Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Delays and Problems for India's New CDMA Network 247

Posted by timothy from the subpar-on-the-subcontinent dept.
securitas writes "The NY Times and Bloomberg are reporting that Qualcomm is touting an expected 6 million Indian subscribers using CDMA by year end. But the facts seem to fly in the face of that with Reliance experiencing technical problems and delays with the launch of India's first CDMA network, covered on Slashdot late last year. Part of the problem is that the GSM operators won't allow Reliance's traffic on their networks, not to mention a court challenge and no approval by regulators. Is this just a hopeful diversion from the loss of the Iraq contract, where MCI chose GSM? How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service, even if the handsets and service charges are heavily subsidized? Forbes discussed the problem of affordable mobile phone service in Africa where incomes are similar. Is this another wireless/fibre optic bubble akin to the one we saw a few years ago?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Delays and Problems for India's New CDMA Network More

Delays and Problems for India's New CDMA Network

Comments Filter:

  • Excuse me? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fluxrad ( 125130 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:13AM (#6039372)
    Could you provide a couple of links to back that one up?

  • GSM = cheap? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xenna ( 37238 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:14AM (#6039373)
    I don't know how they do it but I've been to many poor countries where lots of people seemed to be using cell phones. Maybe it's because the GSM market is very competitive that the services can be so cheap.

    In Europe it is rare for a 14 year old kid not to have a GSM. I understand that the situation in the US is quite different.

    BTW: the Forbes article that is linked doesn't even contain teh word 'phone'!

    • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:3, Informative)

      by nounderscores ( 246517 )
      according to m commerce times [mcommercetimes.com] the GSM networks have been in europe and asia since the 80s so the tech is more mature. More mature means that mass production drives down the cost.

    • Re:GSM = working (Score:5, Interesting)

      by leonbrooks ( 8043 ) <SentByMSBlast-No ... .brooks.fdns.net> on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:28AM (#6039419) Homepage
      Many Indians - so I am told by my oft-resident expert - use mobile 'phones because it is reasonable to expect them to work, which is more than can usually be said for the landlines.

      • Re:GSM = working (Score:3, Informative)

        by varun ( 174357 )
        As an Indian living in India, it comes as quite a surprise to me that you were told this. AFAIK, the only time mobile phones are used as an alternative is when:
        1. You set up a home/factory/school someplace where you can't get a landline. More often that not that's just temporary.
        2. It's more cost effective for your particular use.
        I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses mobile phones because the landlines are unreliable. Might be a rare few, but they are probably an anomaly.
        • This was near delta territory. Perhaps that makes a difference (soil or politics).
        • You set up a home/factory/school someplace where you can't get a landline. More often that not that's just temporary.

          I thought there were some parts of India where it can take forever to get a new land line installed? Including some of the major cities.

      • Re:GSM = working (Score:4, Interesting)

        by The Cydonian ( 603441 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:54AM (#6039591) Homepage Journal

        Depends. In my hometown Hyderabad, landlines delivered by the private Tata Indicom are usually more reliable than their GSM (or CDMA) counterparts.

        I won't say the same thing for the rural areas though; on a recent visit, I went to a village that's about 200 or so kilometres away from the nearest town and was surprised that my mobile worked. The landlines, on other hand, are often difficult to maintain; the telephone exchange is about 50 kilometres away, and the repairman comes every week.

        The point I'm trying to make:- the Indian telecom market is now extremely fragmented. Some states have world-class telephone infrastructure, while others are still in the Dark Ages.

        • Interesting story. My dad is currently in Afghanistan for a project. He was unable to call us through land lines, because the phone network is in such bad shape. But apparently, the cell phones in Kabul still work!

    • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:10AM (#6039505)
      Not just competitive but a mature and proven technology with broad industry support for the standard and numerous heterogenous solutions for customers and networks. Not to mention roaming and SMS.


