Can GPRS bridge the 3G mobile gap?
Vodafone is about to launch GPRS (general packet radio service), the next generation of
internet mobile phones, which offers an "always on" internet connection and faster
download time. Nicknamed "2.5 generation" it aims to bridge the gap until 3G arrives by
improving the disappointing service curently offered through Wap (wireless application
protocol) technology. With handset sales slowing and telecoms companies feeling the
burden of expensive 3G licenses, a lot is riding on GPRS' success. But will customers be
convinced of the need to buy expensive new handsets just to get the internet on the
move? And can the service tempt customers to spend more time (and money) online? If
not, what lies ahead for telecoms in the wait for 3G?
Hosted by - Maija Pesola
Industries [all discussions]
Telecoms
Can GPRS bridge the 3G mobile gap?
13 replies in 1 page.
All times are GMT
Can GPRS bridge the 3G mobile gap?
Can GPRS bridge the 3G mobile gap?
by Maija Pesola FT Journalist
#1 of 13
01 Jun 2001 10:09 AM
With handset sales slowing and telecoms companies feeling the burden of expensive 3G
licenses, a lot is riding on GPRS' success. But will customers be convinced of the need
to buy expensive new handsets just to get the internet on the move? And can the
service tempt customers to spend more time (and money) online? If not, what lies ahead
for telecoms in the wait for 3G?
Maija Pesola
What Gap?
by J R Nardulli Guest
#13 of 13
04 Jun 2001 01:40 PM
What Gap?
Text messaging works well, in Europe, aside from some backing up at the gateways. As
long as one doesn't receive the "Network Not Available" message, then a well designed
XML interface into an applicaiton works well.
We are all waiting for improvements in the GUI, but that is mostly an device
manufacturer's issue.
The device manufacturers together with the network opertors are to blame for the
ludicrous situation we are in at present. I daresay that any contributor to this forum knew
what would happen the moment those "surf the net from your mobile phone" adverts
appeared.
The next real improvement will come from the deployment of reliable VoiceXML services.
As chairman of a small application developer, I can not afford to commit resources based
on what network operators may do or what device manufacturers may promise. We
develop for the here and now and stay current with what's likely ahead.
You Europeans have much better service and SMS - here in the US we're still trying to
figure out how to get through a call without being "dropped", never mind SMS.
A note on revenue models: Consumers will continue to get more and more for less and
less. The merchants who benefit from the mobile connection must pay the bill. Any
revenue model aside from that ignores most of the fundamental principles of business.
GPRS on Trains !!
by A Scotsman Guest
#12 of 13
04 Jun 2001 12:53 PM
Ilmarinen.... that's the point.. I don't want to have to fiddle with anything bigger than my
current mobile which has text messaging which I never use anyway.. The most I would
want personally is the forwarding of e-mails when I'm not in the office... Replying is
another matter..... As I have size 10 fingers and most mobile buttons are size 5 this is
already a pain in the neck...
Anyway..... as it is now possible to use an ultra high speed fibre optic bus (connections
that is - not the things with wheels) then it is possible that the whole mobile phone GPRS
dream could be killed off by very high speed internet connections making it less
neccessary to travel... If u can achieve realtime, high resolution video conferencing or
point to point cooperative working who would want to get on a train anyway ???
Fiddling on the train
by Ilmarinen Guest
#11 of 13
04 Jun 2001 10:47 AM
Scotsman, do you expect to fiddle with a 19 inch monitor
on the train??
In general one sends SMS messages, e-mail, etc to
warm up the one waiting for
the train to arrive.
GPRS component cost is the
same as for regular GSM handsets,
but increased use for data services, storage demands more RAM, same for larger
displays,
the limitation is still the size of the pocket, the purse
for women.
Mauricio: Yes, CDG is in
a difficult situation, not
even the koreans like QCDMA.
Ilmarinen
P.S. Isn't that CDG propaganda text copyrighted??
