
Cornered! is a blog devoted, most of the time anyway, to telecommunications: local and global issues, technology, people and trends from the perspective of someone who's been reporting, analysing and commenting on the industry since the dark ages (BC - before competition). Sometimes serious, sometimes flippant, sometimes frivolous. Controversial, analytical, informative, amusing, but never boring; a vehicle for examinations of important issues and observations on my encounters and experiences in an industry where polarised views and hyperbole are the norm.
Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL Blog
Technology news and Jobs
Cornered!
Gov't's WiMAX choice raises many questions
Cornered!
Gov't's WiMAX choice raises many questions | Gov't's WiMAX choice raises many questions |
|
| by Stuart Corner | |
| Monday, 18 June 2007 | |
|
Page 4 of 4 I also recently interviewed Mikael Halen, director government and industry relations with Ericsson, a company which has abandoned all work on WiMAX infrastructure in favour of HSDPA and its successor. Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
To upgrade a 3G cellular network, he said required: "No more base stations: just a software upgrade and more processing power in the base stations," and he added: "Just around the corner 2009 we will have LTE this will take us above 100Mbps." Today data on cellular networks is expensive, but this could be more a commercial decision than a cost driven decision, and Halen suggests the latter, citing a European 3G operator that started offering unlimited mobile broadband at 3.6Mbps for 20 euro per month. In the first 10 weeks it traffic increased four fold. And he said: "Half a year ago they positioned HSDPA as a complement to fixed broadband. Now they are going after the fixed broadband services which cost to 30-40 Euro per month. You save 20 and get mobility." I certainly don't have all the answers. This is clearly a very complex question, but it seems to one to which the Government has given scant consideration. As with FTTN, it is picking a technology and bragging about it. Instead, it should have specified service parameters, coverage areas and rollout schedules and evaluated all offers against these parameters in a technology-neutral manner and in a full transparent manner. Like FTTN, this smells like another politically expedient quick fix which we may all come to regret.{moscomment} |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|


Tags





