-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
3G/HSDPA via ADSL?
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Here's the reason why I don't see this happening
- Using your mobile phone to surf the Internet when you have an ADSL with a WiFi Access Point is pointless.
- Mobile phones with WiFi are entering the market in many different models. If your operator has an IMS platform, you can switch between the two systems as it would be an IP-based account you'd be calling from (SIP for instance).
- In the case of most packet-based-billed networks, the transferred MB costs for the subscriber are expensive enough on one technology, but to also pay for that same transferred MB twice because you're backhauling it over ADSL just doesn't make sense. Congratulations - you've just doubled your monthly bill.
- You need an account with an ADSL provider and then another with a mobile provider. That's two broadband subscriptions. Considering that mobile operators are rolling out wireless technologies such as HSPA which have a roadmap that goes as far as 28Mbps before they consider rolling out something called "4G", what point is there to use ADSL?
- If the problem is that the mobile operators can't deliver the promised coverage and bandwidth, then why aren't they just handing these boxes out for free? Why should a subscriber pay for something the mobile operator is supposed to deliver? Coverage is a prerequisite to using a service. Mobile operators will put up a mast where they see interest in numbers. If you're not in the area, the cheaper alternative would be to roam if allowed.
- Related to that: Subscribers MUST be able to easily install this product and operators SHOULD do all the configuration and upgrading on their own.
- On a minor note: How do you sell people a pico base station, let alone a mobile phone to people who are worried about SARS levels?
Based on all this: How many people would actually do this without generous help from the mobile operators? I can well see this in niche applications, but as far as niche products are concerned, you can always find a tanning solarium in a lab somewhere in Antarctica.
Those were my two cents.
- Using your mobile phone to surf the Internet when you have an ADSL with a WiFi Access Point is pointless.
- Mobile phones with WiFi are entering the market in many different models. If your operator has an IMS platform, you can switch between the two systems as it would be an IP-based account you'd be calling from (SIP for instance).
- In the case of most packet-based-billed networks, the transferred MB costs for the subscriber are expensive enough on one technology, but to also pay for that same transferred MB twice because you're backhauling it over ADSL just doesn't make sense. Congratulations - you've just doubled your monthly bill.
- You need an account with an ADSL provider and then another with a mobile provider. That's two broadband subscriptions. Considering that mobile operators are rolling out wireless technologies such as HSPA which have a roadmap that goes as far as 28Mbps before they consider rolling out something called "4G", what point is there to use ADSL?
- If the problem is that the mobile operators can't deliver the promised coverage and bandwidth, then why aren't they just handing these boxes out for free? Why should a subscriber pay for something the mobile operator is supposed to deliver? Coverage is a prerequisite to using a service. Mobile operators will put up a mast where they see interest in numbers. If you're not in the area, the cheaper alternative would be to roam if allowed.
- Related to that: Subscribers MUST be able to easily install this product and operators SHOULD do all the configuration and upgrading on their own.
- On a minor note: How do you sell people a pico base station, let alone a mobile phone to people who are worried about SARS levels?
Based on all this: How many people would actually do this without generous help from the mobile operators? I can well see this in niche applications, but as far as niche products are concerned, you can always find a tanning solarium in a lab somewhere in Antarctica.
Those were my two cents.
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
It might work, but only in bridging a small gap. The question is who is going to pay for what. Will you have to pay the cellular operator for data traffic even though you are using your own equipment and connection? It will be very unfair to have to do so. The only place where they deserve to make a profit is where a call actually terminates on their network, not on another user's home setup. Considering that that service is already provided by VoIP phones I see this project probably dying before it even starts.
Hard to believe that a Ovum research analyst can come up with such bollocks (but them maybe I am not surprised).
Firstly, there is no way on this planet that a UMTS nodeB will ever drop in price to that of a wifi access point. Why? Because that will put Alcatel, Siemens, Nokia, Ericsson and just about any other UMTS vendor on this planet out of business. They MAKE their money especially by pricing up their entry level BTS's (around R400k for cheapest Ericsson jobbie).
Secondly, what is the value proposition? Better indoor coverage? Call me presumptious but UMTS manages a reasonable quality of voice calls (even video calls) even with almost no signal. Or is this a situation again of someone wating to sell you 16:9 DTS 7.1 video over your phone....No thanks, if I want to experience that, I used my PC (which is directly feeding ADSL)
Thirdly, the transmission between the "access point" and phone will need to operate on the same UMTS band, which when last I checked...yes costs millions (billions in the EU). Think a mobile operator will willingly surrender part of their dearly acquired spectrum just to be excluded from part of the value chain? Think again..
Lastly, in support of smeary's post. It seems the learned analyst has somehow slept through the advent of UMA (unlicensed mobile access). which does exactly what he is dreaming....except it uses unlicensed ISM spectrum over wifi access points. The network oprator happily plays this game because it enables him to CAPTURE that landline market of in building coverage he lost out on WITHOUT having to commit radio resource. He merely installs a UMA server (a sort of base station controller), which effectively treats wifi access points as nodeB's. Various classifications for types of service such as public and private are provisioned for means both the enterprise and operator has control over who is allowed onto what. Also there is already a Nokia handset out supoprt UMA. See www.umatechnology.org
Firstly, there is no way on this planet that a UMTS nodeB will ever drop in price to that of a wifi access point. Why? Because that will put Alcatel, Siemens, Nokia, Ericsson and just about any other UMTS vendor on this planet out of business. They MAKE their money especially by pricing up their entry level BTS's (around R400k for cheapest Ericsson jobbie).
Secondly, what is the value proposition? Better indoor coverage? Call me presumptious but UMTS manages a reasonable quality of voice calls (even video calls) even with almost no signal. Or is this a situation again of someone wating to sell you 16:9 DTS 7.1 video over your phone....No thanks, if I want to experience that, I used my PC (which is directly feeding ADSL)
Thirdly, the transmission between the "access point" and phone will need to operate on the same UMTS band, which when last I checked...yes costs millions (billions in the EU). Think a mobile operator will willingly surrender part of their dearly acquired spectrum just to be excluded from part of the value chain? Think again..
Lastly, in support of smeary's post. It seems the learned analyst has somehow slept through the advent of UMA (unlicensed mobile access). which does exactly what he is dreaming....except it uses unlicensed ISM spectrum over wifi access points. The network oprator happily plays this game because it enables him to CAPTURE that landline market of in building coverage he lost out on WITHOUT having to commit radio resource. He merely installs a UMA server (a sort of base station controller), which effectively treats wifi access points as nodeB's. Various classifications for types of service such as public and private are provisioned for means both the enterprise and operator has control over who is allowed onto what. Also there is already a Nokia handset out supoprt UMA. See www.umatechnology.org
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Actually this is incorrect. Prices drop according to the quantity manufactured. As long as the ratio between price drop and quantity remains more or less the same no one will be put out of business. Consider that both CD and DVD writers were priced at R4000+ when they appeared on the consumer market and R20000+ when they were specialized equipment. Now they are available for between R100-R400 and companies made more ever since the price dropped.Hannes said: