sorted by: recent | see :
popular
Content Tagged with 3G + wireless
BlackBerry Curve 8900 Preview
iPhone 3G Issues: The Plot Thickens
The iPhone 3G’s problems are a hot topic of discussion these days, with everyone trying to figure out who’s to blame. Is it the fault of the carrier? The software? Or the chips inside the device? While I have a feeling this is really a witches’ brew of all three, the explanations only add to the mystery.
Users are complaining of four basic problems. And notably, they are the same ones that handset makers and carriers in Europe and Asia had to deal with when they started to roll out 3G systems in those regions:
- Speed of the 3G network is often not as fast as it should be.
- Switching between the EDGE and 3G networks leads to broken web sessions.
- For some, the switch between the networks leads to dropped calls.
- Weak battery life.
A report on BusinessWeek.com today sheds more light on the issue, though there is still no official comment from Apple. According to the report, the problem is impacting 2-3 percent of iPhone traffic. BW cites an unnamed source who notes that considering 1 percent of AT&T calls get dropped, this is a problem, but not a catastrophe.
AT&T: Network Is Fine
AT&T, displaying a classic head-in-the-sand attitude, issued a statement that said, “Overall, the new iPhone is performing just great on our 3G network.” Right, and overall, the Yankees are on target to win the MLB World Series! If it’s performing so well, why are so many people complaining?
Ask anyone in San Francisco or New York and they will make your ears bleed with their tales of iPhone 3G woes. When we asked our readers about their experience, a majority said they were getting speeds only marginally better than the original iPhone. BW offers some clues as to what the problem might be:
Part of the role of the Infineon chip is to check whether there’s enough 3G bandwidth available in a given area. If 3G isn’t available or there isn’t enough bandwidth, the iPhone will be shifted to a slower network. One source says Apple programmed the Infineon chip to demand a more powerful 3G signal than the iPhone really requires. So if too many people try to make a call or go on the Internet in a given area, some of the devices will decide there’s insufficient power and switch to the slower network—even if there is enough 3G bandwidth available.
Apparently this is resulting in problems in areas of high iPhone density — aka San Francisco, Boston etc. — the very markets where Apple has both a strong retail presence and higher-than-average mind share.
Antenna & Weak Signals
Meanwhile, Swedish magazine Ny Teknik is citing unnamed experts that have come up with yet another theory:
… the most likely cause of the 3G problems is defective adjustments between the antenna and an amplifier that captures very weak signals from the antenna. This could lead to poor 3G connectivity and slower data speeds.
And when I tried to test their theory, it made sense. I currently have three 3G handsets — Nokia E71, Nokia N78 and Sony Ericsson U750a — all of which are optimized for the AT&T 3G network. The speeds on those phones are much faster. Similarly, if I pop a 3G SIM card into one of the USB modems, the speeds on AT&T network are quite fast.
Its the 3G Stupid
Finally there is our friend Mike Puchol, who explains how wireless networks work and outlines some of the problems associated with 3G technologies. In his view, the problem is shared bandwidth:
…key issue to remember is that the download rate is “per tower”, not per user. So, if two users using HSDPA are on the same tower, they will each get a maximum throughput of 3.6Mbps. Divide even further, and the more users you have the worse experience everyone gets.
His explanation also makes sense, and ties in with an earlier post of mine in which I looked at the backhaul problems facing U.S. 3G networks and asked whether or not they’d be able to withstand the iPhone 3G stress test.
I get the feeling that this issue isn’t going to die anytime soon. If you have theories, please share them with us.
If this story interests you, check out our
upcoming conference:
Mobilize — Mobile Web Today and Tomorrow
iPhone 3G: What's the frequency? | One More Thing - CNET News.com
Is iPhone’s 3G Connection a Disappointment?
Now that I’ve been using the new iPhone 3G for nearly a month, its capabilities and deficiencies are becoming clearer. The newer design makes it sleeker, easier to grip and a joy to look at. And the GPS chip has made the device infinitely useful, though it doesn’t appear that the developer community has started to leverage the technology very effectively.
What’s bad about it? There are a few things (the battery, for instance), but nothing compares to the disappointing 3G wireless connections from AT&T. As I pointed out earlier, there were some issues with AT&T 3G network, though company officials vociferously denied that was the case.
Thirty days later, I can safely say that there are definitely problems with the connection. The speeds are marginally better than the old EDGE network, and videos on apps like MLB At Bat are of poor quality. The signal strength rarely exceeds two bars in most places (except my living room, where it’s at full strength.)
