The answer to the WLAN vs 3G argument 
Author : Graham Brown
Company : Wireless World Forum Posted Thu 14th Feb 2002
http://www.wirelessworldforum.com/w2fnews11631.html

There have been several reports published of late that detail how WLAN
will destroy 3G and poses a major threat to the network operators who
have gambled their future existence on the success of 3G based services. 

Wireless LAN has long been cited by the media as being a potential
threat to the established status quo maintained by the operators. In a
recent report (company name not to be published), WLAN is cited as
posing "grave concern" for the operators themselves. 

I will examine the WLAN threat to 3G in this article and hopefully
present an objective rationale as to why "WLAN vs 3G" is an unnecessary
debate and how -both- technologies will co-exist in a complimentary
fashion in the foreseeable future. WLAN is an excellent technology that
will grow expansively in the next 5 years. Applications will permeate
many existing internet-based usages and also create networking
opportunities as yet undreamt of. 

The WLAN threat to 3G is important to understand in perspective. 

The key elements to this debate are as follows: 

1) Is WLAN a threat to 3G? i.e. is it a competitive or for that matter
complimentary technology? 

Let's examine the competitive angle for now. WLAN and 3G are both
capable of providing high-speed wireless connections for their relevant
enabled devices. In that respects they must be competitive - assuming
that they did not fulfil respective niche application. 

So one must consider what the niche market application of both
technologies will be. WLAN is a well-balanced technology for "hot spot"
coverage (i.e. public access areas or offices with high density wireless
usage). Perhaps more so than 3G. 3G's number one application will be
VOICE (not data) as even by 2004/5 data will account for, on average,
only 25% of the combined ARPU for most operators. This then suggests
that people are using their phones primarily for VOICE followed by the
added differentiator of data services. In that instance, one must
consider that in respect of hot spot coverage / voice usage, WLAN/3G
fulfil their individual demands respectively. 

In terms of straightforward data demand we must consider the competitive
potential of the two channels. Whereas WLAN may indeed offer a better
solution in many cases for data demand, the actual route to the end user
must be paramount to its acceptance. I will explain the implications of
this in the next section. 

2) What is the WLAN route to market? 

People (and I refer to your average user not average W2F member) can
only employ "incremental technologies". The PC migration route is a
classic case in point. Typewriter - PC - Windows Office - Email -
Internet. For most, the migration is a smooth transition and involves
little investment in time, experimentation and learning to move from one
stage to the next. By the same token we move from "fixed phones" to
"mobile phones that we use for voice calls" to "mobile phones that we
use for voice and data". By that definition, the introduction of data
services through the phone is a smooth transition for the user - it
remains within the boundaries of their own experience. 

What of WLAN? For the most part, Wireless LAN remains the enviable
pastime of those in highly equipped labs and offices with wireless
networking cards and all manner of dongles. Needless to say, this
technology will find extensive popularity in environments where such
hardware expenditure is acceptable (i.e. offices) but how then can it
reach the mass-market user? The only device that is currently available
to the person in the street is the mobile phone. Forget PDAs and (god
forgive) wearable computing because they are just not feasible for the
mass market. 

To achieve success a technology must do one of several options - a) it
must piggyback on an existing format to become a familiar concept for
the user or b) it must be an incremental expansion of an existing
technology. In the case of (a) we see how SMS became accepted and
subsequently wildly popular - it arrived on the back of the GSM standard
already embedded in GSM phones. It did not come as an additional
package, technology or component part that operators and handset
manufacturers had to decide the financial feasibility of before
adopting. In the case of (b) we can see how the mobile phone had a
secure route to market. People were comfortable with phones that were
portable - indeed many house phones were already so designed. The route
to market for WLAN needs to be similarly defined. In many cases, the
WLAN developers are fully aware of how they intend to market their
products. Some are exploring niche applications for hot spots in offices
others for M2M (machine to machine) application in industrial
telematics. These core activities are financially lucrative but do not
penetrate the mass market. We must consider that ever User in the
Industrial or Business environment will also be a User in the high
street or in his leisure time but, importantly, the reverse is not true. 

