Feature Stories | Apr 03 2007
By Investech Technology Consultants
(This is part one of a two parts series. Both parts will be published in text format without accompanying graphs and charts. FNArena will publish a Special Report under the same title in pdf later this month which will contain similar content with the graphs and charts.)
This special report has been prepared in response to ongoing developments and the recent announcement by the Federal Opposition (Labor party) to build a national broadband network, to secure Australia’s long-term future. Obviously, access to broadband is widely considered by government and industry groups as the key to enhancing the overall competitiveness of the Australian economy and sustaining economic growth.
The announcement suggests ambitious plans for the building of a nationwide FTTN (Fibre–to-the Node) network to reach a large proportion (98%) of the population for $4.7bn. Clearly, there is a distinct lack of understanding in the deployment economics of rolling out broadband access networks.
It is also clear that the insatiable appetite of people for broadband will be not be quenched solely by wireline technologies. Emerging wireless technologies will play an ever increasing and important role for providing broadband access in both fixed and mobile environments.
In that context we ask “Is FTTN the most appropriate broadband technology choice available to Australia?
Australia is the least densely populated (2 people/km2) continent on the planet (except Antarctica), and is also the most urbanized — 80% of its population resides in the narrow coastal strip from Brisbane in the north east to Adelaide in the south. These factors coupled with the relatively underdeveloped nature of Australia’s rural wireline network, its harsh geography, and/or the relative youthfulness of the Australian population profile, makes Australia a prime candidate for a broadband “wireless” rather than broadband wireline access future.
The broadband phenomenon
Arguably we are witnessing a broadband revolution! The changes we’re going to see over the next decade will principally come from broadband-connected users in the home, the office and while on the run. Broadband over whatever-kind-of-technology is a killer phenomenon and will become ubiquitous by the end of the decade.
Delivering bandwidth at a profit is one of the most pressing challenges telecom operators face. The analysis from studies conducted in Australia and around the world show that the investment level for deploying a Full Services Broadband Access Network are high, independent of the operator’s existing network situation, area type and broadband technology choice.
In justifying such large levels of investment, operators must however firstly predict the uncertain nature of the enhanced services of the future broadband network, whilst ensuring that upgrades are associated with services that generate revenue streams and simultaneously providing an acceptable return on investment.
Incumbent operators all over the world are pursuing several different upgrade strategies for their access network; such as FTTN (Fibre to the Node) which benefits from the extensive re-use of the existing copper and use of xDSL technologies. This is an access strategy which has garnered many headlines but one however, that only makes economic sense only if you already have, and own, the copper and many of the nodes are already in place. That is, if you’re Telstra.
But while the majority of copper loops extend from the customer premises to the local exchange, a significant and growing percentage do not. Such that a large percentage of residents are not close enough to the exchange or any future node to take advantage of xDSL technology. The advent of any FTTN deployment will unfortunately not remedy this situation, as its footprint is also unlikely to reach beyond a few kilometres. Making it difficult to cover 98% of the population as stated. So where does that leave us?
The world is on the verge of evolving from one in which almost all access to the Internet comes via the PC, to one in which small ‘smart’ mobile computing/communications devices are expected to make up a growing share of the end user equipment accessing broadband connections. Accordingly, we argue that the broadband battleground has shifted from the constraints of physical proximity of a fixed location, to one which allows you to take broadband access with you -while on the run – or the concept of personal broadband.
Australians have taken to mobile phones with such enthusiasm that we have one of the highest mobile penetrations in the world. Equally, they have taken recently to broadband adoption such that the number of broadband subscribers exceeding 3.5 million. The merging of broadband and mobile wireless is clearly the next wave in the ICT (Information Communications Technologies) revolution.
The recent evolution and successful deployment of Wi-Fi worldwide, in the form of both home networking and hotspots, has fuelled the need for other Broadband Wireless Access systems that go far beyond the coverage footprint of Wi-Fi. Enter a number of potentially disruptive emerging broadband wireless access technologies.
