[Ben]

Video calls on Orange from 1st of October will be 30p per minute when calling another Orange user in the UK, down from 50p previously.

Video calls to other networks remain at 50p per minute.

This information has been/will be delivered to customers as an insert in their October bills.

Well, I tried to get excited about it, but lets face it - not good enough!

[3GScottishUser]

Videocalling is a dead duck at anything more than twice the cost of voice calling rates. Why would anyone pay 30-70p per minute on a silly mobile to make such a call when you can do the same thing indoors on a PC for free using MSN or Yahoo.

It high time all the networks woke up and smelled the coffee re this issue.

[solo12002]

Can say I use Orange, but Vid calls at 10p for Orange to Orange and 20p for other Networks might of made me smile!

[fat jez]

the real irony is that a video call is a 64kbps, circuit switched call. In other words, aside from the data transmission over the air interface needing more bandwidth, it uses exactly the same data rate as a voice call over the switched network.

Cheers,
Jez

[Hands0n]

I'm convinced that videocall tariffs will drop as the mobops realise that they won't be the big-money revenue spinner golden app for 3G that they thought it would be. The best bet would be for the call cost to mirror voice and generate increased ARPU through yet more calls being made.

Videocalling will increase as the number of capable handsets grows in the UK. Right now there are a lot of us wandering around like the bloke who bought the first Fax machine!!

[3g-g]

the real irony is that a video call is a 64kbps, circuit switched call. In other words, aside from the data transmission over the air interface needing more bandwidth, it uses exactly the same data rate as a voice call over the switched network.

Cheers,
Jez

A circuit switched call over the current GSM networks is 16k, with the air interface being 13k. There's no 64k switching 'till after the transcoders, if the network uses them. Over UMTS the air interface isn't constructed in the same way as GSM with the handset being allocated the resources it requires, so if that's a big chunk for data or video that's what the WBTS allocates. The transmission method however, from the WBTS back to the RNC is the same currently as GSM, in most cases a 2Mbit pipe.

:)

[fat jez]

Is that not what I said? All voice calls are carried at 64kbps on the core network. Only the radio network needs a higher data rate for video over traditional GSM. the E1, or 2Mbps link which is the backbone of a telecoms network in Europe, is 32x64kbps timeslots, with (typically) the first being using for synchronisation and 16 (optionally) being used for signalling.

The point I was making is that the cost of switching a video call around a network, or indeed for interconnecting it to another network, is no different to a 2G call. In other words, the operators are charging a heft premium for the extra bandwidth required on the radio network over a traditional 2G call.

Cheers,
Jez

[3g-g]

Ah, ok, I see where you were coming from, the point I was trying to make is that the higher cost, as the operators see it is the difference in transmission between the WBTS and the handset. Although the E1 is the main method of transport as you correctly mentioned the frame structure of the timeslots are not what's implemented... in a kind of way... traffic isn't allocated to timeslots as per GSM, it's ATM traffic using PCM as it's menthod of delivery.

But not taking away from the original point, not too much has changed interconnection wise nor core network wise since the rollout of 3G, in any of the networks, yet a video call can be up to 500% more expensive than the equivalent voice call? Fair enough the networks want to return their original outlay, but I can't see how this high cost can attract anyone to use these services, surely it's a fact as plain as the noses on their faces!?

[Hands0n]

To respond to the above closingcomment. I won't. And plainly it isn't.

The persistent European PTT mentality prevails in the mobile ops as much as it ever did in the old traditional PTTs that we've probably all come to forget ever existed. For sure, there are all sorts of glittering prizes awaiting the ready buyers. But back at base the mindset is still all about raking in as much revenue as possible and to hell with the golden goose.

There is tremendous scope for the 3G operators to exploit this "new technology" - in reality pretty much only the airtime interface to their incumbent core networks - and reap corresponding rewards. But not at the ridiculous prices being charged for the "new" bits.

Perhaps the pressure from the accountants for a quick return on investment is too great for them to "stack it high, sell it cheap", but that is [in my opinion] the only way to go. Especially in a saturated market such as the UK.