Future of telecommunications

Cantab.

I work in 3G telecomms and am a bit concerned about the future of 3G for the following reasons:

VoIP: People are already using Skype via their laptops. The phone manufacturers are all bringing out 802.11b enabled phones at the minute that can run Skype. People will be able to choose their 802.11b connection in preference to their 3G/GSM network.

Micro operators: The new business model will not be the way Vodafone, Meteor, 3 and O2 operate presently. Individuals (or groups of individuals) will make their private 802.11 access points available to phone/laptop users for a small fee (similar to the way bitbuzz works). The more people offering these services, the less the need for 3G and I'll be out of a job (having accumalted lots of useless knowledge!)

Nobody wants restrictions: 3G is inherently restrictive and costs too much money. People want the freedom that the internet gives them and if they can communicate directly, this they will do. The mobile operators are the fools for forking out all that money for 3G licences, and they expect us, the consumers of 3G to pay for their mistakes.

The future as I see it is: micro and pico access points operating to the masses, with 3G taking on more of a secondary, rather than primary role in the transfer of information. 802.11 (or similar WiFi technology) will be the main transfer medium for wireless communications, with 3G being but a back-up system for those hard-to-reach (i.e. outside the home/office/district) areas.

Thoughts?

smemon

i agree. the possibility of free calls or 'ryanair' type call costs are just around the corner.

as wi-fi continues to take off, people will latch on to the whole voip scene and realise there are huge savings to be made.

atm, it's too much hassle and not as reliable as gsm networks but it's only a matter of time...

Tom Dunne

Cantab. wrote:

Thoughts?

I think you grossly over-estimate the ability of the average Joe to use Skype/VOIP/technology in general.

Cantab. wrote:

VoIP: People are already using Skype via their laptops. The phone manufacturers are all bringing out 802.11b enabled phones at the minute that can run Skype. People will be able to choose their 802.11b connection in preference to their 3G/GSM network.

You can't beet the sheer simplicity of a standard telephone. Pick it up, dial the number, no rocket science. A mobile phone (2 or 3G) is mostly used for phone calls. It would be interesting to see what percentage of phone features other than calls and SMS are used. I read something recently that the mobile phone operators report only 19% of people use their mobiles to surf the net. Enough said.

Cantab. wrote:

Micro operators: The new business model will not be the way Vodafone, Meteor, 3 and O2 operate presently.

Yes, screw the customer for every penny they can.

Cantab. wrote:

Nobody wants restrictions: 3G is inherently restrictive and costs too much money.

Cantab. wrote:

People want the freedom that the internet gives them and if they can communicate directly, this they will do.

People want to make phone calls, send text messages. Techies like you and me want to surf the net on the train, in the bath, up a mountain, etc.

Cantab. wrote:

The future as I see it is: micro and pico access points operating to the masses

Until technology such as the above becomes a hell of a lot more user friendly, all of the above is a long way off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology. But I have given up giving out my Skype details to friends and family. I can't convince people that MSN/Yahoo messenger is the way forward. People are freaked out by video-calls. It's all still too techie, I'm afraid.

And I teach computers for a living.

abetarrush

WTF is the big deal with Skype?

MSN Messenger does all that Skype does, and more!

Cardinal

The quality and usabilty of VOIP services are still a long way off what's currently provided by mobile operators. Obviously there are savings to be made but you get what you pay for.
It's going to be a very long time before there is any kind of reliable 802.11 network with coverage to rival 99.5% of the population as offered by mobile operators. 802.11 access points have very limited range when compared to UMTS or GSM.

The future as I see it is: micro and pico access points operating to the masses, with 3G taking on more of a secondary, rather than primary role in the transfer of information. 802.11 (or similar WiFi technology) will be the main transfer medium for wireless communications, with 3G being but a back-up system for those hard-to-reach (i.e. outside the home/office/district) areas.

By the time the sort of 802.11 infrastructure you're describing is available we wont be talking about 3G anymore. NTTDoCoMo is already working on implementing a 4G network in Japan and while that doesn't mean we'll be seeing it here any time soon, I'd bet we'll see it before we see VOIP phone usage surpass mobile phone usage.

Ponster

abetarrush wrote:

WTF is the big deal with Skype?

MSN Messenger does all that Skype does, and more!

No it doesn't. Skype use their own encoding algorithm that no big telecom company can touch at the moment. They have the best web encoding today and one of the best marketing companies (the technology has been available for year but hasn't been marketed in the same way until now).

matrim

You will also have WiMax soon, which has alot of the benefits of WiFi but also a greater range. The first Wimax enabled PDA's are due out early next year, which should also push demand for better coverage.

Also Skype isn't the best VoIP software for smartphones or PDA's because it relies on TCP which pushes up the processer power needed. However there are other good alternatives.

Some new phones like the Nokia e series (I think, not sure of the model) actually come with a built in wVoip dialler which can be configured against any VoIP provider, which will again push demand for the services.

As for 3G, unless the operators lower prices, it's not going to take off with the average user. If had a good 3G operator it is technically possible to make a VoIP call using 3G, although the quality can be a bit hit and miss.

Zynks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5116960.stm

DemonOfTheFall

Skype is a load of crap, I absolutely resent its success. Proper VOIP has better quality with any protocol and MSN voice quality takes a leak all over it.

Boo-urns to Skype and their proprietary crap driven by marketing.
Sony of VOIP if you ask me.

democrates

I think the op is correct, how soon how widespread is another question.