But arguably the real value of wireless lies in mobility. Mobility is the killer application that has freed users from the constraints of physical proximity and geographical location; and empowered people to communicate and conduct their affairs from anywhere at any time. Moreover, the need extends to providing broadband connectivity to those users whose appetites are for much higher speeds, while they are mobile.
The question is: which mobile broadband wireless technology can cost effectively deliver on that promise?
The Personal broadband battle lines are being drawn
The rapid evolution and increasing capacity of wireless networking technologies has opened up new possibilities for wireless delivery of broadband multimedia services and content. It is unfortunate however, but true, when two or more technologies are close substitutes and targeting the same markets, a technology battle often ensues.
The battle lines are being drawn between those in the IEEE fraternity (the same folks who brought you WiFi) representing a suite of fixed next-generation microwave broadband wireless air-interfaces known as IEEE 802.16 (aka WiMAX) and those in the mobile cellular industry, or 3GPP fraternity, representing 3G (or 3GSM) cellular mobile network operators, sporting an enhanced high speed interface known as HSPA (High Speed Packet Access).
WiMAX is not a technology per se, but rather a certification mark, or ‘stamp of approval’ given to equipment that meets certain conformity and interoperability tests was originally conceived as a fixed broadband wireless access system. It is now armed with a separate mobile variant (still being formulated) and has emerged as the frontrunner of the IEEE suite of air-interfaces for personal broadband. Backed by a host of equipment vendors and one giant chipset maker (Intel) it promises to match the combination of cost, performance, quality and reliability characterised by wireline broadband networks and do that while users are mobile.
But WiMAX is no “silver bullet” and many of the challenges that WiMAX, particularly the mobile variant (802.16e), will face are similar to those that have been faced by every wide area wireless standard on the planet – capacity and range ( = Mobility) are a trade-off
As mobile users change location, they utilize different network access points and addresses; and the information link becomes dynamic, complicating resource allocation. Broadband Wireless is difficult enough because of the interaction of the environment with the message signal. Adding mobility to wireless makes it even more formidable.
Undeterred, the nascent broadband wireless technology is compelled to compete in the mobile wireless arena against established cellular technologies to avoid being marginalised as a niche fixed business. So WiMAX and 3G are now locked in a high-stakes race for technological and market dominance; both seeking to become the front-runner to the transition from today’s cellular mobile services, to next decade’s personal mobile broadband technologies and towards the concept of 4G.
Although it is fashionable in the ICT industry to argue the technical superiority of one technology versus another, we believe this is often an exercise in futility which has no real bearing on the ultimate outcome – often the superior technology does not win. Recall the battles between Beta versus VHS, Windows versus OS2, and ATM versus IP? In each case the superior technology lost out.
In our view, any analysis of disruptive emerging wireless technologies needs to be considered from the context of the entire wireless ecosystem, or value chain, if you prefer. Each of the entities in a competitive emerging wireless ecosystem network (let’s call it CEWEN) are influenced by various external, as well as internal forces including; technology standards, governments, public policy and regulation, spectrum, and operator licenses and end user adoption.
Furthermore, it is our view that the technical superiority of both protagonists has been overstated, or at least is misleading, as no real-life measurements have been made to compare the technologies side-by-side. This leaves room for only speculation, biased opinions, and hype – to which we do not wish to add.
With that in mind we therefore have dispensed with a technology superiority critique and limit our analysis to the “big ticket” items affecting the key techno-economic parameters of the systems, including spectrum availability, coverage, Capacity versus Cost, service and availability and adoption of end-user devices and networks. We have classed them into what we refer to as SUVA or Standards, Unlicensed spectrum, Volume economics, Availability (of devices and networks).
Its all about SUVA – but not the capital of Fiji
From the outset WiMAX’s ability to disrupt and deliver new, cheaper, faster, and better services to the market hinges on what we have dubbed as SUVA. That is, Standards, Unlicensed (operation, spectrum), Volume (economics), Availability (networks and end-user devices). We will analyze and compare the two different technologies in the context of each of these criteria.