      That CDMA isn't used boils down to common sense. GSM is used everywhere with few exceptions (even the US has GSM) so that is the baseline. It would be just stupid to choose some other standard and miss out on those lucrative roaming charges not to mention pissing off your customers at the same time.

      • The fact is, GSM is getting its ass kicked so badly by CDMA that they have now resorted to the SCO defense: closing ranks against providers who want to use CDMA, bribing govt. officials, and bringing legal action against CDMA providers. They have used this tactic successfully in Brazil, and it looks like they are trying the same thing in India.

        Magnus.

        • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MKalus ( 72765 )
          Care to back that up? Where is CDMA better than GSM?

          I had a Nextel, a TDMA phone with Rogers and GSM (in Europe and in Canada) and I take the GSM any day.

          SonyEricsson T68i and my iBook and thanks to GPRS I get my email anywhere.
          • Well, since the next generation of GSM is based off CDMA, I think your question is already answered. GSM is 2G technology. CDMA 1xRTT provided twice the number of calls on the same spectrum.

            Unfortunately, instead of using the existing, proven, US-based standard (called CDMA2000, 1xRTT, which is also 3G, BTW), the European governments and Wireless vendors got together to form an incompatible European version (called WCDMA, or sometimes just GSM to add to the confusion). They have not been able to get it to
          • Care to back that up? Where is CDMA better than GSM?

            CDMA allows more active phones to use the same cell and scales much better. With CDMA it is possible to have very large cells for covering sparsely populated rural areas and to easily drop new cells in the middle of a downtown to ease network congestion. Due to the modulation techniques used you don't have to worry about adjacent towers stepping on each other.

            I had a Nextel, a TDMA phone with Rogers and GSM (in Europe and in Canada) and I take the GSM

        • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Chainsaw ( 2302 )
          I'm not sure what you mean here. Considering that I could use my Ericsson in Sweden, Norway, Finland, USA, the entire god damn Europe and most other parts of the world without a hitch tells me that GSM works just fine. CDMA coverage is... Well... Mostly zero around here. However - both standards work. Doesn't that mean that they both suck, but in different ways?

        • The fact is, GSM is getting its ass kicked so badly by CDMA...

          You have to be a Yank, nobody else on the planet could possibly believe that...

          Hello? The entire rest of the planet uses GSM, there is hardly an eight year old in the UK that doesn't have a GSM phone for God's sake...

          Al.
        • It is true that CDMA has some advantages compared to GSM. Notably, GSM was designed to carry voice, not data.

          But then, GSM was rolled out in many parts of Europe a really long time ago, and it works. As opposed to what my friends in the US report, where a cell phone is pretty much useless in most areas, because the CDMA networks simply doesn't work.

          But who cares, UMTS is being rolled out... I think I'm not buying the first couple of years, but I'm covered by a UMTS network in the places where I spend

    • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dackroyd ( 468778 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @08:17AM (#6039963) Homepage
      Could be something to do with the fact that they can share the mobile phone.

      The Economist has run a couple of stories on how development agencies can give micro-loans (~$100) to poor people in Africa and India, to allow them to buy a phone. That person then charges other people in their village a small fee to use the phone.

      Result: massive improvement in quality of life for villagers as they can phone up to get day-to-day market prices to get the best prices for the foor they produce, can get medical assistance over the phone, can organise work etc.

      Once a phone is shared between 30 people, the cost for each of them really does come down quite a bit....

      • Bangladesh has a better track run in this regard than India. The ironic part though, is that WLL technologies were released in India precisely for this reason, namely to usher in rural connectivity (although the way the market has grown, the rural sector accounts for only 1% of the entire CDMA market).

    • Re:GSM = cheap? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nigel.selke ( 665251 )

      I don't know how they do it but I've been to many poor countries where lots of people seemed to be using cell phones. Maybe it's because the GSM market is very competitive that the services can be so cheap.

