replace old large installed base (This |
| roaming access. Built-in WLANs in Laptops and | | | | rule-of-thumb comes from Andrew Groove at Intel in |
| hand-helds | | | | his book "Only The Paranoid Survive" and has not |
| Ø Mobile operators operating in extreme price | | | | been properly verified) |
| pressure but still dominant in handling end user relation | | | | Ø 3G performance jump is not large enough to |
| (billing, roaming, seamless mobility etc.) | | | | justify infrastructure replacement |
| Ø Emerging new technologies with potential for | | | | Ø 3G offers only 3-4 times better spectral |
| breakthrough by 2010 | | | | efficiency than 2.5G |
| Ø A continuous suite of terminals from voice-only | | | | Ø 3G bandwidth only 2-10 times better than 2.5G |
| ear-phones, handsets,handhelds, & lap-tops etc. | | | | Ø GPRS gives better geographical coverage than |
| History of 3G | | | | 3G |
| The term 3G was coined at academic conferences | | | | Ø 3G offers better bandwidth but coverage is |
| around 1990. Then 3G meant everything beyond GSM | | | | more important for the consumers |
| One 3G vision was mobility by wireless plus personal | | | | Ø 3G networks not even close to offering the |
| phone-numbers, following the Individual globally at | | | | coverage of GPRS |
| closest fixed line. Later the "1G", "2G", "3G" and even | | | | Ø GPRS, a software upgrade on the GSM |
| "4G" terminology was captured by equipment vendors | | | | networks will probably always offer better global |
| in the mid 90s for selling UMTS to the market and | | | | coverage than 3G. |
| regulators. | | | | Ø WLANs offer better bandwidth than 3G |
| On arrival, 3G was hidden from users in a 2G/3G | | | | Ø WLANs are already here with a large installed |
| offer | | | | base on many company lap-tops |
| Right Now Pure 3G operators have: | | | | Ø It is possible to cover hot-spots and city centers |
| Ø No user base | | | | at low cost for WLAN Service Providers |
| Ø No trusted Brand | | | | Ø WLAN base stations cost very less |
| Ø No complete network | | | | Ø WLAN equipment market is already being |
| Ø Dependent on unfavorable deals with incumbent | | | | adopted at a large scale |
| GSM operators | | | | Ø 3G only adds performance in a small part of |
| Users : | | | | the trade-off diagram if compared to GPRS together |
| Ø Already GSM customers (phone number, voice | | | | with WLANs |
| mail, trusted Brand etc.) | | | | Emerging dark-horse technologies further undermining |
| Ø High-end users already using GPRS | | | | segments of the 3G market are |
| Ø Expected the 151 country global coverage of | | | | Ø Airships and other HAP (High Altitude Platforms) |
| GSM and at least national GPRS coverage | | | | over large cities working as platforms for broadband |
| Ø 3G only offers service in cities. | | | | wireless |
| Ø Pure 3G is seen as a step down from GSM | | | | Ø In Digital Terrestrial TV (DVB-T), one channel |
| Ø 3G was hidden from the users in a branded | | | | set aside for data transfer gives a capacity of 38 Mbit. |
| GSM/GPRS/3G combination offer. | | | | Very good coverage in countries adopting DVB-T. |
| Ø To offer 2G/3G service, pure 3G operators | | | | Can be used in fast moving cars. Few masts give low |
| have to strike unfavourable deals for network access | | | | scalability |
| with 2G operators | | | | Ø Optical wireless is using lasers in free air to |
| Ø Handsets are GSM/GPRS/3G | | | | solve the last mile problem, very low mobility. Almost |
| Ø Incumbent operators target existing user base | | | | infinite bandwidth |
| with 2G(R)2.5G(R)3G migration offers | | | | Ø Satellite projects for offering broadband internet |
| Ø Pure 3G operators TRY to strike deals with 2G | | | | access globally. Very high latency and low mobility. |
| operators to offer geographical coverage. | | | | Will pure 3G operators survive ? |
| Ø Pure 3G operators unable to secure deals for | | | | History lesson: Swedish generation shifts in analogue |
| access to the 2G networks | | | | mobile |
