1 month ago Apple's release of the new iPad raised the attention of the Australian Telecoms regulator. Now there are rumours circulating that Ofcom is not happy either.
In both cases Apple is allegedly advertising to consumers that it is selling a new high-speed 4G iPad. The minor issue for Apple's marketing is that neither country has wireless networks that will actually allow it to function at 4G speeds.
At a basic level it is a consumer information issue, however the crux problem is ultimately technical in nature and due to a difference in network frequencies.
Apple designed the iPad to work on 4G networks in the US which utilise 700MHz and 2100MHz bands. However Australia's '4G' networks operate in the 1800MHz band, And, in the UK operators are going a different way again by using the 2.6GHz and 600MHz bands.
In fact there are many different bandwidths that operators can use, and the Average Joe may not realise that their phone is actually using multiple frequencies. This is because most modern handset are tri-band meaning that they can interact with all three global standard frequencies (GSM 900, 1800 and 1900).
This problem reminds us of the need for harmonisation across international wireless spectrum and the challenges faced by operators in providing us with a truly mobile product.
....and, Apple, when you are the biggest kid in the playground the regulator is always watching...
I would expect worldwide harmonization of the spectrum to be near impossible. As it stands, countries already have a hard time as it is freeing up spectrum and rearranging it to provide new and better services. The idea of reaching worldwide uniformity seems unattainable. For instance, when it comes to 2G telephony, which will prevail? 900/1,800MHz that is used in Europe and much of the world or 850/1,900 that is used in the US and much of LatAm. And what about rearranging TV channels, military frequencies, microwave, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably much easier for gadget makers to make their devices compatible with a wide array of bands. It's probably no so hard, after all, it's been many years since phone manufacturers, faced with the problem mentioned above, developed Quad-band mobile phones. I'm actually surprised that apple didn't think about that when developing the new iPad.
Whilst it can be a challenge to refarm spectrum and shift users to alternative bands, the success of digital dividend shows that it is achievable. At the end of the day, users of telecoms spectrum outnumber other users quite significantly, so whilst the ham radio operators might not like upping sticks to a new band, it’s reasonable to assume that it’s socially optimal that they do.
ReplyDeleteBut what's a bit different about the shift toward 4G/LTE is the sheer number of bands being used internationally. When 2G and 3G spectrum started it was easier for regulators to align themselves across borders. Now that spectrum is much more scarce, more bands are being used meaning that alignment has become a little hap-hazard.
I’m not sure if the technical experts have yet reached consensus on whether technology will solve the problem for us, but it would be great if it did. Moore’s Law tells us it’s likely, but it may be difficult (or prohibitively expensive) for international LTE roaming to ever become as seamless as 2G/3G.
You should also consider the benefits for the society to have competing technologies. Therefore, innovation will be positively pushed up. For instance, the Chinese are trying to develop their own 4G or 5G in order to break the technological monopoly dominated by European operators. Then the question would be whether it is better to have a monopolistic technology or competing technologies. This is a good question for our economists!
ReplyDeleteWhat happened with the digital dividend has no effect whatsoever when it comes to spectrum harmonization. The digital dividend just came about technological progress which meant that TV now needs less spectrum and therefore frees up space. But to go from there to claim that every single spectrum user in the world will move just to save a few bucks on building wireless devices is nothing less than a dream. (inspection of the US spectrum map should give you an idea of the mammoth task http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf )
ReplyDeleteIs it inefficient? Surely it is. But that's how things have developed for over a century now and it is not the only place where such inefficiencies take place. Driving on the left or the right, different power outlets for every country, different voltages and frequencies, different TV standards (PAL, NTSC, SECAM), etc. have meant that device manufacturers have had to increase the cost of their goods to accommodate for different standards. Inefficient by all means but the cost of switching everyone who drives on the left to the right would most certainly be greater than the cost of building two versions of each car model.
But, let's just mention one example. In America (the continent) one of the public bands is in the 900MHz range as GSM runs over 850MHz. By some miracle of faith America and Europe agree to "harmonize" and switch all GSM to 900MHz. That will mean that people in the former would have to discard all of their 900MHz radio equipment and buy new equipment (never mind those without quad-band mobile phones). I can tell you that, for instance, my parents wouldn't be too happy about throwing away their 900MHz cordless phone.
Manufacturers have been very good at cramming more transmitters into their devices. For instance, the upcoming Specification of HTC EVO™ 4G LTE supports quad-band GSM (850/900/1800/1900), Quad band 3G (850/900/1900/2100) and dual band LTE (band 2 and 25). With the iPhone 4S you have all this (except the LTE part) in a phone that can work both with a GSM or CDMA network, something for which you needed two different devices (i.e. CDMA iPhone 4 different to GSM iPhone 4).
In a globalized world where you now have to provide for heterogeneous countries which have had different ways of developing, you have to make manufacturing provisions to take into account these differences. Not the most efficient outcome, but it's too late to start all over again.
@ Henri. True, this balance between innovation incentives and efficiency always complicated. Not the first time that it happens though. Perfect example is the US which (largely) went the way of CDMA whereas the rest of the world went for GSM. And, of course, it's not even just an issue of telecoms (think about Betamax vs VHS, HD DVD vs Blu Ray, Xbox vs PS3, etc.) i would think that in the end the market imposes some sort of rationality and limits the number of "platforms" to just a few.
Harmonisation certainly plays a role here. As you mention, there are different standards applied in many technologies (cars, voltages, tv). The post isn't claiming extreme global harmonisation, it's saying that even though there are multiple standards around the place there can be (and already is) some form of international alignment. And, where it can be achieved, harmonisation is likely to have a net positive economic impact (but Henri does raise a very interesting counter-factual which is worth considering).
ReplyDeleteI think of it as a chicken and egg situation between the standard set by the regulator (in this case the choice of spectrum band) and the configuration chosen by the international manufacturers. Also, both sides would claim that they face significant switching costs to vary their chosen standard. At the centre of this we have various international organisations (SAE, ITU, GSMA) attempting to mediate efficient outcomes.