Mobile phones and the Internet have transformed our professional and private lives. Merging these two networks is a logical development, but this new medium has been widely and wildly misunderstood.
The wireless Internet is a nice term. It implies anywhere, anytime access from a pocket-sized device. But what do you want to access when mobile? Do you expect to surf the Net from a phone?
Most people want information that is related to mobility, eg traffic conditions, the times of trains and planes, the location of hotels, restaurants, parking garages, etc. That kind of information which is supplied by content providers, is hosted on the Internet, but you do not surf to find it.
Access needs to be easy and most of the content will be related to location. Network operators can meet those requirements by aggregating local content. Subscribers select the services they require, ideally from a PC and this customised 'home page' is downloaded to their phone. These services can be 'pulled' by the subscriber (eg timetables) or 'pushed' by the operator (eg traffic conditions).
Local content clearly needs to be supplemented by international information, which operators may also aggregate. And they may also decide to capture traffic from visitors by offering services on the visited country or city.
That is the basic concept of the wireless Internet: easy, immediate access to relevant information.
The European perspective
Europe had a huge success with GSM. This standard is used in 171 countries on over 400 networks and by more than 550 million subscribers. This represents a huge market for wireless information services.
WAP (wireless application protocol) was the enabling standard. It defined the way that content hosted on the Net could be accessed and displayed on phones and other 'thin-client' devices such as PDAs. Unfortunately the GSM community used this standard to promote the wireless Internet concept. As a result, expectations were hyped to unrealistic levels and the concept was subsequently trashed when WAP-compliant phones and services became available.
At that time (end of 1999/early 2000), and largely as a result of the introduction of the WAP standard, the media in the States went wild on wireless. At first the emphasis was on the lead that Europe had over North America. The so-called Old World had one successful standard, GSM, while the New World had three. This meant that nationwide roaming on a digital phone was not possible. However, the States did lead on the Internet front, so 50% of the wireless Internet equation seemed to be in American hands.
That assumption was based on the incorrect assumption on both sides of the Atlantic that this concept - the wireless Internet - was all about surfing from a WAP-compliant, smart phone. Thus, when the phones were introduced in Europe the end-user experience was a big disappointment and WAP was trashed, particularly in the US media. Phones were not the way ahead, readers were told; the future lay with PDAs that could communicate over wireless data networks.
What went wrong?
The wireless Internet was a perceived failure for four main reasons. One, expectations were over-hyped. Two, delivery of the devices was late. Three, the service offers of the operators were limited. And four, access was not easy; it took too long and was therefore too expensive.
It is hard to imagine a worse way to launch an innovative new communications concept. However, the business case for wireless information services is sound. With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, it is clear that using GSM networks designed to carry voice traffic in order to launch data services was not wise. In fact, it was dumb.
Voice networks use circuit-switched technology. Data networks such as the Internet use packet switching. Had the wireless Internet been introduced later, using the 2,5G GSM service, perceptions would have been very different. Thus, the key issue is not the device; it is the delivery mechanism.
With 2G there is a long dial-up time (30 or more seconds) before a service is accessed and subscribers are charged on time and distance. With a packet-switched service the user is always on-line so access is almost instantaneous and charges are either flat (fixed monthly fee) or they are based on the amount of data transferred.
PDAs versus phones
PDAs are seen as the best way to realise the wireless Internet in the States and in fact they are, but only because a packet-switched data network is employed. The New World is still behind when it comes to wireless telephony.
In Japan DoCoMo's i-mode service has been a huge success, one that clearly validates the concept, but phones are used to access services. So why did smart phones fail in Europe but succeed in Japan? You have guessed it: because packet switching was employed.
Conclusions. Europe is phone-centric because of GSM's success. America is PDA-centric because of their poor cellular telephony infrastructure. Japan is phone-centric because that was DoCoMo's logical decision. People can message away, but they still need to talk.
PDAs are clearly a better device on which to display content. The screen is bigger and computing/memory resources are superior. This is the optimum wireless Internet device; it's a pocket-sized PC. The real PDAs versus phones issue concerns the number of devices a person is prepared to carry. One, say the phone vendors; they would, would they not? And this is true if one is talking about consumers. Two, say PDA vendors; also true if that person is a mobile professional. And in that case you can make it three at times, the extra device being a notebook PC.
Different people have different needs. Those needs vary from day to day and a wide range of thin-client devices will meet them. Young people message each other, play interactive games, check their horoscopes, download dial tones and music clips. Consumers want updates on traffic conditions and the weather, they also want news clips and sports results. Professionals need to check up on timetables, get their e-mails and access corporate resources. The list of services and applications is virtually limitless.
Looking ahead
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the WAP Forum are working to create the next-generation wireless data delivery specification, WAP 2.0. The basic and somewhat delicate task is to merge the underlying technologies employed in i-mode with that of the existing WAP specification. Thus, if everything works out, the difference between WAP and i-mode will all but disappear.
Phones will have bigger screens and add more data features while PDAs will enable telephony. The difference between these two device types will therefore blur. However, adding voice to a PDA in the US is too complex to be practical due to the fact that no nationwide digital standard exists and this situation is unlikely to change for three or more years.
As this market takes off, subscribers will want to do more and more on these handy devices, but there are obvious physical limitations. Adding more computing and memory resources will make the device larger and heavier; it will also reduce battery life. We are therefore going to see the emergence of a thin-client/intelligent network server model. Instead of running a Lite application on a PDA, for example, the app will reside on the server and the user will make requests and receive responses. The server will therefore do the heavy-duty work and the PDA will function as an input-output terminal.
Personal area networks (PANs) are another interesting development. In this model the phone becomes a transmitter-receiver (transceiver) that is worn on the belt or carried in a handbag. There is no screen or keypad. This device, plus a PDA and cordless headset are all 'bluetooth' enabled. (Bluetooth is a short-range air interface and when bluetooth devices come within a few metres of each other they are able to communicate automatically.) Calls are initiated by tapping on the relevant entry in the address book of the PDA. A signal is then sent to the transceiver, which dials the number and when the called party answers, the caller communicates via the headset.
In this model two devices are worn and one, a fully featured PDA, is carried. Add the intelligent network server and you end up with a very powerful personal communications system.
Information supplied by Anritsu representative in South Africa, ETECSA, (011) 787 7200.
© Technews Publishing (Pty) Ltd | All Rights Reserved
printer friendly version