:: "Death of 3G ?" ::
I've been holding off making any comments about Clay Shirky's "death of 3G" siren, as a Techdirt posting (below) comments on. Maybe I'm too scared that it's true. It could be, but I wanted (and need) more time to compose a lengthy reply, which I may never get time to do. For now I wanted to dump some thoughts whilst fresh in my mind after pizza with a few guys in the wireless industry whose views I value.
Whilst Clay's analogy seems attractive, I am not so convinced. One could argue the merits of the "permanet" versus "nearlynet" model and the examples chosen, but I think the real problem here is that we need to work the numbers on this, just like we need to work the engineering through on the whole open spectrum debate that is perhaps struggling to climb out of its lofty political origins.
Why do I mention these two issues side by side? Well, there is the matter of quality of service that seems to get overlooked when comparing a controlled and planned network versus an ad-hoc one. Professor Lawrence Lessig’s road versus railroad analogy may not be the most apt if you happen to live where traffic jams are the rule of the day! This needs a lengthy discussion in order to appreciate its significance, and that discussion needs to take place between experts better than myself, though my hope is that the realm of analogies gets replaced by serious proposals.
Hand-waving myself for a moment the issue with WiFi hotspots is that they are just not going to do the job. Before long, users of hotspots will want hot-zones and before long hot-regions. Wait, isn't that 3G?
If the sociological shifts predicted (observed!) by Howard Rheingold are what the near-future holds, then users will become part of an information world that is pyschologically very time-sensitive, be it the need to know news about terror threats or, more likely, the need to satisfy a whole plethora of social appetites that we have yet to understand.
This time-sensitive info-social networking means constant (wide-area) data coverage is essential. In terms of economics I have my own views on why the value perception for such access will be markedly different to what we are seeing right now for mobile voice (hence why such comparisons are of limited value). The clue is in the idea that social status, well-being and wealth generation will be stronyl related to conducting our "business" online and that mobile access with continuity will become a valued essential and very much demanded. Quite possibly, the distinction between "business use" and "consumer use" will blur, further upping the ante for constant connectivity.
In short, there will be a viable economic case for 3G. What it can offer is so incredibly valuable and won't be on sale anywhere else - certainly not via a patchwork of WiFi hotspots. These definitely have value in the short-term and will always have a place in our wireless existence, but they will never replace the need for a wide-area mobile network.
Sometimes we seem to forget where we are coming from. The problem right now is that for wide area mobile access, all we have is GPRS, which is a voice network with data grafted on its back. Hence why peformance is poor and not likely to improve. So we need something better and that is 3G.
Now the current economic factors that are weighing 3G down are not going to stop 3G from going ahead. It seems inconceivable that for the next 10 years we are going to sit back and do nothing whilst a revolution in our work and social habits takes place that demands time-sensitive ("always on") access. Hotspots are not going to make it - they will be too sparse, too poorly maintained and never be able to offer the quality of service required.
I caution myself that these issues are not to be lightly tossed in the air - as I have done. It is not a matter of clever argument and guesswork, resorting to analogies and irrelevant history to make a case. We need to contrive various models of usage for future mobile-community scenarios and take a deep look at the engineering issues. Perhaps if we did this, as I know some people are doing, then we can focus our efforts where it makes sense to do so, for all our sakes. Afterall, for all our sakes, it actually makes sense that we get 3G - and WiFi - to work effectively well .
But for now, I am a "Field of Dreams" believer for 3G - "if we build it, they will come". Actually most operators can afford to bankroll this for a long time yet. Probably the best thing we can do, 3G pundit or not, is to talk up the confidence in the wireless future and attract more investment into 3G, not more pessimism. All those investors who have shyed away from technology stocks should be piling their money into wireless - it definitely has a future!
p.s. My associate at IPWireless tells me that 3G has a future "only if it's TDD" (but he might be biased :-).
-----------------------
Permanet, Nearlynet, And Wireless Data. As per usual, an insightful article from Clay Shirky looking at "permanets" vs. "nearlynets". His argument is that "permanets", networks built by a few large entities tend to fail when competing against "nearlynets", networks that are cobbled together randomly by individuals. His argument is that "permanets" are usually high quality - but expensive, and nearlynets are usually lousy but cheap. However, over time, nearlynets improve much faster than permanets get cheap. This makes sense. Any nearlynet has incentive to get better. Permanets, though, have to recover their high initial capital costs, and thus, have less incentive to get cheap quickly. As an example of failed permanets, he talks about airplane phones and Iridium, both of which make his case perfectly. In both cases, lower quality, but cheaper mobile phones took away the ability for the permanet solution to make money. Now, he says, that 3G is the next permanet, and WiFi is its competing nearlynet. Of course, when you think about it, it's a little odd that mobile phones were the "nearlynets" in his initial examples, but suddenly become the "permanet" in his prediction. There are, though, differences between regular 2G mobile phones and the 3G data plans that carriers are betting on. We've said in the past that the 3G providers are likely to price their offerings terribly (toll booth style, rather than flat rate) and Shirky points out that this is likely to push people towards the "nearlynet" of WiFi. Definitely worth reading.
Source: [Techdirt Corporate Intelligence: Techdirt Wireless]
1:29:32 AM 
|