      This is either quite perceptive of you, or the story author doesn't know what cellular networks in poor countries (including many countries in Africa, such as South Africa, where I live), are like. A pay-as-you-go package from Vodacom, Cell-C or MTN will cost you very little, basically, a year of i

      • but not having easier access, or in some cases even the option of GSM is a clear case of US corporations screwing the general population

        Why? My phone works fine. I travel a lot - Las Vegas, Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, San Antonio, TX and a lot of small towns in-between. My phone works everywhere I go. It even worked on a recent trip to Mexico (but I had to pay roaming). I have a plan with nationwide roaming, free long distance, 350 anytime minutes, 3000 night and weekend minutes, voice mail and m
    • That's becouse to get a phone here in the states they do credit checks and all that. In Europe most people have pay-as-you-go and you can buy a phone at the gass station for $40.
      • That's becouse to get a phone here in the states they do credit checks and all that. In Europe most people have pay-as-you-go and you can buy a phone at the gass station for $40.

        You can get pay-as-you-go in the US and even buy a phone in a gas station. Ever hear of "prepaid celluar"?

        The downside is most providers have high per-minute charges and the minutes expire if you don't use them.

        Even with the credit checks it only takes about 30 minutes to set up a standard cell phone account and walk out of the

    • Phones in the 3rd World (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )

      I've been to many poor countries where lots of people seemed to be using cell phones. Maybe it's because the GSM market is very competitive that the services can be so cheap.

      That's probably a factor. There are others:

      • In many developing countries, the landline network is hopeless: lack of capital to expand it, can't afford to serve rural areas, corrupt government owners don't bother maintaining it, etc. A cell network leapfrogs over these difficulties.
      • In some countries, providers find it profitable to
    • In Europe it is rare for a 14 year old kid not to have a GSM. I understand that the situation in the US is quite different.

      The US cell phone market is fairly competitive. While not every teenager here has a mobile its not that uncommon.

      Basicly those who don't have mobile phones here mostly don't want one or don't see their need justifing the expense.

      The US has a very cheap (local calls are flat-rate) and reliable land line network which is at least partly responsible for fewer people seeing the need for

  • Why go CDMA when G3 is being rolled out? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nounderscores ( 246517 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:14AM (#6039374)
    In australia [three.com.au] G3 phones with graphical full colour web surfing, video conferencing and PDA features are being rolled out. Why go with plain vanilla CDMA?

    Why not fly if you're having trouble walking? It uses different muscles.

  • Yea!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:17AM (#6039389)
    A positive outcome from the war with Iraq. Mohammed Said Sahaf got a job in the Qualcomm PR department

  • What the market wants (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:20AM (#6039397) Homepage Journal
    Is a phone that cares not a fig for this CDMA/GSM question.
    How impossible can it be to engineer such a Philospher's Phone that will turn these leaden gadgets to gold?

    • Not impossible but not economical either. It would be a little bit like making a car that will run on diesel as well as gasoline.

      Or a CPU that will be both RISC and CISC to site another popular holy war of years past.

      A CDMA rf is almost by definition more expensive to build since it is operating in full duplex (Meaning the receiver and the transmitter is active at the same time). If you want to add a TDMA RF in parallel the cost would increase even more. Not was is called for in a cost consious marke

  • Poor premise about mobile phone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fruey ( 563914 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:22AM (#6039402) Homepage Journal
    How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service, even if the handsets and service charges are heavily subsidized?

    Well the US happens to be the exception in the mobile phone market. You have to PAY to accept calls that people are making to you. Ridiculous. The European market would never accept that, the only time they pay to be called is when they're roaming.

    Now, in Tunisia a group did a study for mobile phones, used the same logic, and now the country is lumbering with way below needed capacity of GSM service, and over 6 months waiting lists for activation, last time I checked. Mobile phones become a real status symbol in the developing world, and also allow someone (with prepaid schemes, especially) to be contacted from outside their country by relatives in the diaspora. This is why mobiles are popular. The market is much more open if you have the caller pick up the tab for calling the phone.

