"I submit that the telecommunications universe has spawned capabilities that have become too diverse, too diffuse and fragmented, and, in many of the developed nations, far too embedded, to allow one to make generalizations about how long it will take for significant changes to materialize and eventually mature to the point where they will support any-to-any connectivity. And once they approach maturity, as with all things, it will once again be time to move on."
At one level we've been discussing emergence of new technologies, and at that level, I agree: not only with the extracted statement, but your whole post.
However, at another level, we're speaking of the commercial adherents to this or that technology, and their customers, who can be assigned to groups. One of those customer groups would be existing mobile users. And within that group, what Ray Duray used to call "Joe Six-Pack" - the user who just wants the device to perform a very limited set of operations, simply and easily. This goes to a side issue in RF usage, namely, masking complexity.
Another group would be the incumbents, and mobile operators.
Yet another would be users in command economies, whose telecosm is evolving differently than ours.
Still another would be "independents" (for lack of a better term) who embraced WiFi as a direct, viral response to policy failures in North America.
At that level (blocs of end-users), I'm struggling to understand your position and direction. Or even the discussion with Peter, and now with elmat.
We've seen how long it took OFDM to become a standards-based part of the telecosm, after it was first turned downed by ITU as immature technology. We watched the brawls within IEEE as different companies fought to get a piece of the action in ways which would benefit them. 802.11b, after trailing 802.11a with apparent disinterest, began the morph to WiFi with the addition of OFDM.
We saw UWB beached on IEEE shores. We watched Qualcomm do a complete about-face on OFDM, after some success in distorting procedure at the IEEE - but let's not think that Qualcomm was the first, or the last. This isn't criticism of the IEEE; it's recognition of the nature of quasi-political activity in any authoritative body.
As technologies emerge, we see the evolution of commercial strategies: the fight for hearts, minds, and market share. These global strategies are political, regulatory, informational, legal and financial. They bleed into spectrum, harmonization, standards, local and international politics, local and international policy.
At this level, we know from experience that things take a long time to evolve. It's here that "best" (as in your query to Peter, upstream) is determined. Is "best" VHS, or Betamax?
In the telecosm, it's a little different than VHS vs Betamax, because the success of commercial blocs tends to dictate user choices for large groups of people.
WiFi has had some success with the "viral" approach, but statistics reveal that most WiFi users STILL haven't enabled even basic security measures. (This reverts to the issue of masking complexity in wireless usage).
Which brings us back to Joe Six-Pack, and what he wants, which brings us to blocs of users, and what they want, which brings us to the biggest bloc of all, incumbents and mobile operators, and what they want.
I submit that, despite our dissatisfaction with incumbents and mobile operators, they still have a lock on the majority of users, and are still positionally advantaged within the telecosm. Because MOST end-users still want simplicity, and ease of use.
That no matter what gee-whiz technology emerges (including cheap voice calls), it won't get widespread adoption until they either allow it (and why should they?) or until they incorporate into their revenue model.
That they will do, apparently with WiMax.
The commercial blocs that sponsor viral adoption will experience parasitic success, and growing numbers, but viral usage demands masked complexity, simplicity, ease of use.
Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, there will be a battle between these commercial adherents, and that battle will be joined at spectrum. Why there? Because multi-mode devices will require access to all spectrum. WiFi, for instance, is limited to 2.4 GHz: keeping it there is obviously in the best interests of mobile operators/incumbents, and keeping the existing system of spectrum allocation is also in their best interests, IF they can get complementary spectrum. Being positionally advantaged, I believe they will, and thus, retain their advantage.
"WiMax/operator/carriers will counter that spectrum strategy with their own, by using their High Ground position and influence to retain more traditional allocation, especially for complementary spectrum."
Message 23516222
"One source tells Unstrung that BT will also pursue WiMax licenses as spectrum becomes available in other European markets. The next countries to auction the 2.6GHz band will be Germany in early 2008, Sweden in the spring of 2008, and Norway in October this year."
Message 23537582
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conceded that this viewpoint isn't exclusively technical, which is the bent on this forum. But surely the positions of existing players and their commercial strategies can't be ignored, when discussing the advent of new wireless technologies.
Jim
|