| User habits: | | | | Analogue NMT 450 (R) analogue NMT 900 |
| Two separate markets "mobile on the move" and | | | | NMT 450 had full national coverage when NMT 900 |
| "semi-mobile Net access" exist. | | | | arrived. NMT 900 was targeted at yuppies with urban |
| "Mobile on the move" (GPRS/3G) | | | | coverage, pocket sized handsets and lower tariffs. |
| Applications: Voice, SMS/E-mail, stock quotes, movie | | | | Coverage was important, urban NMT 450 users |
| tickets, weather, time-tables, driving directions, bank | | | | resisted giving up a rural coverage they actually |
| accounts, yellow pages, delayed flights etc. | | | | seldom used NMT 900 had to invest in national |
| High mobility need, works on low bandwidth | | | | coverage before take-off |
| (i-Mode operates on 9.6 Kbit) | | | | Analogue NMT 900 (R) Digital GSM |
| "Semi-mobile Net access" (WLAN) | | | | Coverage and quality was important. With NMT only |
| Lap-Top or PDA download of e-mail and files. | | | | operational in the Nordics, Pan-European was the |
| Voiceprobably not included | | | | selling point, GSM did not take off until a significant |
| Sitting still, low mobility, high bandwidth need | | | | Swedish national coverage was reached |
| The Race: 3G Verses 2G/2.5G/WLAN | | | | Coverage is important for mobile services |
| Technology Drivers for mobility and Reach | | | | The "3G Business Case" - profitable only in best case |
| The Scientific argument is that there is a trade-off | | | | scenarios |
| between mobility in bandwidth and geographical reach | | | | Ø Financial analysis shows the 3G Business case |
| Mobility & Reach are related to: | | | | ROI very dependent on: |
| Ø handset size | | | | Ø Very high 3G penetration (e.g. diagram) |
| Ø battery time | | | | Ø Operator market share |
| Ø usage in fast moving vehicles | | | | Ø Population density |
| Ø geographical coverage | | | | Ø Being an incumbent |
| Drivers for the wireless industry are: | | | | Ø The $ 320 billion 3G investment in Europe is |
| Ø Microprocessor performance increase (Moore's | | | | extreme in size - and business risk. |
| law limitation) | | | | Ø GPRS upgrades cost 5 % of 3G |
| Ø Battery performance increase (a much slower | | | | Physical 3G investments in Europe |
| exponential curve than Moore's Law) (batteries are the | | | | Ø $150 billion paid for 3G licences + handset |
| big bottleneck) | | | | subsidies and marketing costs.A very large and high |
| Ø Air interfaces with increasingly better spectral | | | | risk investment |
| efficiency* | | | | Ø GPRS upgrade of 2G networks cost 5% of 3G |
| (Better processor performance makes new more | | | | investment. An alternative with less capacity than 3G |
| computationally intensive air interfaces viable. | | | | but much lower business risk |
| Shannons Law puts an upper limit on spectral | | | | Ø 3G network investment (cost/operator) 3 billion |
| efficiency as we understand it today and we are | | | | $ |
| gradually getting closer to this limit but innovations as | | | | Ø GPRS upgrading of a GSM network (cost |
| smart antennas will push spectral efficiency further) | | | | operator) 0.1 billion $ |
| Ø Better processor performance/power | | | | (source: Merrill Lynch) |
| consumption ratio | | | | Ø Upgrade Cost per Subscriber (US$) |
| Ø Handset display power consumption efficiency | | | | Ø W-CDMA 300 |
| These drivers sum to a continuous performance | | | | Ø GPRS 10 |
| increase in wireless. Exponential growth (slower or | | | | (source: Morgan Stanley ) |
| faster) is the normal case and shows up in all | | | | 3G Business will be short of a break-even in 2010 as |
| technologies and industries. | | | | 4G arrives |
| Ø Better performance makes it possible to move | | | | The Question to ponder is: |
| upwards on the trade-off curve of "bandwidth-mobility" | | | | "Does the Remaining World have to go through the |
| Ø Larger investments in wireless base-stations | | | | painful |
| can also move the curve upwards | | | | Evolution of 3G or just leapfrog from 2G/2.5G to 4G. |