Pete,
When people are on the move for business they usually go to the business areas, i.e., major towns, where most of GSM coverage is there in place. Maybe unlike you, I roam a heck of a lot. Even friends who do little international business want (note: want) roaming for holidays. If they were never offered it, then maybe they wouldn't e bothered. However, GSM was formulated for exactly that.
You are right that most customers roaming isn't important, but along with the argument above most customers are going on pre-paid (e.g., kids, the wife for safety etc.). A point about this is that these customers spend less than a quarter of bizz customers. Now, some pre-paid offers are now being extended to be able to roam internationally.
Now I can understand most people based in the US are more concerned for national roaming than international. Having said that, I know many US bizz folk who have a seperate GSM phone for when they are over here (and of course, vice versa).
Now to the point about if people so concerned for international coverage would use Globalstar. I would say this must be more a US centric view. If these roaming freaks want international coverage they are more likely to be the business person, yes? If so then why did Iridium and ICO fail. I do believe Globalstar offers a better solution, but it has nothing ot do with coverage or roaming. Cost becomes less important than functionality for these high fliers. In most places they are likely to visit will have terrestrial coverage (and guess which standard is most likely?!).
Your views gratefully appreciated as I am writing something soon concerning the above issues.
All the best,
Mika
PS Almost forgot. I agree with your first statement that roaming means nothing if coverage is non-existant. Exactly the case of cdma surely? Very few countries and even than they are not as compatible as they may seem. |
