3G too expensive & doesn't even do proper video. Discuss.

watty

The price for 3G licences was too high. it may have killed it. Data transfer / connection more expensive than GPRS. 3G is too little of improvement over GPRs/GSM too late, and made too expensive by greedy prices of Licences.

crawler

the money paid for 3G licenses and roll out will probably never be recovered in terms of differential (i.e. leave GSM as it was or roll out 3G)

there was a big bit in the times on Sunday about it - even with mobile TV it is still a loss maker.

bk

crawler wrote:

the money paid for 3G licenses and roll out will probably never be recovered in terms of differential (i.e. leave GSM as it was or roll out 3G)

there was a big bit in the times on Sunday about it - even with mobile TV it is still a loss maker.

Yes, it is funny, all the mobile companies are now talking about DVB-H for TV to mobiles as they have all realised that 3G can't deliver video reasonably to mobiles.

BTW Does anyone know if any of the Irish Mobile companies plan to rollout HSDPA and will it make any difference?

I think there is a market there for mobile data, but not at the ridiculous per kb prices that the mobile companies charge at the moment. They all need to get far more realistic.

phantom_lord

watty wrote:

The price for 3G licences was too high. it may have killed it.

I kinda thought that when I heard in other countries they were paying hundreds of millions for them.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

Yes, it is funny, all the mobile companies are now talking about DVB-H for TV to mobiles as they have all realised that 3G can't deliver video reasonably to mobiles.

Band III VHF is unused in the Uk but still used here for trad analogue TV signals. but there was a recent consultation on DVB-H

Having initially given a scad of spectrum around 2.1Ghz and 2.2Ghz to the 3g operators and augmenting this by robbing another 100Mhz above 2.5Ghz off MMDS and sitting on it in order to give it to 3g operators (probably already have handed it over free but never told anyone) Comreg are now eying up some more spectrum around 500Mhz for DBV-H ....for 3G operators only I should think !

Comreg will probably give them the DECT guard band as well, sure why not . They have awful problems indoors the poor dears so that would enable their benighted customers to install DIY cells for them and improve the coverage and they can then publish maps showing 100% outdoor coverage and be fully compliant with whatever pisswater coverage rollout requirements Comreg set them. 53% population outdoors may be onerous by Comreg standards but useless in the wild.

Some interesting killer apps ....well maybe minorly useful apps, were just punted at the 3GSM conference such as an IM standard for mobiles called UMA and the Nokia 6136 which again saves on decent network coverage by using wifi indoors if 3G is a bit bockety . Damn sure it won't interoperate with FON or SKYPE though.

These may together make 3G fones more useful than 2g .....maybe. Video calling never really lit the planet up though and thats been around since Captain Kirk msgd Scotty back in the day !

It is an absolute truism that if you give all the spectrum below 3Ghz to 3G operators that they will therefore make money sooner or later and you heard that first here

Blaster99

bk wrote:

Yes, it is funny, all the mobile companies are now talking about DVB-H for TV to mobiles as they have all realised that 3G can't deliver video reasonably to mobiles.

I've only glanced at this stuff, but it's a difference service. 3G video works just fine, but the MNO's are very excited about DVB-H as it allows them to broadcast TV. To everybody. I don't think they're planning to limit themselves to TV to mobiles, which is probably a fringe service in the scheme of things.

bk wrote:

I think there is a market there for mobile data, but not at the ridiculous per kb prices that the mobile companies charge at the moment. They all need to get far more realistic.

There are two problems. One is that they don't have sufficient bandwidth to allow them to price it cheaply, the other is that they're **** scared of VoIP and if data is cheap then that's bye bye fat margin voice calls.

watty

3G can't do very good video, or for very many people unless cell sizes are very very small. Its like NTL cable, even if they had VOD service on the BB (which is much much faster than 3G), they can do ordinary DVB to everyone at same time with 100 channels at cost of 2 or 3 channels to 1% of their users by BB.

The equations even more favor broadcast DVB than 3G IP video. Trials have shown that folks simply use the phone handset as a personal TV even at home. So DVB-h will become a standard feature on GSM/GPRS phones as well as 3G. It may not appear on "phoneless" DVB-h handsets because nearly everyone will buy a DVB-h enabled phone and it will be mostly Pay TV (much cheaper than Sky), so charging is more complex without the phone infrastructure.

The licence costs help put up the cost of 3G bandwidth as well as the VOIP issue. But while on paper 3G looks a lot better than GSM, in the mean time phones able to use more than one GSM slot and GPRS arrived, eroding the difference.