GPRS updates the network, 3G the radio card
by Ilmarinen Guest
#10 of 13
04 Jun 2001 10:29 AM
old GSM = circuit switched
(except for SMS messages)
GPRS = GSM + packet network
EDGE = GPRS + faster GSM airinterface
3G = same GPRS network plus more and new, bandwidth and
new radio interface.
Simple incremental stuff, but one need to keep separated things separeted.
GPRS data services will be cheaper, good reason to buy a
new handset.
Ilmarinen
GPRS is a Bandage Solution
by Mauricio Banchieri Guest
#9 of 13
04 Jun 2001 01:39 AM
The Transition Path
GSM data evolution path will always require new network infrastructure and new
phones. Every one of the future GSM data services from GPRS to EDGE to WCDMA (and
High Speed Circuit Switched Data and Wireless application protocol) require the
purchase of a new mobile phone to take full advantage of the enhanced functionality, but
all handset will still be able to operate on the GSM network. Moreover, GSM network
infrastructure needs the use of Gateways GPRS Services Node (GGSN) to link the
Internet with IP backbone. These are modified IP routers. GGSN typically cost three to
four time than the equivalent IP router.
Furthermore, "GPRS will eventually require Mobile IP in order to offer full mobility within
the Internet, without Mobil IP, the GPRS network will not be able to identify a node such
us a portable PC" . Mobil ID will require and use more network resources. On the other
hand, CDMA utilizes standard routers being more efficient than GPRS and its Gateway
GPRS Service Node (GGSNs) modified IP routers. The CDMA packet data uses Mobil IP
as its transport layer.
Based on the GSM data evolution path, these technologies (GPRS/EDGE) are not
competitive with CDMA data services. The transition under GSM/GPRS/EDGE has a
higher cost of deployment. CDMA Path to 3G is simpler because the entire network:
phones and base stations already have IP protocols built in as a standard. "Experts
estimate the cost for rolling out a full network upgrade for 45 million POPS from GSM to
GPRS is about US $125 million. Adding packet data to a CDMA network is less than 5
million dollars" .
Another big difference is that the CDMA handset can be use in all of the CDMA networks
95A, 95-B and 1 Ex thanks to compatibility in the CDMA handset system. GPRS
technology is also not economically efficient if we compare it with CDMA. Transition Path
Intuition says NO !!
by A Scotsman Guest
#8 of 13
03 Jun 2001 09:37 PM
Saines..... yep.. that's exactly right... The appeal of GPRS or indeed full screaming G3 is
exceedingly limited.
In any event, BT in particular had the opportunity to knock this whole silly idea on the
head.. If they had rolled our ASDL across the UK or even better, run local fibre nets off
their fibre trunklines using WDM then we could have used our PC/Laptops or whatever
for what INTEL and wee Billy Gates intended them for.... Real high speed internet
access....
Piddling around with some overpriced mobile on a crowded train trying to catch the
webcast of the latest news, or oggling at Britney Spears' underdeveloped personality in
an MTV webcast just doesn't grab me - by anything....
Ever watched that Hewlett Packard advert on TV of the two mountain climbers halfway
up Everest watching their favourite soap ?? If that's the future then I want off !!
GPRS bridge for 3G
by Fernando Jaminola Jr. Guest
#7 of 13
02 Jun 2001 08:09 AM
GPRS for 3G is overhyped. I don't think it would make any difference elesewhere.
Japan's i-mode which has been a hit here in Japan started with a simple mobile e-mail
service on packet network. It was not overhyped.
Service providers must be realistic & paid content business model must be acceptable by
subscribers.
Do not expect too much from GPRS.
In praise of selling things the majority don't need or want.
by S Saines Guest
#6 of 13
01 Jun 2001 05:26 PM
The very factor necessary for the success of any high-bandwidth demand device is
success in numbers...the very factor that will then doom them.
Remember generations back, how people used to line up in the UK to use the pay phone?
Was that the success of pay phones, or the abject absense of people being hard-wired
in their homes?
Same will happen with 3G. The more people there are to use the limited bandwidth, the
longer the line-up to get to use that limited bandwidth.
