I was discussing with my college friends in the library yesterday about the
deployment of free Wi-Fi hotspots in government venues. Basically they argued
that the deployment of free Wi-Fi hotspots in more locations will diminishes the
benefits of 3G networks, and hence making deployment of 3G networks irrelevant.
My stance was at the other end of the argument—3G networks is
relevant and it is not a niche market. In a way, if two kinds of technology
compete with each other, you can always say one diminishes the benefits of
another. However, I would rather believe that the two wireless technologies are not competing
with each other—arenʼt they supposed to complement each other?
At some point in the discussion they mentioned that the current pricing of
mobile Internet access through the 3G networks is too high for use by the
general public. A person having a 3G mobile phone equipped with Wi-Fi
transceiver
can always find a hotspot to access the Internet, so that they can
avoid the high price of transmitting over the cell phone network. They also
assumed that hotspots are widespread (or will become widespread
soon enough) that people can always find one nearby. Together with the low price of
using a Wi-Fi network and now the government actually provided the service for
free, people donʼt need 3G networks.
They also suggested that the seemingly lack of popularity in accessing the
Internet
with a cell phone is an evidence that mobile Internet access isnʼt popular
among the general public. Instead, more people bring their laptops to coffee
shops and restaurant alike to surf through a Wi-Fi connection. Whatʼs the point,
I reckon they believed, of having a ubiquitous Internet connection anyway?
It isnʼt necessary
Having bought a 3G cell phone with a Wi-Fi almost two years ago, and switched
back to a 2G network recently, it is difficult for me to argue otherwise.
The reason for my switching was not of the pricing or of the speed—I considered the
pricing acceptable I would say. For $38 a month ($10 less if on a contract) I
could use 20MB of bandwidth daily. Never on one day did I exceed that
bandwidth limit. I did not like it for three reasons: 1) They added a hideous
red toolbar on top of every page, and there was no way to turn it off; 2) the pricing
was not fair, namely it only covers browsing, not downloading, chatting
et cetra; 3) most importantly, it is not enjoyable to surf the Internet with my Nokia
N80. It is easy to understand—how would surfing the Internet with a numerical
pad and
four-way navigation buttons be enjoyable? Not to mention the phone does not have
enough processing power to render many web pages, and N80 is a powerful smart
phone by comparison.
Not if compared to the iPhone though. I donʼt want to repeat the whole argument
of accessing the Internet with the iPhone. I just want to say that if it is not
making mobile Internet usable, nothing is. I believe that the lack of
popularity in using the mobile Internet isnʼt limited by what you can do while
you are on the road or the pricing being extravagant—itʼs limited by
the device.
And frankly it is unfair to compare the current 3G networks
with the future Wi-Fi networks. Iʼm sure that pricing for both will go
down. Iʼm sure both will be available in more locations. Iʼm sure that both
will be faster. Not just one but another as well.
Before I go into the idea of the two wireless technologies complementing each
other, lets consider for a moment that they are competing. If they are, the question
would be whether people will find it worthwhile to pay more
for a ubiquitous service that is actually slower. And if yes, how much more
money? How much more available? How much slower?
Letʼs consider these with the technologies of today. Consider a person having a
cell phone that makes the mobile Internet actually usable. For as low as $28 a
month he gets 20MB of daily usage and $68 for unlimited (applies to browsing
only, extra charges for other use). If you look at Wi-Fi, PCCWʼs unlimited
plan is priced at $98 a month (available to Netvigator Broadband users only). Gov Wi-Fi
is free, of course, but they are only available at government venues.
My friends suggested that in the future more hotspots will be deployed at less
the fees. Firstly I doubt whether our government will deploy them in
more locations, as doing that would result in criticisms of the government
being interfering with the free market. Nor will PCCW makes it free for them
being a
commercial service provider. Municipal Wi-Fi or public contributed hotspots
maybe the way out, but they wonʼt be in the near future, if at all coming.
So is ubiquitous worth it? Iʼll share a few personal experiences.
- One day I have to send an e-mail on the road and it is rather urgent. I was in a
hurry as I was running late. I ended up sitting on the bench trying to access
the Internet through one of those telephone booths. People looked at me as if
they havenʼt seen people using a laptop on a bench in a train station (me
neither). (Speaking of which, the signal from telephone booths isnʼt strong enough.
Usually I canʼt receive the signal just across the four-lane roads.)
- Another time I was on the streets looking for the bus route and bus stop for
some destination. I didnʼt bother heading to a nearby Starbucks, not to mention
taking out a laptop and looking for a telephone booth.
- I was on the streets with nothing to do one day and I was thinking maybe I could
go to watch a movie or something. If only I could check out what a theatre is
showing I donʼt need to go there and found out I was not interested in any of
them.
I donʼt use the Internet 24/7, but I use it when I need it. And I couldnʼt
foresee when I am going to need it. Iʼm going to use it briefly for the moment
that I need it. And I need it right then. If this means Iʼm what can only be
described as in the niche market, then just be it. This also made the meaning of
a niche market, well, meaningless.
Or one might say that it is a niche market because people donʼt need to
access the
Internet when they need it. In other words: not necessary. This is difficult to
argue whether something is necessary for the general public. But I reckon one
might argue that it is not necessary to access the Internet after all. Or one
might argue that it is not necessary to take the bus when I could walk. I could
write another article of this length just devoted to this particular topic. So I
am not going to discuss much about this.
And for the two wireless technologies being complement of
each other, one way to look at it is that the mobile phone networks are for
mobile phones and the Wi-Fi networks are for laptops. (Surprise!) Laptops are
bulky and you donʼt want to bring it out everyday. If you use a mobile phone,
the 3G networks is adequate for most. Of course the line becomes blur now
when laptops become smaller and can be used with 3.5G networks, while mobile
phones are equipped with Wi-Fi transceiver. However, this
wonʼt make either of these technologies irrelevant, they are good at what they are
good at.
Things might change tomorrow. Wireless services are getting faster, more available and
cheaper. But as for today, the both are not being kicked out anytime soon.
I think what I dislike about is that people think our government is advancing
telecommunications by deploying hotspots. In my eyes, they are at
best better than nothing. After all, you should remember that the government did not have
any plans rolling out hotspots back then when the ITU conference is held in Hong
Kong and attenders complained about the state of wireless Internet access in the
city. By that time, municipals Wi-Fi was already being deployed at other
cities, Singapore being one example. Our governmentʼs action is slow and
I doubt whether they would advance any further when the public has forgotten the
reasons they are deploying hotspots at the first place.
Subscribe