    You guys in the US should revolt. It is disgusting that both caller and receiver should have to pay for a conversation.

    • Re:Poor premise about mobile phone (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stoops ( 633175 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:40AM (#6039449)
      You guys in the US should revolt. It is disgusting that both caller and receiver should have to pay for a conversation

      actually, the caller doesn't even have to pay when calling a cell, as long as its a local call (unless he's calling from a cell himself).

      there's a simple reason why only charging the caller in north america won't work: cell phones use the same area codes as land lines. thus, there would be no way for the caller to tell whether he's making a free call to a land line or a paid call to a cell phone. to get around this problem, all cell phones would have to be issued new area codes. and that would be pretty chaotic.

    • Not this again (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Most of the world uses a caller-pays-per-minute model for billing phone service. The downside of this is that the caller never knows how much he's going to be paying if he calls a mobile number (or a number routed through a high-charging national phone monopoly).

      In the US, the most common model for local calls is a flat rate for unlimited minutes. The companies here tried the per-minute model, and found that customers prefer a constant monthly bill where they don't have to worry about how long they're on
      • It wasn't a problem earlier because mobile networks have their own area codes. You call an area code of a mobile, you know it will cost you more from a land line.
      • In the netherlands we have a hybrid solution:
        A caller calling a dutch mobile from within the netherlands pays allways the same price..
        If the mobile is outside the country the owner pays the extra costs.

        Jeroen
      • The charging scheme in the USA actually predates analog and digital cellular telephones. Back when a mobile telephone was a suitcase sized Motorola FM radio transceiver in the car's trunk, the owner of the mobile telephone paid for the airtime of all calls placed to or from his car. All calls were placed through a mobile operator who was responsible for setting up the calls and filling out a charge slip for each call.
    • Another thing:

      How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service, even if the handsets and service charges are heavily subsidized?

      The article said they hoped for 6 million subscribers. The Indian "middle class" is around 300 million strong, and most of them can afford this. It's true that another 700 million live in comparative poverty, and a significant number in dire poverty, though.

    • I think that's it's disgusting that somebody's choice to have a mobile phone should cost other people money. Ridiculous. The North American market would never accept that, the only time time they pay to call is when it's long distance.

      Personally I refuse to call people in Europe on their mobile phones. I'm not paying for them to have the convenience of having a mobile phone. It's rude of them to expect me to.

      As it turns out, mobile phones don't seem that expensive here in Canada. Most people buy a pa

  • Not everyone in India is poor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:23AM (#6039406)
    It's a country with a population of over one billion people. If just one percent are well to do then there are more people in India that can afford a mobile phone than countries like UK, France and Germany, at five percent then there are more than the whole of the EU or the USA.

    Then there is the fact that there are millions of early GSM phones floating around Europe that are virtually worthless here. Who wants to but say a Nokia 5110 today? Clean them up slap new covers on, a new battery and ship them out to places like India.

    Finally you forget that laying masses of copper wires to every house is a very expensive operation. With a lack of existing infrastructure it may well be cheaper to stick up mobile masts than putting down a copper pair to every house in down town Delhi, or Bombay.

    • Copper (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      A friend who used to work in Pakistan told me that they had continual problems with some of the more industrious local residents "recycling" sections of their land-based cable links. Every time a link went down, they would send out a truck to check for missing cable segments.
      • This is common in many poor countries. Check the price of copper, and check the average salary in some of these countries... For many, "recycling" phone cable is a much better source of income than any legal work they would have a chance of getting.

        • Re:Copper (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Aceticon ( 140883 )
          This is common in many poor countries. Check the price of copper, and check the average salary in some of these countries... For many, "recycling" phone cable is a much better source of income than any legal work they would have a chance of getting.


          Which might make fibre cheaper in the long run ...