If Eircom / Meteor offer cheaper voice and texts on GSM/GPRS, cheap 28k email / web access on bigger phones / laptops and access to DVB-h pay TV who will care that it isn't 3G?

watty

There are proposals to allow the DECT guard band spectrum for a home based gsm base station (demonstrated, but will anyone have an Eircom line left to connect it to?) and also Nokia has demonstrated a phone that uses WiFi and VOIP in home and GSM or 3G outside. That is more likely to catch on than the use of DECT guard band for personal access to a real phone line via GSM.

Regarding VOIP.. If you can't beat them, join them. You won't need a Skype or Blueface account. Any calls in or out to Mobile or fixed network via the Broadband VOIP will be charged on your mobile at similar price to Blueface / Skype calls that aren't PC to PC.

Analysts say this could kill the market for VOIP startups (Skype , Vonage, Blueface etc) and take back the VOIP to /from phone network revenue to the traditional phone suppliers.

The traditional carriers say while they will lose on Mobile rate revenue, more home calls will be made and they will expect to maintain overall revenue that otherwise would be lost in home to new VOIP operators.

Again, 3G has no advantage over GSM phones, but it looks sick for fixed line POTS phones and DECT phones.

Blaster99

When it comes to this DECT stuff, I think we're very early in the hype curve. Why exactly do I need to use my mobile phone to talk to a GSM base station that talks to my phone line? I have a DECT phone already that cost me buttons and it works just fine. This DECT guard frequency malarky is a problem looking for a solution. And as I've said elsewhere, it makes more sense to do mobile phones with Wifi capability, which is of course already happening. No reliance on various regulatory issues and all the kit is there now and you can use it for data too.

bk

watty wrote:

3G can't do very good video, or for very many people unless cell sizes are very very small. Its like NTL cable, even if they had VOD service on the BB (which is much much faster than 3G), they can do ordinary DVB to everyone at same time with 100 channels at cost of 2 or 3 channels to 1% of their users by BB.

That is what I thought Watty. It seems everyone is waking up to the reality of just how hard it is to do real VOD and IPTV and are now looking for much more realisitic, mixed solutions.

I wonder will there ever be a DVB-H real Video iPod, probably not.

watty

bk wrote:

I wonder will there ever be a DVB-H real Video iPod, probably not.

Yes..
If you have always on Broadcast on Satellite, Cable, Terrestrial or DVB-h this is how you fake VOD.

You dedicate part of the player/recorder (PVR or video walkman) to background transfer. This is what Sky+ does with 160 and 80 G disks.
450G is a LOT of video and is now easily avaiable on home use. 40 to 80G easy on portable device.

The backgound bandwidth updates "hidden" video content all the time (unlike VOD or IP TV same bandwidth will do EVERYONE). By end of first month you can have choice of nearly 40 films instantly. Depending on storage it simply keeps adding or deletes oldest and/or longest ago played content in "hidden" storage. You only pay for what you watch.

Sky is rolling this out soon. Since storage easily keeps ahead of bandwidth the solution to VOD is simply to let everyone buy their own VOD server.

Unlike VOD at base station where each person needs their own personal bandwidth, and playback BW of disks needed is frightening, putting the VOD server on a local Cache owned and payed for by user means the Network bandwidth is 1000 to 10000 times less and even an ordinary PC could feed the back end video streams.

So yes you will have a wireless video walkman with apparently real VOD to ordinary users only technical experts and people understanding articles like this will understand how it really works.

Eventually local storage will allow maybe 500 film titles. Impossible for the original concept of VOD, with ability to change 10 to 100 titles per month in background silently depending on network bandwidth.

I worked out that for Sky they can possibly put the background video transfer at low enough bit rate to have it on EVERY transponder, so it doesn't matter which channels you are watching and recording.

watty

I hope I havn't given away someone's "crown jewels". If I vanish blame the first operator to go public on a VOD that mysteriously eats half your hard disk.

Sponge Bob

watty wrote:

I hope I havn't given away someone's "crown jewels". If I vanish blame the first operator to go public on a VOD that mysteriously eats half your hard disk.

Watty , How do I power an LNB from an ipod ?? ???

watty

Stick a PC between LNB and iPod. Works for me

Actually Sky is supposed to be bringing out their portable video player for Sky+ content. As soon as they are sure you can't put the content in on a different Sky+ box or your PC.


Phones with MP3 / video and DVB-h will kill MP3 players and video walkpods within 2 years. GSM and 3G. WiFi to your home PC/ Internet / public hot spots will also be standard.

Dect was supposed to have Public Hotspots as long ago as 1990 but it never really happened.

Blaster99

bk wrote:

That is what I thought Watty. It seems everyone is waking up to the reality of just how hard it is to do real VOD and IPTV and are now looking for much more realisitic, mixed solutions.

I wonder will there ever be a DVB-H real Video iPod, probably not.

