Comments on: 2006 Predictions 3 and 4

By: Simon Morris

Simon Morris — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:27:21 +0000

I agree with your general point in #4 about Çƒ?Operators will struggle to sell 3GÇƒ?. But your comments that the solution is to just become an ISP, and be smart about it is just way too simplisticÇƒ? “there are plenty of successful ISPs out there…” huh?! – like who? ÇƒÏ dinosaurs like AOL, Netzero, Earthlink are on a one-way ticket to obsolescence. Broadband ISPs (Cable or DSL) are all part of cobbled-together multi-service offerings from vendors locked in a monthly subscription race-to-zero. ISPs are not attractive role-models for mobile operators. They have very little incentive to head this path.

And as for Çƒ?they can be more than just a bit pipe, if they’re smartÇƒ? ÇƒÏ I guess theyÇƒÙre trying pretty hard to be Çƒ?smartÇƒ? but this will take time and money ÇƒÏ Çƒ?smartÇƒ? doesnÇƒÙt mean giving away full free access to unique mobile resources for any web service that can string together an offering (what do you mean those web services have to PAY something to the operator ÇƒÏ you mean all those cell towers, network and data services infra, handset subsidies ÇƒÏ you mean all stuff isnÇƒÙt just free? ÇƒÏ I mean this is the internet , web 2.0 and all that stuff isnÇƒÙt it??). Building a mobile network costs billions of dollars. There needs to be a financial return ÇƒÏ otherwise ÇƒÏ *poof* ÇƒÏ bye bye mobile network. The network barely exists yet. Not like the DSL or cable networks which were already largely in place before the internet even arrived ÇƒÏ at least the last mile to the home was largely in place ÇƒÏ i.e. the expensive bit)

Wireless is not the same as the wireline world ÇƒÏ not yet by a very long stick. Mobile operators are not just glorified ISPs. Mobile phones are not just slightly retarded PCs. Both business and cultural situations are very different. When there is one dominant service delivery platform, when end users pay for the whole cost of a handset, when operators really split apart network operations from network (web) services, and when cultural norms start to settle on how weÇƒÙll actually use mobile devices, at that point maybe weÇƒÙll be ready to see mobile operators being Çƒ?more than just a bit pipe, if they’re smartÇƒ? ÇƒÏ until then there will be plenty more fumbling in the dark.

By: Tim Hayward

Tim Hayward — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:27:37 +0000

You are spot on with #4. The irony is that that 3G is a much better pipe but carriers only want to sell ‘services’ and treat users as if they are too stupid to know what to do themselves. All wireless networks are simply access networks to the internet but carriers are going to learn this the hard way.

One place to see it is in the difference between business and consumer customers. Most carriers recognise (even if they don’t say it) that for business customers they are simply a pipe into the firewall or ASP, but for their consumer customers they are still trying to be all things.

Of course what they have taken their eye off is the fundamentals of providing a 3G network – good coverage and performance. 3G networks (especially GSM based) are not providing sufficient coverage and they desperately need a lower frequency to operate on to improve rural and in-building coverage. This is where the focus should be.

By: mobilejones

mobilejones — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:13:25 +0000

When mobile operators don't get simple concepts, how can we expect them to get on board with more complex ones?

By: eduardo de souza

eduardo de souza — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:57:56 +0000

I agree with you, but developers like me are doing things without carriers, for instance you can develop a java appication that communicate with your web site or webservice, and for the operator is just a GPRS/Edge connection. They will see your point sometime this new year.