Standards
Both technologies (WiMAX 802.16e and 3G/HSPA) are standards in their own right and so no unique benefits of such a status emanate from one at the exclusion of the other. Standards are essential not just for the efficient working of the world’s vast communications networks, but also as a key driver for socio-economic growth. They bring economies of scale by focusing R&D to one large market, lower development costs and set the stage for better choice and innovation. They reduce technical barriers and promote compatibility between systems which, in turn, brings benefits to manufacturers, network operators and consumers.
The unparalleled economies of scale created by GSM-based cellular technologies as a unified system, enabled competition in mobile phones that has been a source of technological innovation, convenience and falling prices. For instance, in Japan and the US, the last holdouts where GSM did not reign, it was common to have the network operator produce handsets and network equipment, provide mobile services, and sign contracts with content providers. In such an environment (the “walled garden”) consumers could not easily switch from one network operator to another, stifling competition and technological innovation.
WiMAX became known to the world in December 2001, but began in earnest as a standard IEEE 802.16 in 2003; and, as such, attempted to obtain the flow-on effects that emanate from that status. As a standard it would: encourage economies of scale; lower development costs; achieve volume economics; reduce technical barriers; promote compatibility and ultimately result in significant cost savings that will ultimately benefit consumers.
However, when a standard is adapted, extended, or selectively implemented, (even for good reasons) its purpose is likely to be undermined. Its value declines sharply because interoperability between the original standards-compliant implementations becomes uncertain. Since the WiMAX forum adopted a different physical layer, namely Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), for its mobile variant; it has caused many complications in the roadmap. This may fragment, rather than unify, the market, since the interoperability between 802.16e and previous 802.16 versions is not self-evident anymore.
The introduction of Mobile WiMAX was, seemingly, a strategy to frustrate the development of a competitive (802.20) technology (sometimes referred to as Mobile -Fi) and converge the IEEE community into the WiMAX technology. WiMAX 802.16 was designed as a fixed standard for metro-wide broadband access; while 802.20 was designed, from the outset, to address mobility. The strategy to elaborate on the 802.16 standard and add extra mobility functionality, rather than allow the smooth transition path and backward compatibility, may be detrimental to market and technology development.
There are many who still believe that WiMAX 802.16e is essentially an extension to a fixed wireless standard rather than a fully mobile standard in its own right. This originates from the simple fact that WiMAX doesn’t have Doppler shift (variations in frequency as you move) tolerance built in; which means it may stop working when you start moving. It does, however, incorporate OFDMA; which is more robust in harsh environments; it could not, however, deliver broadband rates to notebook carrying commuters in high speed trains.
The IEEE standards do not define the mechanisms by which mobility management is to be achieved. Unlike the GSM standards, which comprise over 6000 pages and constitute a total, functional network description for services and infrastructure included in a complete mobile cellular network. These comprise: radio resource allocation, mobility management, numbering plans, call routing and signaling transport protocols, network databases internetworking, paging messaging systems, roaming, authentication and security protection, service definitions and accounting. Most of these functions have to be replicated, somehow, by WiMAX to achieve mobility as we have come to know it.
We believe manufacturer and operator claims of WiMAX 802.16e certified equipment is overstated and misleading. The first wave of products based on 802.16e will not be certified for mobility. Indeed, the first wave of certified products will only address nomadic and portable functionality. Operators touting WiMAX 802.16e compliance today are simply promising the technological advantages of 802.16e via an upgrade, should any changes be needed for certification. A case in point: Local WISP Unwired (UNW) has yet to upgrade its network to current WiMAX compliance, preferring to wait until the 802.16e variant has solidified. Given the current track record of delays and availability, we believe that WiMAX 802.16e mobile end-user appliances will not be available until at least 2009 -by which time it may be too late!
Mobile Network Operators have, on the other hand, and in order to realise a better return on their investments in 3G licenses, long recognised the need to improve the data carrying capacity of their 3G networks, and embarked on a continuous improvement of data performance and a roadmap to higher data speeds (known as High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) or dubbed as 3.5G).
