Open-cellular-network boasts lack substance
There are dozens if not hundreds of products that might be more compelling if they integrated a cellular radio.
By Maury Wright, Editorial Director -- EDN, January 10, 2008
It was really quite comical watching Verizon Wireless and AT&T argue in the mainstream media about the “openness” of their cellular networks. The problem is that neither company’s approach is really open, and neither company has addressed what we need to spur real innovations that can leverage cellular radios: network technology that enables embedded cellular radios that companies can deploy at a reasonable price.
If you missed the openness skirmish, here’s a quick summary. First, Verizon issued a press release stating that, by the end of 2008, the company would support devices on its network that Verizon doesn’t sell. Immediately, AT&T responded in a USA Today article, claiming that its network has always been open.
AT&T, I presume, is partially correct. If you have a valid AT&T SIM card, you can put it in almost any unlocked GSM (global-system-for-mobile-communications) phone, and it will work. There are exceptions in the smartphone area. For instance, if you want your Blackberry to work to its potential, then you should buy it from AT&T. And even AT&T admitted that Apple’s iPhone would remain locked to the network. AT&T did say that it will unlock phones for customers that either fulfill their contracts or pay full price for a phone. That approach is new, but Internet hacks that unlock phones are widely available, and many local phone shops will unlock a GSM phone for a fee.
|
As for Verizon, details of its open plan were still to come at press time. But the press release notes that a third party that wants to offer a device for the Verizon network must have a new Verizon lab certify that device. I’d guess that a few such devices are already in that certification process, but wide choice probably will not happen soon. Verizon didn’t say whether it would support CDMA (code-division/multiple-access) phones sold on competing CDMA networks. The CDMA community has never relied on SIM cards, although ironically, most CDMA chip sets offer SIM-card support.
But here’s what is missing from both announcements: There are dozens if not hundreds of products that might be more compelling if they integrated a cellular radio. Take a handheld product such as the Sony PSP (PlayStation Portable). The PSP has Wi-Fi, but a cellular link would provide an “anywhere” connection to support multiplayer games or content downloading. You can make the same case for MP3 players. What about GPSs? Dash Navigation has integrated a cellular radio in its GPSs so that autos can send real-time traffic data back to a database that serves all Dash owners.
Today, a device with an integrated cellular radio needs an account and phone number just like a phone. But most embedded cellular applications don’t need a phone number and would use only the data services that the mobile carrier supports.
The real issue, I suspect, is price and not technology. My family has an AT&T Wireless account, and we pay $6 for each additional phone number. That cost isn’t much when we need only three phone numbers. But what if I had another dozen cellular radios in a variety of portable electronics? There is no way I would pay $6 for each. Nor would I buy an $80-per-month data contract specific to an embedded radio.
Now, there are applications that will pay the going rate. A cellular-linked portable medical device that helps keep a consumer alive is clearly worth a dedicated account. But to spur innovation and an explosion of new mobile radios in everyday devices, the carriers need to develop a technology and a business plan that make support for those devices less costly. I’ll buy one relatively expensive wireless-data account, but the incremental cost to use that service on multiple devices needs to be almost free. And this approach would benefit the carriers. Data services aren’t selling as well as they’d like. Meanwhile, the carriers pursue newer, faster data technologies.
Contact me at mgwright@edn.com.
-
I find it interesting how many times I have heard the discussion about how the networks should be more open and, as in your editorial, the costs should be lower. There are many significant differences between using a WiFi connection and a cellular connection. The most significant is the bandwidth limitation in cellular systems. A WiFi connection, assuming even an older 802.11b, has more or less an 1l Mbs over the air speed. When connected to your home network, the Internet connection is typically at least DSL speeds of 300-700 kbs. Many people have Internet connections of greater than 1 Mbs. This bandwidth is essentially dedicated to single user. Think how your home WiFi connection would work if it was shared by 10-50 other users--users that you could not send to bed when you needed faster access.
Cellular systems, on the other hand, are significantly bandwidth constrained. A typical CDMA system uses a 1.25 MHz channel bandwidth which may be shared by tens or even hundreds of users. If multiple Nintendo DS users were playing using a single cell site, the bandwidth could easily get used up resulting in slow response times. Certainly newer technologies such as WiMax and UMTS offer higher bandwidths but they are still limited and shared by many subscribers.
In the case of your family having an AT&T Wireless account, you are paying for access to a limited amount of bandwidth that is shared with others. In today's world, the traffic carried internally in the cellular's network all looks like data. The connectivity to the outside telephone network results in significantly higher costs compared to Internet access or internal data traffic. This is one reason carriers can offer mobile-to-mobile calling essentially for free. It is a great marketing tool and the incremental cost is very low. However, for connectivity to the telephone network, each user potentially needs access to a telephone network port, hence the additional cost. Telephone numbers used for identifying data only devices are simply a way to handle billing and unit tracking and nothing more.
As long as cellular networks use limited RF spectrum shared by many users there will be access and cost limitations. Unless all of the cellular carriers move to a common over-the-air platform, true open access by any user device will not occur. Sure you can develop and build tri-, quad-, and quint-mode phones but the users have to be willing to pay the difference. In many cases, they want an MP3 player over better network access.
I am sure we will see the costs of data access decrease and the bandwidth increases continue in the future. I doubt we will ever see the costs and bandwidth approach those of landline interconnections because those connections continue to improve as well. My house is currently served by a 15 Mbs fiber connection. It will be a while before I can get that kind of dedicated bandwidth over-the-air.
I have subscribed to EDN for many years, maybe close to 37 and have enjoyed the magazine. Keep up the good work.
Joe P. Blaschka Jr. PE - 2008-3-2 14:20:00 PST -
Not really sure your comments are valid. Seems to me, if you have a GSM network (say, AT&T), you can buy almost any type of phone from anywhere, use a prepay GSM SIM card, and you can do what you want. Or (of more interest to EDN readers) buy a GSM radio module of choice for your product and a SIM card and you can do what you want for a good price. Prepay plans appear there for less than $10/month in selected low use cases. If you are heavy caller, you have more options. What your article really seems to say is you want much more for much less. Typical American excessive over-consuming consumerist viewpoint.
John Frederiks - 2008-10-1 16:14:00 PST