In the early stages it'll be "please select network" as urbanites roam through hotspots and cells, but with a preponderance of providers before the inevitable market shakeout, devices just need to allow you to specify an order of preference to automate the process. Dropped calls will probably be an issue in the fledgling market.

'The future of ideas' by Lawrence Lessig nicely describes the rise of open standards over the Intelligent Network. All the network needs to do is tcp/ip. Servers and devices at the edge of the network are then free to evolve. Time to market for devices and IP services are a lot shorter than for network re-engineering, each month brings a plethora of new consumer gadgets, and new smartphones may just need a firmware download. It's the networks holding everything back.

Encumbent fixed-line telcos have always gone for IN rental. Private wires, Telex, ISDN, and videoconferencing were offered as value-adds, and priced extortionately. France gave us Minitel (two-way teletext terminals), and that might still be considered cool if it weren't for the internet. Now telcos offer broadband, and corporate voip, BT is now going completely IP and ditching circuit-switched. But it's been a trench war every step of the way - why walk away from profit?

Same trend with cellcos, we have extortionate call costs, a version of IM called SMS, a version of html email called MMS, a version of web browsing called WAP, and now 3G, better, but still cut-down and limited at the cellcos pleasure. All of their offerings rely on building intelligence into the network, are costly to build, slow to evolve, complex to bill, and all that inefficiency lands on customers bills plus a fat margin that smells like cartel.

IP will come to be expected like any municipal utility. Meanwhile we get to watch the spectacle of vested interests, regulators, idealistic, idiotic, and/or bought politicians tussle as we wait for that which we could have a lot sooner.

I find it hard to believe none of your skills are portable. I'd certainly consider adding other strings to your bow and prepare to join a company that is expanding and gaining ground rather than one defending and retreating. The atmosphere is always way better in the workplace, new promotion and skill-development oppertunites are emerging instead of vicious cost-cutting and layoffs, and if your skillset is sought-after, rewards aplenty including stock options set to rise.

^whitey^

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Boo-urns to Skype and their proprietary crap driven by marketing.

Was just about to post that ... There are plenty of open source alternatives. Anything that drags you into proprietary technolgy can't be good. Especially in the VoIP world where we want to be able to "pick up" the handset and dial anyone we want.

What will drive VoIP is its ease of use, ease of integration (into existing networks and sysytems), non proprietary technolgy and the cost of calling non VOIP phones. Obviously not averyone is going to jump on the Bandwagon at the same time, so it needs to integrate well.

I have never actually used VoIP at all ... so all this maybe completly wrong and I may be totally uninformed.

Peteee

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Skype is a load of crap, I absolutely resent its success. Proper VOIP has better quality with any protocol and MSN voice quality takes a leak all over it.

Boo-urns to Skype and their proprietary crap driven by marketing.
Sony of VOIP if you ask me.

Good call, Most other VOIP software uses SIP, which is an open standard.

The mobile operators will be ruined once WiMax comes along

Ponster

I doubt if they'll be "ruined" but will be forced to think around the problem. From August my company here in France are offering wifi/3G mobiles. So when you call someone at home it'll use the wifi connection to route the calls over IP and as soon as you move away from the home wifi or wifimax signal it'll switch to the 3G without any disconnection.

^whitey^

I wonder can they do that in the middle of a call?

matrim

^whitey^ wrote:

I wonder can they do that in the middle of a call?

Yeah it can be done.
There is sip software that will switch in call from WiFi to GSM \ 3G if the signal strength gets too low. And on smartphones \ PDA's will automatically route the calls over a perferred network, and use the other ones only if the first isn't avaliable.

There is software being developed to automatically switch a call from GSM to Wifi if you walk into a WiFi zone aswell.

Ponster

matrim wrote:

There is software being developed to automatically switch a call from GSM to Wifi if you walk into a WiFi zone aswell.

And it works just fine too. The first ones we tested last month worked perfectly. We walked out of the wifi range about 3 times midcall and didn't notice the switch to the 3G network.

^whitey^

That is sweet.

Cantab.

Ponster wrote:

And it works just fine too. The first ones we tested last month worked perfectly. We walked out of the wifi range about 3 times midcall and didn't notice the switch to the 3G network.

Not surprised by this, it's routine now to handover to/from GSM/3G, and all it takes is for the radio network controller architecture to be modified to accomodate handover between IP and 3G/GSM.

I'm not sure if the telecomms equipment providers will implement this feature in their RNCs because they are essentially dictated to by the needs of the big operators - the ones who buy all the equipment.

If the current business model is to survive, the incompatibility between 3G and IP will be the plug that stops the leak as far as the operators are concerned.

a_ominous

I think the current business model for mobile operators has reached its peak: I don't believe people will make more voice calls or send many more texts than they currently do. I bought a 3G phone for GF at Christmas which has not been a good buy from handset point of view. Bloody thing needs to be charged every night with a supposed standby time of a week. This creates a very negative perception in consumer mind.

I think Vodafone's fixed price high-speed connection for broadband will help them. Many people can't get broadband outside of Dublin. Hell, many people in Dublin can't get it on their exchanges, even though Eircon likes to say they can. Broadband is still a technology that has to break into wider market, not just the more technical early adopters. My parents would get it, but Eircon haven't delivered yet.

Nokia launched a 3G/Wifi phone at GSM show in Barcelona earlier this year, as matrim pointed out. Nokia have had to develop stuff like this as they took a big hit recently from other handset makers like Sony Ericsson, Motorola. They've no interest in the network providers but they need them to sell the technology supporting their product. But for how long?