Long memo from Qualcomm exec on his Wi-Fi and 2.5G experiences over a long trip: Alan Reiter posts a long memo sent by a Qualcomm executive to internal folk (we think) and analysts like Alan about his personal experiences with Wi-Fi on the road and contrasts that with his experiences using cell data that employs technology patented by Qualcomm.
I've emailed the exec to ask if he'd be willing to read a long rebuttal I plan to write. I agree with many of his specifics, but not all of them, and some of his propositions are strawmen, intentionally or not, that don't hold water.
I hope he engages: Qualcomm is a leading light in the 3G evolution (like with EvDO: Evolution Data-Only), and their insight and market actions will affect the development of Wi-Fi and 3G. Unfortunately, the company has been on the record lately with statements about Wi-Fi which are specious or too specific, and which are entirely too self-serving. This memo has much better depth, breadth, logic, and fact behind it.
Hello Glenn: Looking forward to your analysis.
I recently installed a bandwidth meter on my Treo, and posted the following on my blog:
I've been testing the Sprint PCS Vision data service on my Treo 300 and came up with some surprising results. I walked outside my apartment (concrete walls, converted warehouse) and was able to achieve up to 64 Kbps, averaging around 40 Kbps. I was in Manhattan today, at a 3rd floor doctor's office on 37th Street and was able to hit 123 Kbps, averaging around 100 Kbps (!) Coming home on the Staten Island Ferry, as we were approaching the dock, I was averaging 40-60 Kbps. Granted, this is only doing slightly better than a dial-up modem, but for basic text searching, this service works great considering the portability it affords.
BK
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120454/
Well, he gets it pretty much spot on doesn't he? Some of the details may not be accurate (like the cost of GPRS or WiFi in London), but basically he's right... there's never a hotspot around when you need one.
I think that comparing the US experience and the European one are two different things. First, I don't think the pricing will be as high as in Europe, second, Wi-Fi speeds are much higher (some of us do get the occasional multi-meg attachment), third, Wi-Fi technology is becoming cheap and common whereas buying a CDMA2000 1V card can cost up to $200.
There are a couple of other reasons accounting for the differenc but will wait to see what Glenn has to say. Cheers!
Belk admits that he uses WiFi in the home and in the office. Why not CDMA2000 EV-DO? Simply because WiFi delivers the Mb data rates that he expects at no extra cost. So he accepts that WiFi technology is good but the hotspot user experience, pricing and coverage are not. As Glenn points out the US experience would have been very different in all of these respects and the fact is that all of these issues are being addressed in the embryonic European hotspot sector. Watch out for major roaming agreements between telco WISPs over the coming months.
While the CDMA2000 vs GSM/GPRS/WCDMA schism persists there will never be a straightforward cellular data roaming solution for business travellers moving between the US and Europe/Asia. 802.11b is a global standard (a rare thing indeed!). Therefore with a multi-lateral roaming platform in place WiFi has the potential to become the de-facto standard for international remote-access wireless data services and utlimately, with VoIP, for voice too.
As Glenn points out WiFi's direct connection to the backhaul network means that the wired-wireless expectations gap will always be much narrower than between desktop and wide area cellular services. This will become increasingly important as broadband becomes the norm in Europe and the US and dial-up is no longer the reference point for wired access.
Belk has come up with one of the most informed (if flawed) critiques of hotspot services to date and I look forward to Glenn's full response to the strawmen.
Peter