I’m not sure if this is a Bay Area problem or a nationwide problem, nor do I know the cause — the network or the iPhone. One thing is for sure, the new device is pushing Internet data usage and revenues for AT&T in a big way. What is your experience? Share it with rest of us.
CNet News.com reports that there have been widespread complaints but that AT&T isn’t making any statements just yet. “What we’re seeing is that the iPhone 3G is performing very well,” Mark Siegel, a spokesman for AT&T, told News.com. “I’m not denying that people are having problems. But we have to deal with these on a case-by-case basis.”
If this story interests you, check out our
upcoming conference:
Mobilize — Mobile Web Today and Tomorrow
Mobile Subscribers Forecast to Top 5 Billion-Mark by 2011
A few days ago, I pointed out that India was finally getting its 3G act together by coming up with a liberal licensing policy that will boost mobile broadband in that country. A similar scenario is playing out across China, Brazil and Russia, which together with India account for a major chunk of the global mobile footprint.
That is one of the main reasons why Infonetics Research is expecting that by year 2011 there will be one mobile broadband connection for every four wired broadband subscribers. The Campbell, Calif.-research firm made some other bold predictions, among them:
- Worldwide mobile subscribers will hit 5.2 billion by 2011
- Cellular mobile broadband subscribers will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 104 percent between 2007 and 2011.
The research firm claims that WiMAX is going to play a role in the spread of mobile broadband as well.I checked with the firm to get more clarifications on the cellular mobile growth.
They said that the number of worldwide cellular mobile broadband subscribers (not including WiMAX or SMS) will more than triple in 2008 from 2007 and to continue ramping quickly through at least 2011. They went on to point out that “with an expected mobile subscriber base passing the 5 billion bar in 2011, which will be migrated to both 3G and 4G networks, there is a lot of potential for mobile broadband subscribers to outnumber wireline broadband subscribers in the long term ( in the 2015-2020 timeframe).”
As high-speed wireless pipes become commonplace, we can expect this new platform to spur innovation just like wired broadband. The availability of high-speed access over DSL and cable resulted in the formation of Skype, YouTube and Facebook. Despite the carrier chokehold on the networks, innovation will soon start to thrive in the wireless broadband world as well.
If this story interests you, check out our
upcoming conference:
Mobilize — Mobile Web Today and Tomorrow
Mobile Backhaul Equals Big Money Opportunity
As noted earlier, wireless industry experts believe that mobile backhaul networks represent a big opportunity, mostly because of the proliferation of 3G and 4G networks and the easy availablity of iPhone-type devices is going to boost mobile data and video use.
Infonetics Research has issued a report that forecasts 4.4 billion mobile subscribers worldwide by 2011, and estimates that their needs will push the demand for wireless backhaul equipment to over $10 billion by that year. Infonetics predicts that the big spending is going to happen on the IP/Ethernet portion of worldwide mobile backhaul equipment with triple-digit growth rates predicted from 2007 to 2011. No surprise: T-Mobile, Swisscom Mobile and Telecom Italia are all building IP/Ethernet based backhaul networks. Ironically, given the amount of money being spent on this sector there isn’t much startup activity in this space.
AT&T’s 3G Plans Reflect Reality Of Voice
AT&T’s decision to aggressively push its 3G wireless services in 2008 is further proof that U.S. mobile operators are now banking on growing demand for wireless broadband to overcome slumping/stagnating voice revenues.
AT&T plans to expand its network to another 80 cities this year, bringing the total number of markets on their 3G network to 350. As part of the plan, the company will roll out its first High-Speed Uplink Packet Access (HSUPA)-enabled network by the middle of the year. “We’re also planning for the future by establishing a clear path to a 4G network that will meet the needs of our customers for years to come,” said Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T’s wireless unit, in a press statement.
But there appears to have been a delay in the HSUPA rollout. After all, the company was making similar statements about a HSUPA-enabled rollout in a “few weeks” back in September 2007.
And AT&T is facing some serious competition from Sprint and Verizon, whose offerings have become popular with the road warriors, making it tough for AT&T to become a major player in the the 3G market. They all desperately need to offer higher speeds and better price plans in order to compete more effectively. For my money, Sprint has the best EVDO offering right now, and unlike Verizon, it doesn’t contain hidden bandwidth and data transfer caps.
WhyMAX?
