[Ben]

Just as we're approaching a time where a critical mass of the UK's mobile subscribers will be connected with 3G-capable handsets, more than ever there's a question mark in my mind about just how likely it is that WCDMA will ever be the successor of GSM.

Sources estimate that the UK has approximately 45,000 cell sites already (a figure banded about for a couple of years now), and that 3G will require another 5,000 to make up for the smaller footprint and cell breathing. However, the 2100MHz frequency also has poor penetration of buildings, meaning far far more microcells and picocells will be required to fill in the gaps. The different frequency will also mean that the positioning of current masts will not be optimal in many cases for the 3G upgrades that take place, exaggerating GSM blackspots and areas of variable coverage even more.

As if those technical aspects aren't enough of a challenge, another threat looms. The threat can be delivered via various standards, including WiFi and WiMAX. That threat is VoIP. Even '3G' networks are expected to transmit over IP rather than circuit switched networks eventually, though there are doubts that WCDMA will ever provide enough bandwidth and capacity for this to be possible. The mobile networks know that if they don't go IP then new start-ups will do it anyway, especially if the 2.5-2.7GHz band (currently reserved for WCDMA expansion) Europe-wide is opened up to WiMAX bids, but at the same time they know that current 3G implementations aren't enough to take them to where they need to be.

When we come to handsets, I have always expected that single mode WCDMA handsets would be inevitable. However, with such poor building penetration and the likelyhood of poor coverage for the considerable future (at least five years, probably many more if you consider that there are still coverage issues on GSM and the networks are still expanding their GSM capabilities) this may not be possible, meaning handsets will need to house and power both GSM and WCDMA transceivers while also coping with continued multimedia advancements and photographic demands.

Rewinding back, there are 45,000 masts in the UK, powering 4 networks - so ~11,250 each. Make that 12,500 by the time each has it's 'official' number of 3G masts. Now consider that Three would need at least 12,500 masts to offer the same coverage footprint and we're already at 62,500 in total. The vast number of extra cells is going to be a public relations nightmare.

Contrary to all of this, 3G on the 2100MHz band has to succeed. Not only have the mobile operators staked billions on it's success, but new start-up Three, owned by Hutchison Whampoa, runs a network in most of it's operations consisting purely of WCDMA. As such, it could rely indefinitely on GSM roaming in each of the countries it operates, and continue to suffer a higher level of call disconnections over competitors who can hand calls in weak signal situations over to their robust GSM infrastructure.

Perhaps, then, Three represents the biggest hope that our form of 3G will succeed. A clearly driven company, Three must find a way for the current obstacles to be overcome. Three's position as a pioneer, often banded about by the company, is not a position of choice - it must pioneer advancements in this technology for it has no other option.

It can be concluded that the advantages of WCDMA are not as clear-cut as an upgrade of this significance should really demand. The standard is full of compromises and limitations, and is rapidly being superseded by wireless data networking standards. Yet heavy investment continues, cells and terminals increase in number every day, and there is every chance that this expensive, inconvenient and troublesome technology will succeed as billions more pounds are poured into the pot to try and realise the visions of those that bought into the ideology back in the dotcom boom.

One thing is for sure. Even if 3G does win out, and evolves to be everything that the market needs, wants and more, there will be many an interesting bump in the road that will threaten it's dominance and cause all but the most dedicated to question whether it would be better to give up and move on or continue to fight.

[3GScottishUser]

An interesting article. Some thought provoking issues that deserve some discussion.

The big question has to be, why has 3G in the UK become synonymous with cheap, poor quality user experience. Sadly the answer has to be the way in which it has been launched with one new network solely dependent on UMTS and all of the teething problems that we have become accustomed to in terms of the consumer products. One wonders if things could have been better thought out. Perhaps it was a mistake to rely on a new network and new technology to establish a new market presence. An alternative would have been to have developed a two pronged strategy with an MVNO GSM service as a foundation and gradual introduction of high specification UMTS products when they became comparable with other operators GSM offerings. Think of the 1000's who have bought 3G phones only to have been disappointed not only with the restrictions imposed on their use but with poor voice reliability and appalling customer service. Its sad watching products and services having to be 'given away' to gain any consumer attention.

