G* vs. I*. Here's my effort to fairly summarize the relative merits and demerits of both systems. :
I*'s advantages.
1) First to market. I* is scheduled to start at least 4-5 months earlier. Given the number of G* launches to go, that lead is likely to widen by at least 3 months or so. This means that I* will have the advantage in being perceived as the "leading" mobile sat com system.
2) Coverage. I* will have truly global coverage from day one. Although not all scheduled gateways will be up day one, I*'s inter-satellite relay architecture will allow coverage everywhere day one nonetheless. Gateway delays will mean delays in building capacity, especially in dense usage areas, but this is unlikely to be a real world problem for say the first year of operation, at least.
3) Its own long distance network. I* will be able to bypass the existing long distance network and operate truly independently, other than the last part of the link when called a landline phone on the other end. This allows I* to bypass terrestrial long distance where it is either non-existent or too expensive. This could at least theoretically allow I* long distance costs to not be much higher than its local call costs.
G* advantages.
1) Price, price and price. Especially for local calls (which really means super regional, within the footprint of a gateway). And almost everywhere, for long distance as well. This is a function of much lower system costs, as well as greater capacity. While its true that overall system capacity is not the issue, but rather capacity over the nodes with the highest use, G* will nonetheless have much more room to profitably decrease the price of its calls in the future, as usage goes up, and cellular systems encroach and decline in cost.
2) Price again. Long distance prices through the G* system may also be lower. G* would counter that I*'s theoretical, or engineering advantage of being able to carry its own long distance traffic is in reality, a great disadvantage. Achieving the capability is a large part (but certainly not all) of the reason for the doubled costs of I*, as well as the greater complexity (and hence likelihood of failing) of its satellites. And the advantages are in political and legal reality, illusory. The trend is for rapidly declining international long distance rates. International costs are going down, or are already down enormously. There is now enormous political and competitive pressure to lower international long distance as well. And G*'s gateway nodes would be intelligent and easy places for foreign telcos to allow good international rates to develop
3) Quality. Call quality, handset size and battery life. Three important "quality" issues for the consumer. CDMA has better voice fidelity than TDMA, and much better battery life, on average, since it scales power up and down, as needed both in the birds and at the handset. Also has multipath avoidance of land obstructions as an automatic bonus of the architecture when more than one bird is overhead. (Most places, most times.)
4) Local backing. Incentives for local support and advertising. The locals are cut in everywhere. Not only in long distance, but in all calls.
Since I think the principal danger for either system is that their per minute costs are too high for the demand in areas not already served, I am massively more inclined to bet on G*. One has to think not only how things are day one, but also what the trends are in declining telecom pricing, further build outs of cellular systems worldwide, etc.
It actually wouldn't surprise me to see G* pricing calls in 5-7 years at say 15c minute local, 10c a minute long distance. (In current pennies.) With attendant huge volumes and large parts of worldwide cellular roaming going though the Sats. I* would belly up.
Doug |
