More 3g & 802.11x

[Swede]

I consider (fear) IEEE 802.11a,b,g,h as potential threats to 3g mobile networks and operators. Why not building a phone, terminal if you prefer, for 802.11 roaming GSM with no WLAN accessible? This would open the operator to independent operators with extremely small investment needed, and leave the 3g operator out in the cold.

Is there a catch here? Then what?

[esutherland]

It could go either way, but I see 802.11 and 3G serving two different markets. The strength of 802.11 lies in its networking. It's mobile up to a point, but most use is stationary -- you're sitting at a desk, at a counter or on a park bench. Applications suited to such use will spring up around 802.11.

Third-generation wireless networks are inherently more mobile - you're in a car, walking down the street or on a train. That mobility is 3G's strength.

The paths of the two will cross at the office, where a user becomes accustomed to the wires-free nature (and somewhat speediness) of 802.11 and seeks out the same for his mobile phone.

Ed

[Swede]

Thx esutherland,

I agree with you on the technical and pholosophical nature of 3g and 802.11. But the investments are like what, 100?, times larger for building a covering 3g network instead of a 802.11/roaming GSM (given the GSM network is already available). I can figure a scenario with small, independent operators that concentrate on the most attractive areas, i.e. large cities with suburbs.

[esutherland]

Cherry-picking the most profitable areas would make sense -- for both 802.11 and 3G.

[Swede]

Correct. And then what with the 3g operators sitting on sometimes expensive license fees, and always extremely costly infrastructure? Of course you don't know, speculate or tell us how to find out!