I suppose I have forgotten what the 3G hype was all about now that real services are here, but right now "video" in the context of 3G means small video downloads over GPRS. And that works just as well as it works on the internet. It isn't as if VoD exists to any greater extent on the internet either.

The mobile market isn't about video right now in any event, it's about music downloads. And that doesn't work with 2G for sure. I haven't tried it with 3G yet, but I'm sure it works just fine based on how much faster 3G performs.

For some reason or another I can't really get all that excited over DVB-H. It doesn't do anything for me. I couldn't care less about watching TV on a mobile and I can only assume that's going to be a fairly pitiful experience. I would have to think that TV viewing generally is on the way out with people entertaining themselves on the internet instead.

JohnC.

Blaster99 wrote:

The mobile market isn't about video right now in any event,

That's not what the 3G hype was about, and continues to be about to some extent. Everyone got excited about video, especially 2-way video phone features. Everyone was disappointed.

watty

Blaster99 wrote:

I suppose I have forgotten what the 3G hype was all about now that real services are here, but right now "video" in the context of 3G means small video downloads over GPRS. And that works just as well as it works on the internet. It isn't as if VoD exists to any greater extent on the internet either.

True. But video download over GPRS is much worse than MP3 download on a GSM phone with GPRS.

Blaster99 wrote:

The mobile market isn't about video right now in any event, it's about music downloads. And that doesn't work with 2G for sure. I haven't tried it with 3G yet, but I'm sure it works just fine based on how much faster 3G performs.

Music (MP3 tracks) does work on GPRS. Only slightly worse than on typical dialup.

Blaster99 wrote:

For some reason or another I can't really get all that excited over DVB-H. It doesn't do anything for me. I couldn't care less about watching TV on a mobile and I can only assume that's going to be a fairly pitiful experience.

It works very well. Possibly more reliable connection than GPRS or 3G download as signal can be stronger and frequency used suits mobile use better. Trials far more successfull tha n operators predicted with extenisive use by users at home. It will totally kill analog pocket TV sales as that really is a bad experience.

Blaster99 wrote:

I would have to think that TV viewing generally is on the way out with people entertaining themselves on the internet instead.

Only for some people. TV is more passive and suits better when you are tired. Films. Documentary, Drama, Comedy all work better as video than web pages or Flash animations. Quality VOD will be by background download to a PVR. Live TV, by broadcast. Internet video will be limited to one channel per household and for many people never much better than Webcam / video phone quality.

Cryos

watty wrote:

The price for 3G licences was too high. it may have killed it. Data transfer / connection more expensive than GPRS. 3G is too little of improvement over GPRs/GSM too late, and made too expensive by greedy prices of Licences.

Watty, no offence or anything but you dont seem like you have used the 3G service, i have hte 3g data card in my laptop and i do most of my hp work from it, this would include streaming video casts from hp ftp, email and hp network access on the move.

So to be honest i find the service briliant

jhegarty

Blitz wrote:

Watty, no offence or anything but you dont seem like you have used the 3G service, i have hte 3g data card in my laptop and i do most of my hp work from it, this would include streaming video casts from hp ftp, email and hp network access on the move.

So to be honest i find the service briliant

how about the cost ?

watty

I was comparing PHONE HANDSET use for most people. I'm convinced 3G offers little.

Re: Laptops:
And how much did you use GPRS or multiple slot GSM?

How much does it cost?

Will you use it when any of the 2 or 3 Mobile Broadband services are available? (these will be a fraction of 3G cost).

Would you use it instead of a WiFi hotspot?


I don't deny that 3G gives some improvement for Laptop users on the move, but other technologies will be better and cheaper for laptops. The big hype for 3G handsets was video. But how many people want video to have twice the phone bill.

My wife & Daughter only use audio on Skype even though the video is perfect.

GSM / GPRS is already overpriced. 3G costs more. So if I was Meteor / Eircom I'd be looking to get a piece of Mobile Wireless Broadband and also DVB-h. Convert all that unused FWA nationwide licence they have to Wimax or something else portable, and not worry about 3G.

Blaster99

watty wrote:

It works very well. Possibly more reliable connection than GPRS or 3G download as signal can be stronger and frequency used suits mobile use better. Trials far more successfull tha n operators predicted with extenisive use by users at home. It will totally kill analog pocket TV sales as that really is a bad experience.

I don't doubt the broadcast technology, but I doubt that watching TV on a 128x128 screen is going to be all that great. Pocket TV sales, does that even register? I would have thought that the logical thing to do is to do a DVB modem that you can connect to your TV and sell a cable-like service to people in their homes. Maybe I live an unusual life, but if I have a choice between a 32" TV with good sound and a 128x128 phone, I think I would somehow pick the TV. This is probably why the whole thing doesn't seem all that interesting to me, as I can obviously already watch TV on my TV...

