Bangkok--28 Jan--Farh Agency Operators strive to provide profitable wireless broadband services by minimizing their device and overall network costs. Device costs are primarily related to scale and functionality. The most important network costs are proportional to the number of sites deployed. 3G is a less-expensive technology option for operators than WiMAX(tm). Device cost is governed by scale, and 3G devices across all market segments are forecasted to have greater scale than WiMAX. Network costs are driven by the number of required sites, since all WAN technologies should have comparable site costs. 3G systems and their performance are proven. WiMAX performance is unproven, since no loaded WiMAX mobile networks yet exist to provide field data. According to simulations, 3G technologies deliver greater capacity and coverage than WiMAX when compared under the same conditions. Whether in coverage-limited or capacity-limited scenarios, 3G networks require fewer sites than 802.16e-based WiMAX.Scale and Functionality Drive Device Cost Operators’ device cost decreases as shipped volumes grow. 3G device volumes are significant, ~267M shipped in 2006, and increasing rapidly as operators upgrade their networks; the cost of 3G handsets is declining as shipments increase. For like devices, scale accounts for the cost difference between 3G and WiMAX. Competition between vendors also puts downward pressure on device cost; however, individual vendors must still be able to achieve sufficient scale to remain profitable and maintain a healthy ecosystem. Prior to ecosystem consolidation, market fragmentation can make it more challenging for vendors of new technologies like WiMAX to achieve significant scale, because many vendors are pursuing smaller, early market opportunities. The incompatibility between pre-802.16 proprietary solutions, Fixed WiMAX (802.16d-based), and Mobile WiMAX (802.16e-based) products also impacts device scale. Various operators, capitalizing on time-to market advantage, deployed proprietary or Fixed WiMAX networks. Operators with profitable businesses are unlikely to replace, at great expense, these networks and devices until the case for migration makes economic sense. In time, it’s likely that 802.16e systems will be used for most fixed and mobile deployments, improving the scale equation for WiMAX. In contrast to the various flavors of WiMAX, all 3G systems can be used for fixed and mobile applications today. 3G device scale is also achieved because networks are deployed in globally harmonized spectrum; most countries allocated the same frequency bands for 3G, and most of the spectrum was paired for FDD duplexing. Harmonization enables vendors to achieve scale, because their products can be deployed in many markets. From a functionality perspective, devices with more capabilities are generally more expensive. For example, high-resolution displays, keyboards, touch screens, memory, operating systems, and high performance graphics or audio processors all add to the cost of a device. Most costs are not related to the air-interface technology in feature-rich mobile devices, and differences in modem cost become less significant. As a result of greater scale, 3G devices should have a cost advantage over WiMAX counterparts. Given limited initial WiMAX coverage, it’s also likely that early generations of mobile devices would require 3G radios (multimode) for ubiquitous use. Multimode functionality adds incremental costs (hardware, software, and testing) to WiMAX devices.Number of Sites Drives Network Cost When comparing different WAN technologies, it is the number of sites required to provide service that determines the most cost-effective option. All technologies have comparable site costs. The dominant costs are backhaul, operations, site rental/installation, and base stations. Comparable (same-class) base stations of different technologies should cost roughly the same. The most expensive base station components (power amplifiers, antennas, etc.) are similar if not identical. In fact, many vendors have exactly the same base station chassis across technologies; the digital card is the principal difference between these base stations. When evaluating different technology options, it’s also important to compare similar deployment configurations. It is unrealistic to compare the cost of a 3G WAN network deployed for mobility to the cost of a WiMAX network deployed for nomadic access or point-to-point backhaul for enterprises. Both 3G and WiMAX are capable of providing single-cell omni-directional or directional coverage. However, most 3G deployments are cellular WANs. WANs are typically deployed for capacity or coverage.Conclusion Under similar conditions, 3G provides capacity and coverage advantages for various deployment scenarios—including for simulations that employ 3GPP/PP2 to NGMN models; for WANs, hotzones, and hotspots; and for fixed, nomadic, and mobile scenarios. Coverage or capacity governs the number of sites for all scenarios, and, by extension, network costs. Although various operators have considered deploying WiMAX as a broadband overlay to 2G voice networks, 3G is a more natural and complementary alternative that provides lower cost, more deployment flexibility, improved performance, and better integration. 3G assures backward compatibility and future interoperability. Compatibility with the installed base has always been part of the cellular industry’s philosophy (at times with painful implications). 3G protects operator investments by ensuring backward compatibility, from standard specification to rigorous field tests. 3G technologies are backward compatible through Rev. B and HSPA+; by design, UMB and LTE will provide seamless interoperability with 3G networks. In contrast, 802.16dand 802.16e-based WiMAX products are incompatible. For more information please contact Tel 0 2616 0991-2, 08 9144 4014 Voraparn Eua-arporn E-mail: [email protected]