> Interesting idea about using PHS for roaming. Not sure about the issues
> for
> setting up a PHS network from scratch
Well, FITEL in Taiwan did just that about a year ago and 6 weeks ago
they launched international roaming for Taiwanese PHS users visiting
Japan.
However, the idea wasn't even to set up a public PHS network with full
coverage. The idea was to set up hot spots in places where Japanese
tourists are known to show up in numbers.
In Europe you couldn't do it because the Europeans have a cordless
system called DECT which they want to protect and they know it has no
chance in an open competition against PHS because PHS has already
reached the critical mass needed for economies of scale.
However, in most other countries PHS is approved, albeit mostly with the
intent to use it as a cordless system or wireless PABX system. But then
again, a PHS cordless base at home and a PHS based wireless PABX in the
office are in fact *hot spots*.
So, in most of the many countries where PHS has been approved, ie. US,
you could get a PHS based PABX and offer services on your premises, ie.
hotel or coffee shop. This could be roaming services for Japanese
tourists, but also you could offer resale of cheap long distance calls.
Just make sure your customers don't take off with the PHS handsets you
hand out ;-)
> but as far current services in Japan
> go I think PHS is still going to put up a good fight.
I agree.
> Most heavy data users in Japan use PHS not FOMA or 1X or PDC. Subscriber
> figures for PHS packet services are growing fast, and unlike
> subscribers for
> other services such as 1X or i-mode/PDC most of these users are actively
> subscribing for the data access - rather than just as a voice/phone
> upgrade.
> The success of PHS packet services in Japan since last year, bodes well
> for
> GPRS. Speeds are probably comaparable and costs for both are in a
> different
> dimension from 3G. Not sure that WLAN really has much of a chance to
> compete.
Eventuall, WLAN will have a strong impact, but for now, PHS has the
advantage of being ubiqitous and unified within the realm of a
particular operator.
The questions for anyone who relies on data services on the road will
be ...
- Will I be able to get service where it matters to me ?
- If I sign up with one WLAN provider, what happens if I am in a place
served by another ?
It will take some time for WLAN to bridge those gaps. But once it does,
it will be a sincere threat to the mobile internet as we know it today.
However, as mentioned in another post, I think PHS could very well
benefit from WLAN becoming ubiquitous, because PHS base stations could
be more easily deployed using WLAN as a backbone and in the process
drastically reduce the cost of transit.
> They've been a few questions on the list about how often you actually
> see
> people using the broadband features of FOMA/1X. Most people you see
> connecting PCs wirelessly in public tend to be using a PHS card. Current
> best effort 128Kbps speeds are pretty usable (if not quite what they say
> they are) and the flat rate pricing is going to make it difficult for 3G
> networks to compete for at least a couple of years.
And once we are there, 3G will feel the heat from WLAN.
> PHS operators have had a hard time with voice in the past,
Which is a shame, because PHS still has the best voice quality of any
mobile phone system to date and it is not only most spectrum efficient
but also most cost efficient.
The main problem with voice services is that PHS operators are not
allowed to charge more than the tariffs set by the government (ie. 10
yen/min for a local call) whereas they have to pay dearly for the
transit over NTT's network (8.5 yen/min as last year). When PHS was
built, the government promised to relax the regime and the new PHS
operators hoped to see their margins increase, but the government let
them down - IIRC back then the margins were negative. Initially, the per
call connection charge of 10 yen was supposed to equalise and while the
networks were still optimising their coverage and many calls dropped
this actually helped them make some money, but not for long. Eventually,
the PHS operators got stuck with a voice service that couldn't possibly
make a profit. DDI made the right decision and focused on data services.
NTT Personal probably felt that they didn't have to worry even if the
service turned out to be a loss leader - they were an NTT subsidiary
after all. And Astel, well, they must have thought losses won't matter
while building up market share - it was Astel who started sexy
advertising for mobile phone services in Japan and initially they were
the PHS market leaders. How things have changed, eh ?
> but I heard that
> even DoCoMo who seemed to have turned it's back on PHS, was considering
> upgrading it's PHS network to follow DDI's success.
They are well advised to look after their PHS network. It may come in
very handy one day. For example, what would they do if they run it down
and 3G turns out to become the Betamax of mobile ? For now, that PHS
network is the best insurance policy they can get, so they better pay
their premiums regularly and orderly ;-)
> DDI are, I suppose, the only PHS network operator that's really got it
> together to make the most of PHS.
Yup. Ironically though, when PHS was launched in 1995, there was a lot
of speculation if DDI would be able to make PHS work because they did
not have what was considered an advantage of NTT and Astel, the access
to places where to install base stations, such as telephone poles and
phone boxes (NTT) and power poles (Astel).
> Their "Mobile IP" service is, as far as I
> know, the first wholesale wireless interconnection service of it's kind
> in
> the world, and there are apparently a few big names out there who are
> considering launching their own wireless services over it.
>
> http://www.ddipocket.co.jp/news/h130810.html
Actually, I have heard of at least one MVNO (for data) in operation
using DDI's network.
regards
benjamin
Received on Sun Jul 7 22:17:49 2002