> If I were you I'd be careful saying 'can't', give that Vodafone are
> saying that for them it can.
Well, if weather forecasts after the 6th day is still an unmanageable
problem, let's figure out 3G investment assessments after 3rd year... ;-)
I don't know about Vodafone declarations, but I know "3" is now saying
that they see their future in voice traffic pricing competition. This sounds
as a purely survival strategy, unless it's a tactic move waiting for more
reliable networks and terminals - but then, with which brand will they market
new fancy services?!
The point is: if you want to increase GSM operators' capacity in the short
term, I guess EDGE is less expensive and (much) more reliable than UMTS,
right now.
Giorgio
> As regards growth in cellular traffic; just because everyone has a
> phone, that doesn't mean the market is anywhere near saturated. There's
> currently 3-5 times more voice traffic originating on fixed networks
> than on mobile networks in most European markets. That is unlikely to be
> the case in 10 years.
>
> -Benedict
I don't follow you: in countries where 90%-like penetration has been reached,
the common prescription to increase traffic is to stimulate more data services
usage, but this happens at quite slow rate and is subject to PC-like saturation
(no more than 35% of subscribers will use data services or something like that).
About stimulating voice traffic: of course I expect the average mobile voice call
to be shorter than fixed call, and that some population segments (e.g.
elder people) generate little or no mobile traffic, but this reflects different
usage patterns and behaviours (shorter calls on the move, elder people using
the mobile only for emergency etc.). I don't see how to modify these usage
patterns in the short term.
Giorgio
Received on Tue Oct 7 17:58:18 2003