Video calling, I agree. A completely useless feature. I suppose the 3G folks are desperately trying to find products that appeal to the consumer.

I suppose a pretty big thing that's happening is that 3 has just signed a deal with Skype. You couldn't use Skype over a 2G network. It'll be pretty interesting to see where this is going, as you can make "free" calls with Skype. There will still be a data charge but 3 will supposedly do decent bundles. If this thing works out, it will worry the other operators a lot. You can take from this that 3 is looking at the 3G network as a data network where they're providing content. Voice is becoming less of a focus.

bk

Blaster99 wrote:

I don't doubt the broadcast technology, but I doubt that watching TV on a 128x128 screen is going to be all that great. Pocket TV sales, does that even register? I would have thought that the logical thing to do is to do a DVB modem that you can connect to your TV and sell a cable-like service to people in their homes. Maybe I live an unusual life, but if I have a choice between a 32" TV with good sound and a 128x128 phone, I think I would somehow pick the TV. This is probably why the whole thing doesn't seem all that interesting to me, as I can obviously already watch TV on my TV...

I must say I find it hard to understand why anyone would use it in their homes when big TV's have gotten so cheap.

I can see a limited want for it amongst people who commute via public transport a lot, but here I also wonder if phones will be just too small to give a good enough experience.

I think we are more likely to see PMC devices from the likes of Creative and iRiver, the PSP and a full screen video iPod to be more successful in this area due to larger screen size.

Furthermore I wonder if DVB-H will be that popular. I think that the type of media people want to watch on a small screen is very different from normal TV broadcasts.

To answer my earlier question, no the video iPod will neve receive DVB-H, for the same reason that the iPod doesn't have a FM radio, Apple will want you buying TV shows from iTunes, rather then getting "free" content off the air.

I think that devices that copy shows from PVR's, iTunes, PS3 or other VoD services will be more popular then DVB-H on phones.

SkepticOne

watty wrote:

The price for 3G licences was too high. it may have killed it. Data transfer / connection more expensive than GPRS. 3G is too little of improvement over GPRs/GSM too late, and made too expensive by greedy prices of Licences.

Of course there's no reason why licence costs for 3g need to be recovered by the operators on 3g services specifically. They can be paid for by revenues from profits generally. We are paying that bit more in Ireland on ordinary GSM services for 3G licences in Britain and Germany and other countries. Customers in Britain and other countries are paying a tiny bit less for mobile phone calls because the regulator in Ireland (Etain Doyle) decided not to charge large fees for 3g licences in the false (imo) belief that that would lead to cheaper services here.

Cryos

Lads as i have said i use 3g for many business related applications, i also have a nokia 6680 with 3g, and i find that im able to stream videos no problem on it, even on a low signal.

I think it has more to do with the software on the handsets used to stream the video, with the nokia handsets i think they come with realone ? You can change streaming settings in the video player.

The other problem is that the handsets might not be able to Take the imput of 35k/sec and process video and display it at the same time ?

watty

No-one is suggesting that 3G doesn't work. You can in theory make a handset that displays streaming WMA 28k video on GSM/GPRS.

The issue is the relatively small increase in performance compared with GPRS, which did not exist on GSM when 3G was mooted, and the high costs to users and networks of video phone, video on demand etc.

There are a whole rake of PDA / Video walkman styled phone handsets comming out with PDA, MP3, video player and dvb-h TV with bigger screens and wiFi as well as blue tooth. Also some will connect to actual iTunes MP3 or Video download via 3G, GPRS or WiFi depending on location.

With newer handsets there is no CPU power issue. Only on very earliest 3G phones. Even the old Nokia 9200 GSM only (no GPRS) could do 28K GSM video streaming (from real internet sites) and play much larger videos downloaded from PC. It had keyboard and letterbox style screen when you opened it.

DVB-h variant of DTT / DVB-t was specifically developed because of high cost and low performance of 3G video. It is the fastest growing Digital TV format. It is the only PAN USA format on the same spectrum coast to coast (DVB-h does not use Mobile phone spectrum). UK trials exceeded operator expectations. DVB-h can deliver near broadcast TV quality even on an 8" screen. 3G streaming is limited by poor quality to a 2" or 3" screen. Newer 3G and GSM/GPRS phones have twice the screen size that can be utilised by originally envisaged 3G video streaming.

watty

The Register wrote:

Sony Ericsson claimed the phones offer seven hours' talk time on GSM networks, dropping to 2.5 hours on 3G connections.

So 3G uses up your battery more than twice as fast as GSM too?

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/28/sony_ericsson_cyber-shot_phone/