Gprs

wild_eyed

is GPRS a failed technology? i.e. is it just delaying the arrival of 3g because they have to make some kind of return on it due to the money invested in it?

jesus_thats_gre

From what i know, it is a relative failure when you compare the revenue it has created and the amount invested in the technology by operators. I dont have exact figures but thats the vibe I have picked up.

However, it has served as a good testing ground for what will be possible with 3rd generation mobile phone services. GPRS networks are also being used as the basis to build the the UMTS packet switched network on.

So it depends which way you look at it. In my opinion, cellurlar operators needed to introduce a packet switched based service as packet switched technologies are the future. So GPRS, or something similar, had to be introduced at somestage whether or not is was going to be an instant success.

Just my opinion.

wild_eyed

so it's more of stepping stone then?

manchine

Yeah, it's kinda a bit slow for any high volume use. WAP and things like it are ideal for use on a phone as opposed to using your phone as a modem with a laptop, which is in and around dialup speed.
As mentioned above the (operators) core network for GPRS will also be used for 3G so in a sense it gets recycled. The big expense will be for the radio network - and the licence!

jesus_thats_gre

Exactly, while the license itself was just over 100 million, the actualy construction of the radio network (UTRAN) will cost around 1 billion (read it recently in an interview with Paul Donovan, CEO of Vodafone Ireland).

wild_eyed

ok, i having been writing a report for the last few weeks, its a group effort, and im sort of have to do the conclusion, and i think i need another heading to talk about.

currently i have.

limitations of gprs
advantages
disadvantages
the future is 3g
3g vs. gprs
conclusion.

any ideas?

jesus_thats_gre

Its important to realise that 3G services for the first few years will be glorified GPRS services, i.e. faster data rates and thats it.. Video calls will only become widespread once the handset become available. While 3 in the UK offer video calling services, they are very restrictive coverage wise and there is a seriouis lack of available handsets...

You may want to be more specific about 3G as well. 3G is an umbrella term for the new generation of cellular technologies being released. UMTS is probably going to the the most widespread 3G technology as it provides a natural evolution from GSM/GPRS and uses W-CDMA. As it stands, GSM is jsut one 2G standard (uses TDMA), cdmaOne(uses CDMA) and TDMA (slightly differentt to GSM) and PDC are all alternativces. TDMA and cdmaOne are used mainly in the states while PDC/JDC is used in Japan.. GSM is growing at a fairly fast rate in the states, albeit using a different band..

GPRS is the 2.5G evolution for both GSM and TDMA while cdmaOne also has its own packet switching technology.. A mentiond, UMTS is just one 3G standard, there are numerous more and while most use W-CDMA as the air interface technology, there is quite a few alternatives. 3.5G standards are also well into development, as are 4G standards. The likes of UMTS still use a Circuit Switched core network for services such as Voice calls. The big move will be towards a completely packet switched core network.... This would be a good focus for your report maybe.

If you are unsure of what I said, was rushing, just ask and I will do my best.

wild_eyed

so gprs is part of the 2.5 "umbrella" and utms is the 3g equivilant.

jesus_thats_gre

Put simply yes.. The UMTS packet switched domain of the Core Network in based on a modified version of the GPRS core network. The same components are involved, i.e. SGSN and GGSN.

About cdmaOne, it is also known as IS-95a. The packet switched technology for cdmaOne is referred to IS-95b. The CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) method for use in the air interface was developed by Qualcomm in the states and is only a about 5 years old. GSM and its use of the TDMA methid (Time Division Multiple Access) is nearly 15 years old and is considerably less efficient.

I copied this out of a report I done, will give ya some idea of what 3G is meant to be about:

***********************************************
There are a number of umbrella terms that refer to third-generation systems. 3G is a short term for third-generation wireless systems, and refers to near-future developments in wireless technologies, particularly mobile telephony.

IMT-2000 (International Mobile Telephony 2000) is a term used by the International Telecoms Union (ITU) to refer to many third-generation (3G) wireless technologies, that provide higher than present data rates between a mobile device and a base station. This was renamed in 1997 from Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunications Service (FLPMTS) to IMT-2000 when the ITU adopted the notion of 3G.

Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) represents the current evolution of current second-generation standards and services. UMTS describes a standard which will enable the flexible and high data rates transmission if any kind of data over the air interfaces. The primary benefit of this system is that it has been designed to run in parallel with the existing 2nd Generation digital mobile systems such as GSM.

Cdma2000, also known as IMT-CDMA Multi Carrier, is a code division multiple access version of the IMT-2000 standard developed by the ITU and 3GPP2 [12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by wild_eyed
currently i have.

limitations of gprs > both the same thing
disadvantages >

advantages

the future is 3g
3g vs. gprs > pointless argument
conclusion.

manchine

Might be worth bearing in mind that since most 3G networks will never have full "3G" coverage you'll probably end up roaming in and out of the 2.5G network of whatever operator you're with.
The general opintion is that the cell size is such that it wouldn't be financially viable to have full radio coverage - only population coverage of varying degrees.
The 2.5G network is built on the existing GSM network and so gets the coverage for "free".
Ideally from the users point of view all that should be seen is slower data speeds when you're out in the sticks and faster in the big smoke.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by manchine
Might be worth bearing in mind that since most 3G networks will never have full "3G" coverage you'll probably end up roaming in and out of the 2.5G network of whatever operator you're with.
The general opintion is that the cell size is such that it wouldn't be financially viable to have full radio coverage - only population coverage of varying degrees.
The 2.5G network is built on the existing GSM network and so gets the coverage for "free".
Ideally from the users point of view all that should be seen is slower data speeds when you're out in the sticks and faster in the big smoke.

Where 3G coverage does not happen, it is possible that networks will use a technology called EDGE which is in between GPRS and 3G. I beleive O2 are considering doing this..

manchine

In theory you could even roam onto a wireless lan if your device supported it.

dublincastro

All of these are possible but not all are being considered....