> Another ongoing source of cost: miniaturization. I think it's only
> very recently, in Japan, that you've gotten phones down to the
> point where there's no reason to make them much smaller.
Agreed. This leads to the question of innovation, when do the phone
companies start designing phones that don't look and operate like
the current phones. The latest phones with integrated GPS/navigation
system, robustness for outdoor use, etc. are part of the development
to a future when people will own more than one phone for different
purposes. Phone with PDA/Business features during the day, a very
small and invisible for the evening and robust phone with GPS for
hiking in the forest.
Obviously this will require new services and offerings from the
operators as well, eg. multiple SIM cards using the same phone
account, intelligent forwarding options, etc.
[About markets without subsidies..]
> Is this really true? Bear in mind that a guaranteed monopoly is
> an indirect subsidy: ...
I think it would be fair enough to say that the Nordic countries has
developed a decent mobile market without subsidies and reasonably
competitive market (since GSM, of course).
> I don't know Finnish telecom, but my impression was one of
> "regulated oligopoly".
Yes, although the regulation has been rather relaxed. However the
two incumbent GSM operators have been in tough competition with
their dirty tricks and everything. One could also argue that
they have benefit from their existing telecomms revenue and
infrastructure when building the mobile networks.
It's also a question of what's reasonable. A country with only
max 5 million users and a lot of sparsely inhabited areas to
cover, I wouldn't like to pay for too many overlapping networks.
Best regards,
Petri
Received on Tue Jul 18 16:56:47 2000