Giovanni,
>It is really interesting how WI-FI is used for competing with
>cable... So we are moving in a new scenario where
>competition is not just using different wireless technologies...
Yes, exactly. And I'd suggest that we're moving towards competition on
overall communication "bundles" as opposed to stand-alone services.
>Boundaries between short distance wireless (WIFI, Bluetooth),
>voice service, wire broadband and mobile are blurring.
>An effective service will be much more network independent
>switching between one connection to another.
>
>So ADSL, cable, mobile, FOMA, WI-FI, CDMA 2000 1x/PHS,
>bluetooth etc.. will be integrated depending on the operator strategy
>and capability to provide an effective economic and dependable
>ubiquitous service coverage.
That's my thinking as well. The question is, do the network operators
share this vision? I've seen some slides from one of the major
telecommunications companies here in Japan that suggests that they
may...but I'm wondering how widespread this is. We keep hearing about
individual services, never (although you may all correct me) a bundle.
>Maybe we are still too much focused in comparing on e network
>tech to another... like many today do compare WI-FI to 3G...
What happens if these all become complimentary to each other?
>Looks interesting and I wonder how this will affect the telcos
>still divided into different wire and wireless products and markets.
Me too! Anyone else care to weigh in on this one?
>Cheers
>
>Giovanni
>
>Gioved=EC, 15 mag 2003, alle 04:25 Europe/Rome, Philip Sidel ha scritto:
>
> >
> > Very interesting comments!
> >
> > Curt, I'd love to talk to you "offline" about this significant cost
> > savings. I've never heard this before.
> >
> > So it seems like the issue here is customer "ownership" vs. customer
> > "freedom". Same old story...but I think with a twist.
> >
> > To Arno's point regarding GSM, do you all feel that wireless carriers=20=
>
> > will
> > begin to compete not on one type of wireless technology (GSM, GPRS,=20
> > W-CDMA,
> > CDMA 2000 1x, WiFi, etc...), but that they will be forced to develop=20=
>
> > access
> > "pyramids", and begin competing on the robustness of these pyramids=20
> > and how
> > effectively they meet the usage patterns of their customers?
> >
> > For example, even though KDDI's CDMA 2000 1x may only give 144Kbps=20
> > access
> > speed, needing a costly EV-DO upgrade (if I understand this correctly)=20=
>
> > to
> > compete with DoCoMo's 384Kbps service, if they begin integrating WiFi=20=
>
> > for
> > highest speed access, Soma (www.somanetworks.com) or FWA for wireless
> > broadband access, CDMA 2000 1x/PHS for "normal speed" wireless access,=20=
>
> > and
> > maybe Bluetooth and/or a consumer WiFi solution for wireless in-home
> > access, providing a "smart" device that simply finds the most=20
> > appropriate
> > access, will that completely change the landscape of how access=20
> > providers
> > compete? I've read the hype surrounding 4G, and no disrespect=20
> > intended,
> > but could it be that these types of service "pyramids" do away with =
>any
> > real need for 4G (assuming that these smart devices can speak between=20=
>
> > CDMA
> > and TDMA systems as well). Or am I being naive?
> >
> > I've yet to hear any research that suggests that consumer or business=20=
>
> > users
> > of wireless technologies need constant broadband access....
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> > At 07:19 PM 5/14/2003 +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Giovanni Bertani wrote:
> >>
> >>> The "smart" capabilities of switching from a network to another
> >>> are sometimes described as part of the 4G.
> >>>
> >>> This is great is theory but can we expect the JP operators
> >>> pushing telephones (Designed by them) with this feature
> >>> if could jeopardize the traffic revenue?
> >>
> >> The first switching systems we're probably going to see here are
> >> wireless cards that switch between PHS and WiFi. In this case, it's
> >> actually enhancing traffic revenue, because the contracts are flat=20
> >> rate
> >> for unlimited data. So moving a user off of PHS and on to WiFi means
> >> that the carrier uses the (presumably cheaper) WiFi network to ship=20=
>
> >> the
> >> packets around rather than the more expensive PHS network.
> >>
> >> (By cheaper, I'm not just referring to the costs of moving the =
>packets
> >> through the air, but also getting them to the Internet once they've=20=
>
> >> hit
> >> the base station. I do know of certain circumstances where this would=20=
>
> >> be
> >> a huge cost savings to the carrier, but unfortunately I can't give =
>out
> >> the details here of exactly why this is.)
> >>
> >> cjs
> >> --
> >> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 =20
> >> http://www.netbsd.org
> >> Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
> >>
> >> This mail was sent to address psidel@iuj.ac.jp
> >> Need archives? How to unsubscribe? =
>http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
> >
> > Philip Sidel
> > Assistant Professor of Marketing
> > The International University of Japan
> > Graduate School of International Management
> > Phone: 81-(0)25-779-1400
> > Fax: 81-(0)25-779-4443
> > Email: psidel@iuj.ac.jp
> >
> >
> > This mail was sent to address giovanni.bertani@exsense.com
> > Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
> >
>
>
>This mail was sent to address psidel@iuj.ac.jp
>Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
Philip Sidel
Assistant Professor of Marketing
The International University of Japan
Graduate School of International Management
Phone: 81-(0)25-779-1400
Fax: 81-(0)25-779-4443
Email: psidel@iuj.ac.jp
Received on Fri May 16 04:15:41 2003