Essentially, HSPA is a software upgrade (with minimum impact) to the 3G network, which provides essentially three significant improvements. The first is a reduction in the latency of the data connection. This means that the time between clicking on a link and the data being downloaded is reduced by half. The second improvement is the data capacity increase, which is being pumped up to a theoretical maximum of 14.4Mbps (difficult to achieve in the field), from 384Kbps previously. The third is a reduction in the cost of transporting packet-based multimedia on the existing 3G mobile cellular infrastructure.
The greatest strength of HSPA isn’t the speed of its data rate, but how well it interoperates with that which has gone before. HSPA has been developed to be backwardly compatible with existing 3G/UMTS networks and is already consistent with 3GPP standards. As such, operators aren’t required to scrap their existing networks, but are instead offered the chance to develop on what they already have.
The advent of HSPA provides the wherewithal for mobile operators to efficiently provide new revenue generating multimedia content and services without impacting on precious voice services. This translates to increases in both the number of users on the network and the amount of revenue per user. The introduction of HSPA is absolutely necessary to Mobile Network Operators such that we would argue that any 3G network lacking HSPA becomes less, not more competitive.
This has been supported by the fact that operators have shown a surprisingly rapid adoption of HSDPA. The main reason HSDPA deployment has been so rapid around the world, is because a software upgrade is all that is needed to upgrade the existing networks. Consequently, Mobile Network Operators are already investing heavily in HSPA, with 117 HSDPA network deployments in 54 countries. Of these, 74 networks have commercially launched services in 43 countries; including Telstra (TLS), Vodafone and 3 (Hutchison Telecom (HTA) which have all launched HSDPA services in Australia.
Unlicensed bands, Spectrum and the Regulatory System
Every government around the world has a regulatory body that coordinates and decides what types of uses are permitted for its radio spectrum. The concept of free, unregulated access to a limited resource such as spectrum does not work if the number of its users exceeds certain limits; a concept referred to as the tragedy of the commons. (published by G. Hardin in 1968 - http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html)
So regulation, coordination, rational management of uses of the spectrum is an unavoidable necessity. Of course the propagation of wireless signals does not recognise political borders, so the same frequency of operation may not be assigned worldwide.
Spectrum management through market forces has been put forward by some countries; and has found supporters and opponents. The idea is to replace the centralised “government controlled” system by a decentralised, competitive-market economy mechanism, which matches the demand to the available resource capacity. Critics of the centralised approach (as it is currently in Europe) argue that relying on administrative decisions is inferior to relying on market forces. However, market forces could make wireless spectrum more expensive.
In Europe, for instance, the spectrum that is earmarked for WiMAX is 3.5GHz and 5.8GHz, since there is a bias towards using lower bands for 3G/UMTS extension. There are, however, no spectrum allocations for WiMAX in Sweden. The United States also retains 3.5 and 5.8 GHz; but in Asia Pacific 2.3, 2.5, 3.33 and 5.8GHz are earmarked. So, there is no universal frequency of operation (harmonisation) – only a range of possible frequency bands where it might appear. Users visiting different countries will either; hope that the country uses the same band as their domicile or have their devices equipped with multiple modes to enable connectivity to other WiMAX based BWA networks.
Is the potential use of unlicensed spectrum really an advantage?
The emergence of unlicensed bands (and WiFi in particular) has been a non technical breakthrough that has caught the public imagination in a way that other wireless systems simply haven’t.
The use of unlicensed spectrum is often touted as a great advantage because it allows new Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) service providers to deploy BWA quickly and alleviate the need to pay enormous amounts for spectrum license fees upfront. It is also possible (in theory, but not in practice) to deploy public services based on WiMAX without interference to existing Wi-Fi based hotspots, using the same ISM band.
But, unlicensed band has its own disadvantages including; interference, increased competition, and limited power. Since license-exempt bands can be used by other users and appliances, there is a high probability of spectral pollution / interference. It is also very difficult to use license-exempt bands while guaranteeing service levels. Consequently, it is more likely that WiMAX will be deployed in the licensed spectrum; which means operators will have to pay for their licenses.