The big 4 and their MVNO partners have played a waiting game. They have sat back for two years and watched as small numbers of contract customers bought what they thought would be a new technology bargain. The wide range of neat and powerful GSM handsets seem to have been the best weapon to retain customers and to attract back many 1000's who have been disillusioned by the early 3G experience. Pre-Pay has been a slightly different story with 3G making a reasonable showing in 2004, but that was an empire built on sand. The service and the handsets were just not good enough to retain customer's loyalty and in addition the majors have allowed MVNO's to offer cheaper and less restrictive services to win back the lower end of the market.

3G is a pretty neat technology. Lots more bandwidth, so one assumes that means more powerful and engaging applications and services that will attract more revenue. That’s the theory but what is the reality? Video calling has been a disaster. It’s limited to very occasional use because of price, social acceptance, environmental conditions and coverage. It’s been gazumped by the free messenger services that can be accessed from broadband for free. Content is still an obvious 3G product with potential, but so far there has been little compelling enough to convince customers to pay for. I suspect the limitations on where small screen LCD's can be viewed have a lot to do with this (its just not that practical to watch much in daylight outdoors) and one is never very far from multi-channel TV nowadays. Games and Location services could be a better prospect along with video messaging and mobile TV, as long as prices are realistic. Mobile Internet has to be another winner for 3G but it has to be priced to compete with existing broadband and Wi-Fi services. Finally there is music and there appears to be some convergence now in terms of personal music players and mobile phones. The key again will be pricing which will have to mirror that offered on the net or most will simply transfer downloads from PC's.

We should not loose sight of the continuing development and refinement of GSM. It'll be the dominant technology for some time to come and manufacturers will be compelled to produce innovative products for this service for the foreseeable future as most countries simply don’t have UMTS yet. Many customers will ignore the call to 3G because they will be impressed with GSM offerings that suit their needs better. The SonyEricsson Walkman phone range is likely to be one of the big success stories of 2005. Powerful branding will make those devices stand out from the crowd.

3 UK will be hoping that they will have a consumer product in place this autumn that looks similar to the rest of the networks. I suppose to gain acceptance your stall has to be broadly similar to others. 3 are having to pay a lot to gain 3G customers and will still be at a considerable disadvantage this year. The others will quietly be upgrading customers as usual to whatever suits their customers’ best both in terms of functionality and fashion and the key is that they will have a vastly greater range of options available. Customers like choice and it’s noteworthy that although Chevrolets and Kias are quite cheap and functional millions shell out far more on similar spec Vauxhalls, Fords and Renaults. Style, reputation, previous experience and recommendation are powerful brand pillars that are very hard to chip away at. To date the new kid on the block has primarily used price to attract new customers, a dangerous strategy because price is often associated with quality and being 'dirt cheap' reduces the value of a brand. There are lots of reasons to presume the new entrant will fail but with the right product in the right place, at the right price, at the right time, who knows? The 'experience' will have to be as good as the alternatives, anything less and 1000's more highly subsidised 3G handsets will find their way to the recycling facility. Throwing half-baked stuff out and hoping for 'jam tomorrow' just aint gonna happen in a mature market like the UK where Multi-Nationals have recently concluded that there are now just too many networks to enable any to make a decent return.

Customers have enjoyed a somewhat 'limited' 3G experience to date because different companies have had very different agendas. The established players have (quite correctly) been cautious and look to have succeeded in retaining most of their customer base despite powerful price competition. New entrants have been forced to compete mainly on price with less refined technology which in turn will have an effect on their long term reputation, which is probably the strategy the big 4 decided on many months ago as they know that in time they will have to compete with similar 3G offerings.

It's great that we now have so much choice. The mobile market has been through a shake-up but it is nothing in comparison with what might happen in the next 12 months as operators rethink how best to appeal to customers and further convergence takes place between landline services and mobiles. One thing is for sure this topic will continue to warrant detailed discussion for some time.

[Schockwave]

Well, I have read that in about ten years time, we shall be having 4G mobile phones, whatever that is supposed be, and what sort of technology that will bring and how it will compare with today's technology and what is on the market.

I have to say I am happy with my Nokia 6680 so far, and have remained with Orange, whom I have been with for ten years since I first had a mobile phone! :) ;)

Unfortunately, the Internet on the mobile is still expensive, £4.- for 4MB in a month, wish the price would come down, or have more usage for the price. Video calling is also too expensive, but then you also need someone, who can accept video calling, so that still remains a no for most people as well. To save money for the few messages I send, I often write and send them via my ISPs website or I can do so via Orange website, if I am near my PC.

Good point is that surfing the web on the mobile, the pages come up quick, so much quicker than with the 2G, that is certainly a big plus! ;)