Why 3G Wireless Isn't A Real Alternative To Wired Broadband
from the just-not-there dept
The wireless carriers can’t have it both ways. They can’t keep positioning their new mobile high speed services as being real alternatives to wired broadband, and then limit how they’re used while charging more than twice as much for it. While plenty of folks keep bringing up 3G cellular wireless as a “third pipe” to compete with DSL and cable, plenty of others are realizing it’s not really competition at all. You get a slower connection, with a ton of limitations at a much higher cost. The one benefit (and it is a good benefit) is mobility. In the article above, the head of a mobile industry assocation says he’d like to see the prices come down. They are slowly coming down a bit, but the fact is they can’t really go down all that much for one simple reason: the networks simply aren’t designed to handle that much traffic. That’s why the prices are high (it keeps a lot of people from signing up) and the limits are very, very real. The simple fact is that the carriers want to talk about this great new network, and position it as an alternative, but they can’t actually provide a level of service that fits that positioning — and won’t be able to for quite some time. So, instead of falsely positioning it as an alternative, why isn’t the focus on that one big benefit of mobility? Perhaps the media is to blame for part of this, as they see the advertised speeds and automatically compare that to DSL — but it doesn’t seem like the telcos have done much to correct that view.