It is our belief that WiMAX is a service level agreement (SLA) technology, intended for licensed spectrum (which is unlikely to be free), in which contention among other providers and interference from other devices is minimised.
Unlicensed spectrum is already utilised by a plethora of wireless technologies for personal and commercial use. Premier amongst them is WiFi (802.11) who has been garnering increasing market acceptance for short range wireless connectivity. Other wireless technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum include Bluetooth, cordless phones, microwave ovens, wireless video cameras, motion detectors, to name but a few. The license-exempt National Information Infrastructure (UNII) band, covering the higher 5 GHz band, is not as populated (although we believe no WiMAX profiles exist yet) requires line of sight and works only at shorter distances, thereby negating the potential coverage value of WiMAX.
WiFi has been revolutionising the market for unlicensed client wireless access, both indoors and out, in a wide variety of applications. The field includes the enterprise, the SOHO/home market and in providing public access; and in doing so, adequately satisfies user demands for limited short-range connectivity at these strategic locations.
The large install base of WiFi (of over 100 million units) and the sales of chipsets that are shipping in the high 10’s of millions per year, suggest that it is several generations ahead of WiMAX on the learning curve. Enhancements to the WiFi 802.11 standards have pumped up the data rate to 200+ Mbps; and are the replacement for 802.11a/b/g. So we don’t see it being usurped by WiMAX anytime soon.
With WiFi (operating in unlicensed spectrum globally) satisfying local area connectivity and being integrated into end user devices such as notebook PCs and handhelds and Cellular mobile networks adequately providing many hundreds of kilobits per second of mobile broadband services to end users in the wide area; where does that leave WiMAX?
The importance of the right spectrum
The allocation of suitable spectrum to different systems is a key determinant in defining technical performance and survival of the competing wireless technologies, along with the following characteristics:
– Coverage – which determines base station density
– Capacity – the total capacity able to be served by each base station
– Spectrum – Bandwidth efficiency Bits/Hz is critical to network cost
– System Cost – Infrastructure costs, Spectrum costs, End user device costs
It is likely that vacant, sub-3GHz spectrum for WiMAX (802.16e) systems will be difficult to find; and if so, its frequency of operation will be fragmented by region. Consequently, the coverage footprint (at this frequency) will be limited to cell sizes of a few kilometres.
Studies show that household penetrations have a significant bearing on the viability of alternate broadband technologies. WiMAX is viable in deployment scenarios where household penetrations are 17 HH/km2 (or above). Australia’s average population density is only 2.6 people per km2 for the whole of Australia.
3G/HSPA, on the other hand, operates globally on the harmonised spectrum in the 2 GHz bands, as well as at 850 MHz in Australia, and at 850 MHz/1900 MHz in the US. Although spectrum allocations for mobile broadband wireless access have not been finalised, we strongly believe that policy decisions, particularly in Europe, will favour the IMT2000/3GPP based technologies and their extension into other bands (namely 2500 and 2690 MHz).
We also believe there is a strong likelihood that lower spectrum bands (850/900 MHz et al), with their far superior coverage/penetration capabilities and deployment economics, are being considered for W-CDMA, enabled with HSPA, in the future.
By decreasing the frequency of operation to, say, 900 MHz or less, the coverage footprint is significantly increased. This results in reduced deployment costs (up to 40%) and fewer sites (up to 60% count reduction), with less environmental impact compared to the existing 3G/UMTS (2100 MHz) band.
We further believe that operators will seek out these optimum deployment scenarios for the extension of 3G services. Using 2100 MHz spectrum for high demand areas (city centres, urban, et al) and use 850/900 MHz for rural and low demand areas and in-building penetration. Recently, Optus announced that it would extend its mobile network to cover 96% of the population to match that of Telstra’s NEXT G network. In order to cost-effectively achieve this, it plans to use a combination of 900 MHz (currently used by GSM) and 2100MHz frequencies.
Operator licenses and building the footprint
The investments in the 3G/WCDMA (licenses and systems) were enormous – one of the biggest investments in telecom history – and mobile operators globally are eager to get a significant return on their investment as quickly as possible.