The day is approaching where average consumers will want a true web-browsing Internet-style experience on mobile devices. It might not be anytime soon, but it’s coming nonetheless. For wireless carriers who are now trying to get subscribers to access mobile data over 3G it is both a blessing and a curse — as many have pointed out too many subscribers that might tune into (and upload video to) a truly-mobile YouTube on cell phones could clog a 3G network pretty fast.
What does that mean? Carriers have to upgrade their networks, and are now making the tough and expensive decisions about which way to turn for 4G (I know, it seems like we just got to 3G!). Does a carrier keep upgrading its 3G network and aim for what the telco world calls “long term evolution” (LTE) — 4G network technology from the cellular world which is many years from prime time? Or do carriers start building alternative data-specific networks with technology like mobile WiMAX that is available now?
Carriers are making different decisions based on a variety of factors: How competitive their 3G footprints are, how much spectrum do they own that can be dedicated for mobile WiMAX, and how they anticipate the growth of data-hungry mobile web subscribers. WiMAX is the wireless word of the year, in no small part to Clearwire’s not-so-smooth IPO efforts and Sprint’s (overly?) ambitious network buildout.
While the success of WiMAX is by no means assured, it is becoming a more attractive choice for certain carriers. Mobile WiMAX might be argued as not officially 4G, but it is a precursor. That’s why time to market is the biggest reason why carriers are starting to look seriously at mobile WiMAX. WiMAX is at least two years ahead of LTE in market time, writes ABI Research analyst Ian Cox in a recent report.
For a third place U.S. carrier like Sprint (which is also losing important post-paid subscribers) the company needs to do something sooner rather than later. As this article points out, Sprint needs to do something aggressive to stay competitive with CDMA-leader Verizon Wireless:
Being the smaller player means Sprint has no leverage to pressure Qualcomm, the mother of all sources of CDMA technology, to help it build a network more advanced than Verizon’s. In short, following the conventional CDMA route could leave Sprint stuck permanently in Verizon’s shadow. — VOIP News
Even the CEO of Vodafone recently pointed out at 3GSM that mobile WiMAX is now a major player for future wireless broadband networks, based largely on time to market, according to Seeking Alpha.
Mr. Sarin admitted that LTE is far from being implemented, let alone standardised, and astonished his audience by suggesting that LTE may not even be supported by Vodafone in the future. – Seeking Alpha
Vodafone even has some WiMAX bets in countries like France, Bahrain, Greece, Malta, New Zealand, and South Africa.
Another reason carriers are considering mobile WiMAX is that it is being touted as a cheaper (in some ways) technology to building and upgrading 3G networks. Dan Lockee, an analyst at Pyramid Research, wrote recently that WiMAX spectrum has been significantly cheaper than 3G spectrum, and “in some cases, WiMAX spectrum has been less than one-thousandth of the cost of 3G spectrum for a given geographic area.” Though, he also points out that WiMAX spectrum will get more expensive as more regulators release lower frequencies to be used for mobile WiMAX.
When comparing infrastructure to infrastructure, deploying mobile WiMAX networks is often thought to be cheaper than deploying 3G networks, though currently, ABI’s Phil Solis says the costs are actually about the same:
“what many companies in the industry are finding out is that the costs are approximately the same when comparing apples-to-apples (including, or not including, site acquisition, towers, other equipment, and backhaul for both 3G and WiMAX). This is not to say that it will remain this way, but just that at this point in time, mobile WiMAX deployment costs are on par with 3G deployment costs.”
Thinking about costs also depends on what networks carriers have already built and how they are upgrading. The costs are varying depending on the degree of the upgrade. Solis says that when Sprint makes its cost comparison claims, it is comparing the addition of mobile WiMAX to its existing 3G infrastructure:
“Existing base stations will be used (and some new ones added), other existing equipment at the site, and the existing backhaul. So what Sprint is really saying is that it will be overlaying mobile WiMAX onto its 3G network at one tenth the cost of what it takes to build out its 3G network. In other words, Sprint is greatly expanding its access speeds and capacity above and beyond 3G, and is doing so with a marginal increase in cost (a 10 percent increase).”
WiMAX might have lower costs and be ready now, but a lot of carriers are still aiming for LTE. ABI says network operators will invest a total of almost $18 billion in LTE capital infrastructure over the period between the end of this year and 2014.
There’s a lot of choices for carriers as they are forced to become mobile broadband suppliers and not just voice networks. While it’s not clear which one will be the “right” choice in the long run, we’re likely to see some pick WiMAX as the right choice for right now.