There are no shortcuts for new technologies. And this forms on of the
premises that WLAN will not compete with 3G. To some extent their
success will be a symbiotic relationship - with 3G's weaknesses being
covered by WLAN and WLAN's route to market provided by the 3G enabled
handset. In a recent report one analyst company cites the following
scenario "In the US and Europe a host of new companies are fighting to
gain first mover advantage in the fast-growing market for high-speed
wireless access to the internet. Yet, none of these companies has an
operating licence. They don't need one. To the horror of the established
mobile operators, the wireless LANs (W-LANs) that are springing up in
public access spots, operate on unlicensed frequencies." 

This scenario is realistic. However, this scenario is in no-way a threat
to the operators. As long as we will be unable to make decent voice
calls to the friends and colleagues globally using this technology
people will still demand telecomms based solutions. Take VoIP for
example. Great product, great idea but lousy mass-market implementation.
It will take many years to implement internet telephony and on that
basis by implementation it will be absorbed into the existing
technological parameters of mobile telephony. 

Even if the service was on an equal to the existing services offered by
operators we need to consider the bigger picture. This refers back to
one of the fundamental tenets of this article that technical merit does
not guarantee success. In the either/or competitive scenario painted by
the analysts what happen when I am "out of town"? What happens when I
want to call my wife who is in the car and does not have an
interoperable handset? Thinking about this situation provides us with
the answer to why people chose Microsoft products over others despite
the apparent security flaws, bugs etc. Because, the ease of use afforded
by having one interoperable system meant less changing, less hardware,
less learning, less software and less all-round effort generally. This
far outweighed the deficits in other areas. Likewise consumers will want
the same from 3G. I want one device I can use in the office, on business
trips and whilst shopping. The "with-keyboard" SMS devices that have hit
the market are a good idea in concept, but to be honest they look pretty
stupid for making phone calls. And in the fashion conscious youth market
- who knows best? In this respect, the cost of not having a keyboard and
using one's thumbs is far less that the apparent cost of employing such
a device and/or two devices alternatively. 

The only option then for WLAN is one of arriving in tandem with 3G for
the either/or option does not add up for the average user. 

If, WLAN could enter through the "backdoor" i.e. WLAN enabled handsets
it has a route to market. But this will not occur if they are a
perceived threat to the technologies that the Industry has invested
billions in. It is important to consider that it is not just the
operators who have invested billions in the success of 3G, it is also
the component elements of the "value network" - the handset
manufacturers etc. These elements will not develop technologies that
conflict with the ones they have already invested their future in. 

However, it is highly likely that they will see WLAN for its
complimentary nature. Initial evidence already suggests positive results
for Bluetooth / WLAN interoperability [related item] giving the green
light for exploring the complimentary nature for utilising the
technology to support mobile phones in areas where WLAN will provide a
better service over existing 3G network coverage. Furthermore
researchers at Lucent's labs have already made several breakthroughs
demonstrating WLAN / 3G interoperable roaming to be highly feasible
[related item]. 

3) Is success determined by technological merit? 

"Whether it's 2.5G, 3G or W-LAN, the customer is interested in services,
not access technology" argued Eylert of the UMTS forum, pointing to the
example of Japanese operator NTT DoCoMo that is offering an enhanced
version of its popular i-mode mobile Internet service to customers of
DoCoMo's newly-launched UMTS-based 3G system, FOMA. 'All that these
access channels ultimately provide is an opportunity for operators to
strengthen the relationships with their existing customer base.'
[related item]. 