Accordingly, this influences both the strategies and selection of wireless technologies. Operators are more than likely to opt for broadband wireless solutions that utilise these licenses, while complementing and leveraging their existing network assets.
An important point often overlooked is that the government regulators in many European and other countries require certain coverage milestones [Germany 50%, UK 80%, Sweden 99.98%, etc] of the population coverage to be completed, by certain dates (2007), to fulfill the conditions of their 3G licenses (aka “use it or lose it” conditions).
The key difference between HSPA and WiMAX is that HSPA doesn’t require the building of a new radio access network.
Despite over zealous claims by the proponents of WiMAX careful examination and techno-economics modeling seem to confirm that a secure, long-term business case cannot be made for WiMAX in most (even fixed) deployment situations without resorting to over-optimistic assumptions.
Techno-economic (deployment economics) calculations show that it is very difficult for new, emerging broadband access technologies to capture significant market share in areas where existing DSL or Cable services are already deployed. The ideal strategy for new technologies is to; either enter the un-served market before the established broadband technologies reach this part of the market, or to offer something intrinsically unique which can’t be replicated by wireline – Mobility.
Even the potential of WiMAX to be used in emerging (or developing) markets to bring the promise of the internet to help bridge the digital divide has been overstated. Our assessment is that WiMAX may offer an attractive alternative as a Wireless Local Loop, for areas with moderate disposable income and where wireline infrastructure is either inadequate or nonexistent. However, the relatively cheap costs of mobile phones make mobile cellular services much more appealing and a more realistic option to the low-income areas.
Accordingly, WiMAX is therefore compelled to compete in the enticing mobility market with cellular mobile services, such as 3G, to avoid being marginalised as a niche, fixed-access solution. A daunting task for any new wireless technology to attempt to replicate, where an estimated 2 million cellular (2.5/3G) base stations sites, over 800 mobile networks, are already installed and covering 80% of the world’s population.
Today, there are only a handful of compliant WiMAX networks, deployed mainly in urban/suburban “brownfields” scenarios, serving as an alternative offering to wireline broadband. Unwired, mentioned earlier, operates a WiMAX -ready broadband wireless access network in Sydney and Melbourne. Whilst the company’s attempts to provide an alternative to DSL services are commendable, the take-up of the services has been lack-lustre.
Perhaps simply providing a wireless alternative that provides “broadband-like” data speeds, where users are confined to a specific geographical location whether it is a home, an office, a hotspot or a city-wide hotzone has no real appeal? Given that users have become accustomed to the freedom offered by the mobile phone.
At this point it is worth citing Telstra and the rollout of its NEXT G 3G/HSPA network, which really highlights how users, with an appetite for higher mobile data speeds, have taken to the service. It also serves to show how Telstra was able to leverage its existing network assets to reduce costs and rapidly deploy next generation wireless services.
In less than a year, Telstra has gone from a non-existent player to technological leader in the 3G arena. Even its product name NEXT G conjures up a perpetually contemporary, if not cutting-edge, connotation that alleviates the need to re-designate the technology in the future. With over 500,000 customers, the take-up of NEXT G has been nothing short of remarkable.
A small detour – Telstra and NEXT G
In October 2006, Telstra launched its NEXT G third-generation (3G) mobile broadband wireless network globally acknowledged for its superior breadth and depth of coverage it is geographically the largest 3G based network in the world. Having taken only 10 months and at cost of AUD 1 billion dollars NEXT G delivers unequalled high-speed, wireless broadband access to mobile phones and notebooks across Australia.
To meet the aggressive rollout schedule and to dramatically reduce deployment costs Telstra leveraged over 2000 of its existing 2G (GSM/CDMA) base station sites, necessitating only an additional 100 brand new NEXT G sites to be built. This was achieved by co-locating NEXT G RAN equipment with existing CDMA and GSM equipment, and utilising the existing shelters, towers, antennas, feeders, power supplies and transmission facilities. The ability to use existing cell sites significantly reduced deployment CapEx costs and greatly accelerated the implementation timeline. It is doubtful that such a rollout could have been achieved in only ten months without leveraging the existing infrastructure. Over time, it is conceivable that NEXT G equipment will be collocated at every one of Telstra’s 7000 base station locations, where it ultimately will become the predominant mobile network in its fleet; and provide access to mobile broadband services to 9 million Australians.
