The Wi-Fi vs. 3G "Battle" Continues

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://212.100.234.54/content/69/31049.html' target='_blank'>http://212.100.234.54/content/69/31049.html</a><br /><br /></div>"Singapore operator MobileOne invested heavily in 802.11 last year, but this week it announced that it had abandoned its Wi-Fi experiment and decided to put its money behind 3G instead. Neil Montefiore, MobileOne's CEO, cited a couple of reasons. First, laptop and PDA users account for "only three or four per cent" of the market. Everyone else has phones. Second, and this bolsters the 'Rabbit' theory, people want blanket coverage."<br /><br />This is a Register article, so take their opinions with a grain of salt, but I do agree that 802.11b isn't sufficient. I argue that you aren't ever going to have the same coverage levels as cellular carriers -- especially in surburbia -- and to date there hasn't been any standardized roaming scheme between different 802.11b networks (of which there are nearly infinitely many, as opposed to fewer, and larger, cellular carriers, who can set up roaming agreements much more easily). Anyway, I personally believe there's room for both, as they fill different niches.

[k_kirk]

I find the title of this article quite annoying... "Singapore abandons Wi-Fi for 3G". M1 is just one of the few mobile phone operators here in Singapore. Their decision can't be taken as representation of a whole market.

As far as I know, and I'm not an expert on the subject, SingTel, StarHub which are M1s competitors in the mobile phone business have a competing wiFi hotspot project where they are collaborating with another company called BlueEngine to make their existing hotspots interconnected. This will give them a huge coverage rate as I understand it.

M1 is left out and is coming to grips with the fact that it can't build up its infrastructure to the level of its new competition and is thus bowing out. Nothing more if you ask me.

Disclaimer : I don't work for any of the companies named in this post and my opinions are solely based on what I read on the local papers. In other words, no inside information.

Regards,
K.

[whydidnt]

I agree that in the long run 3G is going to be the wireless solution of choice. However, in the US it will be a LONG time until 3G becomes widespread and available to all. If I'm not mistaken, what Sprint and Verizon are rolling out right now is 2.5G. While the GSM/GPRS crowd can't provide near enough bandwidth to compete with WiFi for any sort of serious web browsing. We all would love to have broadband-like speeds wherever we want, whenever we want, but I just don't see this as any sort of short term reality.

I would guess that WiFi will be king (at least in the USA) for at least the next five years. When 3G becomes reality and is deployed in a wide enough manner across the US then WiFi and hot-spots will fade away. :byebye:

[Janak Parekh]

I find the title of this article quite annoying... "Singapore abandons Wi-Fi for 3G". M1 is just one of the few mobile phone operators here in Singapore. Their decision can't be taken as representation of a whole market.
Agreed. That's The Register for 'ya.

Thanks for the rest of the info... nothing is ever simple, eh? ;)

--janak

[koriel]

I don't quite understand arguments like this, for a few reasons:

a) The number of times I am likely to need anything approaching broadband to my PDA is approaching zero under any circumstances I can imagine. And I say that even though I have one of the Orange Smartphones! :wink:

b) 3G and Wi-Fi are aimed at different sectors of the market anyway. I am not saying that you can't get them to overlap, just that it isn't an "either/or" proposition. You may as well say "LAN or telephone" and have the whole discussion make just about as much sense (and yes, I am aware of VOIP, but it doesn't mean it is suitable for your average home user). One is a good technology for connecting computers, the other for connecting people.

c) I am not installing a 3G network around my house! :lol: I am sorry, I absolutely refuse!

d) 3G may be fine in terms of reception, although by the time all the networks over here in the UK are sorted out, we will probably be using telepathy implants, judging by progress to date. But my experience with GSM and GPRS indicates it will be a cold day in hell before I get connectivity where I actually need it. I usually have perfect reception until the split-second that I try to connect to the net. I would rather use a Wi-Fi connection in a coffee shop over a mobile phone connection any day of the week, even if I do have to hunt around for it, and just use my phone for voice calls (I definitely don't want video calls, especially when my wife calls me in the pub, and especially at the prices being quoted for the 3G networks in the UK).

e) 3G is measured in KILObits. Wi-Fi is measured in MEGAbits. 3G is not going to "take over" from Wi-Fi, EXCEPT in the telecommunications market, but that is what it was designed to do anyway.

[GoConnect]

:roll:
I would be very surprised if 3G can beat WiFi with the much slower practical speed of 3G and the much higher cost of 3G both for the carrier and hence for the subscriber. It all comes down to consumer economics. That all favours WiFi rather than 3G or for that matter GPRS. We look at all 3, WiFi, 3G and GPRS before deciding on a strong WiFi strategy for our m-Vision consumer application. Go to www.m-vision.tv to learn more. 3G and GPRS will still be there for some time but watch WiFi explodes upwards and access cost declines and then 3G and GPRS will become very junior cousins. I think you will find a lot more carriers going for WiFi as well as they just cannot afford to lose out to new players in the WiFi space who may be more agile than the big carriers. Another good reason to favour WiFi is that there is already a large, very large critical mass population of devices, laptop PC and Pocket PCs which are WiFi enabled or easily enabled which can use the WiFi network while you still have to create that critical mass 3G or GPRS device population.