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