<<What are the implications of possible interconnected radio LANs and voice?>>
elmat: I was negative on the voice part of it. Leaving aside the voice part of it what is necessary is to marry Wireless VPN to the LANs. But it is not realistic (I would say impossible) to leave the players whom today have brands, subscribers' base and a lot of infrastructure.
<<But, perhaps I see an evolution in your thinking?>>
I hope evolution for the better! Whenever I'm wrong I chance my mind. Whenever my course of action is leading me astray I correct it.
<<Drawing from another of your recent posts, you see the decrease in importance of infrastructure providers as architects of the telecomm future.>>
Elmat: Just look to how many factories they are geting rid of. How many people they are sacking. They are shrinking. They are adapting to the next purchase cycle in which they will not be the big fish they used to be.
<< And I agree. We seem to be assembling the pieces, building an answer - but 3G is as dynamic and exciting as any incumbent's answer - that is, not very. OTOH, are the dreams of the fixed-wireless people so much flimflam, or is there a reality out there?>>
elmat: We have to cut the spectrum and associate it with a network which will provide a service. (like with AM FM TV, trunk radio) That's difficult. There is a lot of education that has to be done. Kevin's USA TODAY article is a case in point. The antennas in Microsoft offices is another. Lots of people have to be convinced of lots of things (bearing in mind that very few people are of F. Coluccio or J. Kayne calibre)
It certainly doesn't exist yet! Everybody is groping in the dark for the model: the way to put revenue, pervasive connectivity, the internet and voice into a profitable package. Microsoft, for instance, has acquired pieces of every conceivable pie: do they have a "vision"? Perhaps. Or, they've bought the puzzle, and they're turning over the pieces, wondering where they fit.
Elamat: now if we slice spectrum and make it very clear to a lot of people, this thing start to make sense. You know telling, there is AM, FM, VHF TV, UHF TV all the way to RX rays to see your lungs. Each of this arbitrary 'cut' in the spectrum has an economic purpose.
elmat: Take 400MHz and you can some wireless telephony to some pocket of subscribers. Take 450 you can do analogue wireless, take 900MHz you do GSM, Take 1900 (US) or 1800 (Europe) you do PCS. Take 2.something and you can make 3G. (lets leave analogue TV out of this for our case).
Why you need to educate people?, you may be asking. Well, the guys who develop the guts of this stuff, have no clue of what you encounter once this thing goes live. There is a lot of things that only if you have had your hands on it you can evaluate the prospects of it. (Just look to what Siemens and NEC are doing in the Isle of Man for MANX.) In a controlled environment they are ironing out the problems of 3G.
Intel is making interesting SOC designs including embedded wireless software and hardware.
elmat: If my experience in this business is any guide, that's the way it will end. Look to our PCM systems, that became PDH and evolve into SONET/SDH. Then we went down from rows of racks. To stack of shelves, and now, we are down to the card level. (Just look to the need for more power and more cooling systems in today's telco milieu. It is a sign that doing electrical is becoming tough. So why not next doing it soft?
Where's it all going?
elmat: Why you need to educate people?, you may be asking. First is to educate ourselves who are in this business. (Kind of everyone evolving his own thinking) Well, the guys who develop the guts of this stuff, have no clue of what you encounter once this thing goes live. There is a lot of things that only if you have had your hands on it you can evaluate the prospects of it. (Just look to what Siemens and NEC are doing in the Isle of Man for MANX.) In a controlled environment they are ironing out the problems of 3G. So lets not go Tsunami style. Lets go and attack where it pays back.
And whether you're talking fixed or mobile wireless, the pervasive connectivity that is being proposed will have huge infrastructure costs. Why does nobody care to mention that in an "always on" world, one will be "always in" a cell?
elmat: 'always on' or 'QoS' and other short hands are for Power Point slides makers. You don't sell always on per se. Nor QoS. The way to sell this stuff is to make like the most unobrutusive microwave device. The oven. The users are not interested in the spectrum power or the generator. They just want to warm up food on it.
Perhaps (as I think you are suggesting) the question lies not in specific content, or specific technology, but an amalgam of services and technology - and profits.
Elmat: YES, YES, YES!!! Take the Shopping Mall as a model. You get real estate guys, they build, you put into that space an 'anchor', i.e., a supermarket to draw people, Multiplex cinemas, barber shops, sports goods, coffee shops, you know the usual stuff. Then all that infrastructure is used by all those businesses.
If there is one question that is driving thousands of people to edge of madness today, I suggest it is "How do we make all this stuff pay?"
Elmat: Coopetion (cooperation+competition) instead of pure competition. To make this stuff pay we have to show its value for the guys who already are out there. Mobile operators. Tell the mobile operators that they can continue doing everything out there as they have done. Let them throw radio waves into the bush, the pasture, the trees. Let them worry about zoning and lease agreements and costly and time consuming RF planning. Just don't come with the same radio waves and the same solution to cover the office environment. If we do that, this thing start being interesting.
Your point about the in-the-box thinking of present infrastructure providers is true. Both Ericsson and Nokia have been searching diligently for killer apps for 3G - Ericsson in-house, Nokia is contracting out the search.
Elmat: Vendors want to sell iron, cards and software. And more of the same they already have. They don't want to go there and buy some brains to bundle 'not invented here' technology to their bread and butter GSM networks. They -as companies are not structured to act in this way. Hence someone has to go get the ear of the wireless operators to get this new technology bundled to their networks.
But it's quite possible that 3G has shot itself in the foot - and the fixed wireless folks, with the rich-content providers may steal their thunder with a better business plan.
Elmat: The 3G thing (the pool of patents, the cooperation agreements and all those backroom deals) was made propelled by the wireless vendors, the very ones that are up to be thrown down form the saddle. An operator could very well saying right now: "If at least we haven't listened to NOK, ERICY, SI and NEC!!!" 3G have to turn themselves inside their own shoes to keep on top of this business. So they have to get good at coopetion. But judging by their track record...
And yes, let's not forget the economies of scale that we need to bring this pervasive connectivity to the poorer half of the world.
Elmat: Computerless Internet will take care of that. There will be terminals like we have watches today: From the Audemars Piget down to the Casio and the Swatch. The Swatch will developed by NOK, I guess.
Another example is the photocameras market segmentation.
I used the 15 minutes to correct it I hope is legible.
What a riddle!
Regards,
Jim |