Mobile phones are excellent....for talking over. And even there, the service quite often
leaves a lot to be desired.
Will the hype ever stop? Internet access from mobile phones in the UK is next to
non-existant. Text messaging is the market, and the bandwidth demand is tiny. Why build
castles in the sky (in theory) when people just want a hut?
Bridging the 3G Gap
by David Bradley Guest
#5 of 13
01 Jun 2001 05:06 PM
The question is really about whether or not paid for services will start providing
sufficient revenues to improve investor sentiments before 3G networks are completed.
Consumer and business markets will provide quite different returns, so need to be
analysed separately.
The business market could prove the most worthwhile because of highly compelling,
measurable, value added benefits, such as accessing corporate data any time, any
place, securely from the palm of the hand. 3G Gap concerns are in some ways irrelevant
because users do not necessarily require thick content. Moreover, technology can now
serve up content optimised for the bandwidth at a given location and type of device
being used. So good news, encouraging returns may not be too far off.
The consumer market, however, is scary because it is so fickle. The telco industry failed
to predicted the text craze and are poorly placed, currently, to guess accurately its
evolution.
Who knows if consumers will pay to send photographs from their mobile phones? How
can we tell if peer to peer commerce will catch on, considering poor take up of consumer
e-commerce.
For the consumer market, the best hope is to focus the argument not on technology, but
on business models and services.
Japan's Imode became popular in large part due to the fact it incentivised content
providers with over 90% of incremental revenue they generated. Consequently this
financial incentive meant a plethora of content - which gave consumers a good reason to
spend time online. Network operators need to adopt a similar approach here to succeed.
david@oxygenmarketing.co.uk
hey - it's a phone.....
by Gerry Guest
#4 of 13
01 Jun 2001 03:59 PM
What gap?
We've heard it before from the promoters of PANS (pretty amazing new stuff) that
everyone will want one? So why aren't we using videophones like ISDN hypers
predicted to be "ubiquitous in a few years" as far back as mid 80's. "Lifestyle" changes
happen slowly.
My mobile phone is a phone I can use on the move. 90% of the utility is just that. Another
7% for SMS - a really useful tool and the last 2% for the handeset features - eg clock /
alarm / diary / games / etc.
Can GPRS save the day
by Ian Wood Guest
#3 of 13
01 Jun 2001 02:58 PM
I was lucky enough to get a demo from Stuart Newstead (BTCellnet GM) of GPRS. We
looked at the content available and the technology.
My first impression is that GPRS is a lot better than the present Data solutions and that
includes Oranges HSCSD. However the issue is once again on of context, if you are
using the service just why do you want it?
If you wish to empower your remote workers with realtime info then go for GPRS. If you
wish for the same exoerience wirefree as you get wireline then be prepared to be
disappointed.
When I have tried to access the FT web site I have been told that my Opera browser
was not reconised by the FT server and so have had to use the WAP browser on my
Psion. Yes I am disappointed but no I do not blame the FT.
For GPRS to work it needs everyone to work as a team. Don't knock the technology
support and promote it and who knows we may have a rival to imode.
GPRS save the day?
by Ashley Guest
#2 of 13
01 Jun 2001 12:06 PM
After the disasterous GPRS PR event hosted by BT Cellnet reported in FT, I thought the
situation couldn't get worse....
Then I visited a Vodafone shop. I simply asked for a demo of the service. Depsite several
attempts, the sales clerk couldn't get the phone to connect to the GPRS network. They
told me to come back next week, despite the fact that they had a big promotion poster for
GPRS in their window.
I also asked if any other phones were availble besides the ONE Motorola model. The
answer, "no". The only model he claimed was coming in the near term was a model from
Ericsson. I've never owned an Ericsson phone, and it's doubtful I'll start now.
All times are GMT
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Contact Us | FT.com
© Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2000. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of
The Financial Times.
© 2000 Infopop Corporation.
© Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2001. "FT" and "Fin |