      • When I lived in Kenya we used to have the same problem. Our landline phone would just die and we'd go walking along the line seeing if we could perhaps solve the problem ourself (the service guy was notoriously difficult to get to your house), and several times it turned out a section of cabling had been ripped down and used for various purposes, the most popular being a clothesline, to hang the laundry out to dry.

        In other parts of Kenya the copper would be used by the locals to make bracelets, which they

    • Re:Not everyone in India is poor (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dusabre ( 176445 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:04AM (#6039497) Homepage
      One note - mobile penetration in Europe is around 50%. At least 50% of the US population can easily afford a mobile (if Europeans can then Americans can). The UK has 60 million inhabitants, Germany 80, the US 300. 30 million people from the UK + 40 million from Germany and 150 from the US = 220 million > 10 million (1%) or 50 million (5%) of India's population.

      Add together Europe's and the US population and you have 600 million rich people.

      Many more people can afford phones in Europe and the US than can in India - regardless of India's larger population.
    • Uhm. One percent of a billion is 10 million. There are way more people than that who have cellphones in the UK alone. Scandinavia, with a population of roughly 25 million has more than 20 million cellphones.

      I agree with your point, though, that the country is large enough that a very low cellphone penetration still make up a sizable number, but the EU is close to a population of 400 million, and as far as I know all member states have a cell phone penetration of more than 50%, some well above 80%.

      But re

  • is because nobody wants to have anything to do with Qualcomm ;-)
  • that a company named "Reliance" is experiencing so much problems.

    OTOH - I believe that China has about the same per-capital annual income, and a LOT of people are totting around cellphones.

    I know this because in china the manners are a lot worse than the US (despite how low-life you think the "non-silent-ringer" people are, I'll just say "you havn't been to china yet.")

    But, well, at least it gives a good grasp of market penetration. despite how annoying it is.

    ahem - back on subject - so, anyway, I don't
    • Note that China is one of the countries that isn't saddled with legacy copper in the ground, like the US.

      As little as 10 years ago, it was common to see wires stringing down from apartment buildings like spider web....if they needed to add a phone line, they just tossed a spool out the window.

      China does have a significant number of cellphone users, just in the last 2 ~ 3 years. Again, they aren't held back by corporations trying to squeeze money out of hard investments. They can move right to things l

  • Since when is mobile telephony essential? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can see that in certain places, that are hard to get wired by conventional methods (POTS), it might be useful to have mobile telephones (that screams satellite), but since when is mobile telephony an essential service, like, say, running water? (which is the way the article makes it sound)

    I hate telephones of any kind. It's an intrusive device. It's push content. I hate push content. That's why I hate instant messaging, too. I am a pull-content person, that's why I love email. If *I* want, I can t
    • Utilize the "Off" button and voilà, your cell phone is now a pull-content device. Some phones allow you to pretty easily only accept calls from a selected list or no one at all. A lot of people use their cell phone for an outgoing only communication device.
    • I hate telephones of any kind. It's an intrusive device. It's push content. I hate push content. That's why I hate instant messaging, too. I am a pull-content person, that's why I love email.

      Um, if the infrastructure for something as basic as telephones doesn't exist, how do you propose people should send and receie e-mail?
    • hate telephones of any kind. It's an intrusive device. It's push content.

      I love email.

      Erm, so you hate phones... but you like e-mail... so, say, when someone is have a seisure/heart attack/has been bitten by a snake etc. has just happened at your place you'd rather send an e-mail to the hospital to have them send an ambulance would you?

      You point out a lot of the annoying behaviour people exhibit with phones, and mobile phones can be regarded as of limited use... but at the same time, when used respons

  • Per Capita Income (Score:3, Informative)

    by xzap ( 453197 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @03:47AM (#6039468)
    The official per capita income is 380-420, do you know the number of people who dont report their income?

