Published on
08th Nov 2009 in
Indian Telecom.
Tags: 3G, Access Deficit Charge, Department of Telecom, DoT, EDGE, India, Indian Telecom, Mobiles, Spectrum, TRAI, Value Added Services, Wifi, Wireless.
The following is the text of the email sent and an edited version appeared in Business Standard on 06/11/2009.
Dear Sir,
This refers to Shyam Ponnapa’s write up on BS dated 05/110/2009 (Managing Spectrum Efficiently).
The big question. Why do we need 3G? Why not focus on the land line business alone for broadband access? Or better still. Community Wifi?
The arguments for doing away with this are many. Community Wifi is deemed to be a security risk but then countries like Singapore have implemented this on a large scale nationwide. The mobile phones required to access 3G invariably have Wifi access too. Unless, the telecom companies are expecting surefire hits like Apple iPhones or flood of other smart phones to access the Internet, it is not happening.
We don’t have accurate numbers about the likes of Reliance and Tata who are offering their 3G access. If initial reports are to be believed, they are plagued by “line of sight” hassles, ‘network congestion’ and lackluster customer support. To top it all, it has the access limitations which means that broadband access, even on the 3G spectrum would be capped for very obvious reasons.
We have enough bandwidth in the country but as anyone would testify, we have problems in implementing the “last mile access”; having a contentious set of issues like 3G is not going to solve the persistent problem of “last mile access” because no one is interested in sinking money for a long term.
We can have a fair idea from the existing companies like Airtel or Vodafone who charge exorbitant rates under the present implementation of “mobile internet”. What is the guarantee that they would lower down the prices once they pay fancy sticker prices in 3G auction?
3G, would most likely be used for carrying more voice traffic because none of the players harbours any disillusionment about the “mobile broadband” across the length and breadth of the country.
The market for value added services is locked up within the “walled garden” of the existing players; it is unlikely that 3G access would “revolutionize” the content.
This pretty much sums up what I have always alluded here and my opposition to 3G remains.
Published on
10th Oct 2008 in
Indian Telecom.
Tags: 3G, Chinese, Hutch, Hutchinson, India, INQ, iPhone, Opera, walled garden, Wireless, Wirless broadband.
I am not a fan of wireless access because it cannot support faster speeds for a wide user base. Not yet. 3G is a big disappointment wherever it has been implemented and is still facing teething issues.
No wonder, I was surprised to read about INQ phones to be launched by Hutchinson in the Indian subcontinent as the next “iPhone killer”. Businessweek has a habit of spawning up controversies or issues when none exist. These planted stories in the media usually have a smiling face of an overpriced CEO alongside with “emphasis” on his “far reaching vision”.
I have nothing against these phones but with cheap Chinese crap flooding the Indian market, they are a real terror threat. For starters, none of them have IMEI number which helps them to be tracked. Further, there is no confirmation about the degree of radiation they give off; since they dont conform to the established standards.
The Chinese are bunch of slitty eyed idiots; they need to be kept at an arms distance from India. Specially, when it concerns our national security.
I doubt whether the operators would be keen to open up their “walled gardens”. The WAP was such a lousy experience that I swore off the other methods of access except the wireline. With the 3G hoopla, I remain circumspect to the newer developments. Businessweek needs to better define their priorties in black and white though.
I have been out of the wireless broadband loop for long. Any pointers to the kind of speeds or services? Here is the thread on the Indian Broadband Forum.
I have been always opposed to the wireless broadband initiatives because they fail on many counts. For plain vanilla surfing, it sounds like a good idea. But when it comes to the crunch, these fancy ideas fail in execution. Comments are on.
DoT has allowed the global firms to try their luck for 3 G spectrum. The existing companies have a lot at stake and are crying foul for obvious reasons. This is different from TRAI’s “recommendations” that only the existing players be allowed to bid for the scarce spectrum.
It’s only going to benefit the dodos flashing their new gen Apple iPhones. Who needs a frigging wireless Internet which can work only in isolated pockets of the four metros? There are enough idiots rooting for the cause and I have a nagging feeling that the existing technologies have not been upgraded to benefit consumers instead. A big sloth, this industry relies on its own lethargy.
The auction is expected to fetch the existing Government crores of rupees which would be funneled in wasteful expenditure and of course line their own Swiss Bank accounts.
TRAI is best known as a regulator that cannot enforce it’s own recommendations. Therefore, it brings forth new regulations to replace the ones it had brought earlier. It believes them to be set in stone and believes that they are timeless. It is with this fallacy, TRAI has remained in existence.
Rediff reports about TRAI recommendations. They may portend the future of the things to come.
This was the “premier” event that got a lot of press on the Internet. Here is a round up of this event from The Register.
Published on
20th Feb 2008 in
Indian Telecom.
Tags: Advertisement, Advertising, Broadband, handsets, India, Indian Mobiles, Mobiles, Reliance, TRAI, Unlimited pricing, Value Added Services, Wireless.
Verizon has introduced unlimited plans which was matched by rivals within 5 hours of it’s launch. For about $100 greenbucks, it makes no difference whether you call local or across the states.
Reliance had offered “death for distance” but somewhere along the line it has lost it’s pizazz. It ended up in cartelisation of the big telecom companies (with tacit media approval not to expose their claims) because shedding prices hurt everyone in the process. You could drop the prices to zero but then how would you monetise your investments? It flies against the grain of logic (everything did).
I believe, that locked in handsets with compelling price points could be the key to the further growth. There is indeed a huge mass of the population that has not yet been brought in the ambit and it is here that the marketing muscle has failed. There is a crying need to address such price points because thats where the next set of revenues is going to come. Slowly, but surely.
For the same reason, the Broadband initiatives need to focus on the value added services like gaming. Even though, it is fledgling industry as compared to say a market for condoms, still it offers a juicy alternative to plain vanilla voice calls. Broadband opens up a lot of oppurtunities; just that one has to apply himself to this.
Going back to the original argument, unlimted plan pricing would ensure that the networks remain primed to the mass of people talking to each other. However, it would lead to sore congestion across the metros where the networks are already under strain. Telcos can milk a certain subsection of the high paying population to introduce something similar to this. It need not create any hoopla but set up dedicated customer points for high net worth players and offer them incentives of various plans. A guirella tactic would help them play along by word of mouth which is much more effective means of advertising than having a prick like SRK trying to do the job for you as a mascot.