The success of WLAN will not occur on technical merit alone. In many
cases technically inferior technologies triumph over potentially
superior competitors through clever marketing and political manoeuvring.
I point to imode vs. WAP, NT vs. Unix, Windows vs. MacOs vs. Unix, AC
vs. DC, English versus other languages, VHS vs. Betamax etc. Each
examples demonstrates how success comes from a) the importance of mass
acceptance tipping the balance towards the leading technology thus
giving an unassailable advantage and b) the successful marketing of the
product in line with consumer demand and expectation. The consumer cares
very little about 3G vs. WLAN and demands decent services. The less
technologically astute (i.e. 99% of the population) have little time for
technology. In the case of the consumer, an ideal service will have
minimal timeout/delay, the highest possible cost at the lowest possible
cost with minimum effort. This will come from an incorporation of 3G
-and- WLAN, where WLAN will provide a support for 3G in instances where
3G cannot deliver on the above maxim. 

The media is guilty of misinterpreting the aspirations of the WLAN
industry. For the most part, these technical experts understand the
capability of their products and applications. However, they do not
intend to create handsets or mass-market devices that will replace the
mobile phone, as we know it. Furthermore, this is an impossibility given
the size of the vested interested in the latter's camp - who can compete
long term with Vodafone? 

4) What is the demand for WLAN and for that matter the demand for 3G? 

It is interesting reading that DoCoMo's initial figures from their FOMA
3G service, post launch, suggest that subscriber numbers have been
disappointing [related item]. The prospect of mobile video, video
conferencing, high speed mobile data connections etc is very enticing
but it then begs the question - at what cost? Cost, in this instance
does not just refer to monetary issues. I also refer to cost in terms of
time, experimentation and the whole quantification of effort required
for "being bothered" about anything generally in this hectic day and
age. New services can easily mask the "true cost" of the service by a
degree of hype and novelty associated with it. WAP, for example, seemed
very exciting at the time and analysts, industry and media in tow all
predicted new horizons. When novelty and hype disappeared we realised
that it was in fact rather under-supported by all involved and was
heading quite swiftly for a media backlash. It was monetarily expensive,
slow and unappealing but yet technically very brilliant. WAP was the
Woody Allen of the telecomms world, whereas the rather technically
inferior Steven Spielberg in the form of DoCoMo's Imode packed the box
offices. 

So one must then consider WLAN in this respect. WLAN does have a demand,
but what is the cost? If it were to be competitive it must be able to
truly offer most at less expense than 3G. But this is not the case. It
cannot be competitive because it cannot cover all bases. All bases
meaning the demands of the mainstream user. The person in the street
does not want to shop for network cards or be concerned with
interoperability. Furthermore they want interoperability with friends
and colleagues - not one device for this and one device for that nor
converged devices that offer multiple functions which can be performed
on an individual basis a whole lot better than the singular devices they
seek to replace. The Palm that one can use, as a phone is no more than a
conceptual creation because it's a whole lot easier to use a phone as a
phone than a Palm as one. 

In all cases the paradox of technological success is that to be
successful the product must itself by widely accepted -first-. This, as
we mentioned, can only be achieved through incremental increases. WLAN
cannot and must not be marketed as a threat to 3G as it more than
counterproductive. 

There is a demand for WLAN and we need to assess how this can work
effectively -with- 3G. This being the case the market leaders (the
network operators and handset manufacturers) will implement WLAN into
their offerings thus bringing it to the mass market.

3G and 802.11 roaming breakthrough ? 
Posted Thu 11th Oct 2001

Researchers claimed Wednesday that they have developed software that
will enable true global roaming across all types of wireless
environments ranging from third-generation (3G) systems and 802.ll local
area networks (WLANs). 

Researchers at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs said their Common
Operations (COPS) software architecture will work on disparate wireless
networks including CDMA2000, UMTS and other commonly used and
forthcoming systems. Subscribers to one sort of network will be able to
access voice and data services even when they have roamed into an area
served by another type of network, the company claimed in a statement. 