    Anyway around here, every cabbie, peon and roadside hawker has a cell phone.

    • Very good point, only tarnished by the fact that per capita income is apparently calculated by taking an average of the GDP over the population. Actually, I'm not sure of the exact formula [my training is in CS, not Econ ;-) ], but the point is, per capita income probably does not depend on declared incomes.

      A better way to explain the discrepancy is by considering regional clusters; states such as Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh have, in the past 10 years, shown a SGDP growth similar to what y

  • Forbes discussed the problem of affordable mobile phone service in Africa where incomes are similar.

    The Forbes article is about beaming media to isolated villages. And it's only one person's attempt.

    Do we know anything about the guys business model? How did the poster immediately conclude income was the problem when we know nothing else of the scenario.

    Satellite data service companies are failing here in the US. Is it because people can't afford it?

    How does a country where the per capita annual inc

  • Join us (Score:4, Funny)

    by CausticWindow ( 632215 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:07AM (#6039502)

    May American companies like Quallcom rule the earth!

    Join us in the mass praying for American standards. If everybody here join praying, maybe NTSC will make inroads in Europe soon. God bless America.

  • Why Reliance will be a winner: (Score:3, Informative)

    by romit_icarus ( 613431 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:22AM (#6039527) Journal
    1. They are big and good in execution. They learn from their mistakes and don't fail. They contribute 5% to India's GDP
    2. They're the only ones who have invested (to the order of a few billions) in optical infrastructure
    3. They have extended the optical pipe to key office buildings for enterprise involvement They have a large footprint in India - they can therefore provide cheap national rates.
    4. CDMA/WLL (wireles in local loop) allows for good data throughput given the existing circumstances
    5. Reliance has plans to set up multipurpose set-top boxes that provide a conduit for cable/voice/internet over IP
    6. For deep penetration, PCs are too expensive. phones (cost USD 50) is a good substitute (untill a better device comes people's way)
    7. Urban India with all its poverty likes mobile devices - there is a 20% penetration in delhi and bombay...

  • These guys as usual... (Score:3, Informative)

    by mritunjai ( 518932 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:24AM (#6039531) Homepage
    are spreading FUD!

    YIAARI (Yes I am a resident Indian) and from what I see, CDMA networks are doing just fine!

    Reliance has sorted out all the interconnect issues and everything is going on smoothly since May 1, 2003. There are more than a dozen players in mobile phones (GSM, 3G GPRS, CDMA 2000 1x WLL) so it is natural that this thing took time... two months more than they had projected.

    In this cut-throat market, which is growing at >98% per annum, it is natural that one player will make things hard for other, especially if the other player is offering long distance calls at less than 1 US cent per minute (within their nation wide network and other WLL networks). If anybody thinks that it mean demise of Indian cellular market he must be smoking something damn hallucinating.

    As for the per capita income bullshit, yes the PCI is low, but you are using the wrong standard. In the US, the median and average incomes are pretty close, so companies usually interchange them for their analysis... a grave mistake if they do so for countries like India and China where median and average incomes are damn far away. Apart from that Indian consumer is very selective in things he purchases... given value for money, he won't hesitate in buying and with current trands in economy where our forex reserves are on all time high and IT sector is doing quite well, people do have money to spend on credit cards, mobile phones and other luxuries. Yes, salaries are around 5-6 times lower, but you got to understand that living expenses are lower by 6-7 times (my monthly food bill is around $60-$100 and I eat pretty lavishly).

    In short, this news is OLD and full of BS. Anyone who's thinking CDMA in India is sinking is on crack... and FYI Reliance is a 1000 KG gorilla and one of the biggest company over here... they have already laid over 3000 km of fiber all over country for CDMA and data connections (yes they work... equivalent to dual ISDN) and is doubling that figure in next 6-12 months... and they pretty damn know what they're doing.