NEXT G operates in the 850 MHz which is geographically the biggest 3G network in the world. NEXT G is more than 100 times larger than any other 3G network in Australia and covers and area of 1.6 million km2 (40% geographic coverage); which is roughly the geographical size of Germany, France ,Spain and Italy combined; and 96% of the population using less than 2000 base stations. By comparison, Singtel/Optus & Vodafone 3G have deployed a (UMTS2100) shared network in Australia that covers around 37% of the population, also using around 2000 base stations.
As impressive as this may all seem, the reality is that the derived benefits have more to do with using a lower operating frequency than any technology selection. Telstra is the only operator in Australia to own spectrum in the 850, 900, 1800, and 2100 MHz bands. It is also the only operator in Australia running the 850 MHz frequency nationally, since they purchased it at the government wholesale auctions 10 yrs ago. The deployment benefits of operating 3GSM at 850 MHz are overwhelming. To match the same coverage area of a 3GSM cell in the 850 band would require FOUR times as many 3GSM 2100 cells (spaced evenly over that area). The use of lower spectrum significantly reduces the number of cell sites required, deployment costs, complexity and the lower number of towers minimizes the impact to the environment.
Sub 900MHz is highly prized spectrum, because their high-quality signals can travel 10 to 200 kilometres and have better penetration into buildings. One of the stipulations of the contract was that NEXT G had to match the coverage footprint of the present CDMA network – no mean feat as CDMA is renowned for its exceptional coverage! Telstra’s use of Nortel’s “boomer” site technology regularly transmit up to distances of 200 km; a feature which outback Australians have come to rely on.
At 850 MHz, the coverage and performance of CDMA and W-CDMA are fundamentally the same. However, W-CDMA has the advantage of greater cost savings through global economies of scale; which wasn’t the case in 2000 when the CDMA network was first deployed. Recent technology breakthroughs and economics mean that 3GSM services that are today delivered on the 2100 MHz radio spectrum can now be delivered viably on the 850 MHz spectrum, which allows propagation over far greater distances. Telstra’s decision to replace its CDMA network with a 3G/W-CDMA network was based mainly on its belief that 3GSM, as part of the evolved GSM technology ecosystem, is a superior technology path. 3GSM’s huge global footprint, market share and volume economics will provide evolved access to higher speeds, greater anticipated end-user device availability, and better access to applications in the future.
(Continued in part two)
About Investech
Investech Technology Consultants is an independent, dedicated consultancy catering specifically to the unique requirements of the international financial and investment community. Our clients include Institutional Funds Managers, Hedge Funds, Venture Capitalists, Investment Banks and Brokers.
With over 40 years of combined experience as working practioners in Telecommunications, Information Technology our consultants use our background, knowledge and experience to make technology understandable. Moreover, we provide the relevant detailed, timely assistance necessary to help the financial community make better informed investment decisions.
To this end, we offer a range of Masterclasses and Seminars to the public for a limited time.
To learn more about this topic, the details of our Masterclasses are:
Series 1 Masterclasses – Next-Generation Wireless
This series of Masterclasses gives a comprehensive overview of the Broadband Wireless Phenomenon.
Time / Date Location
6th & 7th June 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmAdelaide – Stamford Grand
14th & 15th June 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmBrisbane -Marriott Hotel
20th & 21st June 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmMelbourne Rendezvous Hotel
26th & 27th June 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmSydney Marriott Hotel
3rd & 4th July 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmPerth Medina Executive Barrack Plaza
11th & 12th July 2007
9:00AM-5:00pmAuckland Stamford Plaza
To book your place at one of these Masterclasses go here: www.informa.com.au/nextgenwireless