Source All Net Devices.
http://www.allnetdevices.com/wireless/news/2001/10/10/global_roaming.html

Bluetooth and WLAN interoperability 
Posted Fri 30th Nov 2001

     Bandspeed, Inc. and Open Interface North America announced Tuesday
their new product which uses Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) technology
to allow Bluetooth devices to coexist with Wireless LANs. This would be
particularly applicable to deployments in and around 802.11b WLANs,
which dysfunctionally shares the 2.4 Ghz band with Bluetooth. 

The solution will be unveiled at the 2001 Bluetooth Developers
Conference, which begins Dec. 11 in San Francisco. It is based on
Bandspeed's AFH HubMaster technology and Open Interface's BlueMagic AFH
protocol stack. 

Bandspeed stated that its AFH technology enables the 'non-collaberative'
coexistence of Bluetooth-enabled devices with WLANs, such as those using
802.11b technology. Bandspeed's chipset used in conjunction with Open
Interface's BlueMagic protocol stack is designed to provide a
coexistence solution for hardware manufacturers and OEMs. BlueMagi AFH
is backwards compatible with Open Interface's Bluetooth spec version 1.1
and works with existing Bluetooth wireless devices. 

Any solution to the interference issues that exist between the two
technologies could provide a boost to the adoption of both. While WLAN
technology has already been widely accepted in both the enterprise and
SOHO markets, Bluetooth has suffered from a rash of negative publicity
painting it is a potentially interfering nuisance to its faster, albeit
pricier cousin. The resolution of some of these interference issues
could clear the way for the co-existance of these two wireless
technolgies with overlapping, yet differing applications and uses.
Bluetooth could then thrive as the Personal Area Network technology that
it was meant to be in the first place, offering cheaper wireless
connectivity for functions more related to end-user interaction with
devices and terminals than WLANs strength as a wired Ethernet
replacement technology. 

http://www.80211-planet.com/news/article/0,,1481_930911,00.html

WLAN complementary not competitive with 3G says UMTS forum 
Posted Wed 5th Dec 2001

The UMTS Forum believes that Wireless Local Area Network (W-LAN)
technology will complement rather than compete with the market
opportunity for 3G mobile services. Addressing a seminar hosted by
industry consultants Analysys ('Mobility Futures' - London 28 November)
to explore the implications of W-LAN as a delivery mechanism for
broadband IP services, UMTS Forum Chairman Dr Bernd Eylert suggested
that today's choice of low-cost W-LAN products can help seed customer
demand for UMTS when networks launch in Europe and elsewhere over the
next two years: 

'W-LAN can give a great experience today of fast, permanently-connected
IP access ', said Eylert, ' however, when operators launch their UMTS
offerings, mobile end-users will be able to enjoy all the additional
benefits - such as international roaming - that full mobility offers.' 

'Whether it's 2.5G, 3G or W-LAN, the customer is interested in services,
not access technology' argued Eylert, pointing to the example of
Japanese operator NTT DoCoMo that is offering an enhanced version of its
popular i-mode mobile Internet service to customers of DoCoMo's
newly-launched UMTS-based 3G system, FOMA. 'All that these access
channels ultimately provide is an opportunity for operators to
strengthen the relationships with their existing customer base.' 

Eylert also suggested that questions still remain about the business
case for 'pure' W-LAN operators. 'It's great having a wireless network
that customers can access for free in an airport lounge, for example,
but I don't see where the revenues come from. Mobile operators need to
make a profit.' 

Eylert added that UMTS is a total concept that embraces not just
technology but other elements like mobility, billing, roaming and
security. 'For operators with an existing 2G customer base - such as
with GSM - there's a clear roadmap to building a successful business
from UMTS and 3G services. W-LAN, in contrast, is purely a wireless
access technology and is unlikely to support a stand-alone business',
said Eylert. 'W-LAN may help to enhance the customer experience for
those operators who can successfully integrate it into their service
offering - rather than replacing it.'