    • When will they learn (Score:5, Informative)

      by hashinclude ( 192717 ) <[slashdot] [at] [hashinclude.com]> on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:52AM (#6039587) Homepage
      CDMA service has started in India just a few months back. If anything, people are not yet ready to switch to CDMA (Reliance or Tata Indicom) simply because it is not a well-established technology, even though it is quite cheap (40p - 100p per minute depending on various factors).

      For GSM service, the whole country is divided into "Cellular Circles", and operators need a license PER CIRCLE to operate there. However, with CDMA, there is no such zoning, as CDMA operators are not (yet) allowed the full privilege of supporting Roaming and other facilites enjoyed by regular cellular operators.

      GSM has been around in India for close to 8 years (well established? I would think so). CDMA has just about started. So *OF COURSE* people are reluctant to go in for CDMA mobile phones.

      As the YIAARI above mentioned, the interconnect deals have been fixed as of 1st may, so there are no more fights (so to speak) amongst cell operators, just price wars.

      And one *very good* thing we learnt and implemented early on was to have different codes for cellphones as opposed to land lines. Now actually we have multiple categories --
      * All 98aa xxxxxx numbers are cell phones, with the 'aa' being the Area code (so for example 9811 xxxxxx is Delhi, while 9822 xxxxxx is Pune).
      * All BSNL (www.bsnl.co.in) cellphones are 94aa xxxxxx
      * All reliance phones are 3
      * All Tata-Indicom numbers are 5
      * All BSNL Landlines are [2] depending on the city of operation.

      Makes life very simple for everyone, as they instantly know what number they are calling.

      • I agree.

        Most of the said problems are largely political than technical.

        And with the GSM providers acting up and initiating legal proceedings just because there is a cheaper (not necessarily == better) technology is hardly a reason.

        Give it time.

  • I know the answer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GrodinTierce ( 571882 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:28AM (#6039541) Journal
    *waves hand in air*
    Just invade India and put Rep. Darrell Issa on it and India'll be CDMAed in no time.

    For those unaware, Issa is trying to force CDMA into Iraq by passing a bill in Congress, despite the fact that the rest of the Middle East uses GSM.

  • Repeat after me. (Score:4, Informative)

    by The Cydonian ( 603441 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @04:49AM (#6039580) Homepage Journal

    Reliance is not India's first CDMA network. Others [tata.com] have already deployed [zdnetindia.com] networks that are showing signs of growth; in places like Chandigarh, for instance, the number of mobiles have outstripped the number of landlines for the first time in India. Reliance Infocomm's troubles are only partly because of regulatory concerns; the other more significant problem is that its distribution network [outlookindia.com] for the phones is showing signs of failure.

    Not that the telecom regulatory rules are okay, (here's a very interesting and candid interview [outlookindia.com] with the telecom minister on the tussle and other aspects of reform), but let's not write off Reliance that easily. They are one of the largest Indian companies around and have succeeded even during the (socialist, insulatory) Licence Raj period in the petrochemicals industry, traditionally considered closed to private sector participation.

    They've had some massive lobbying effort in Indian political circles; Roads and Buildings Dept employees often complain how they get calls from their political masters in the middle of the night because they threatened to go against Reliance Infocomm's country-wide road-digging and laying of optical fibre network (a process which, while admittedly professional and impressive, apparently bends a few rules here and there).

    Let's face it:- these people are powerful enough to make rules for themselves. They won't give up so much investment without a fight.

  • From a subscriber's point of view (Score:4, Interesting)

    by raj2569 ( 211951 ) <raj AT linuxense DOT com> on Monday May 26, 2003 @05:46AM (#6039674) Homepage
    I am a subscriber of Reliance phone and my expierience in one word is confusion . I am yet to receive my first bill and have no idea how much it is going to be. I had a BSNL mobile and has not decided to ditch it yet. I have also not given my Relience number to any one. All incoming calls are to my GSM mobile, which incidently is also free.

    Regarding interconnectivity, I did not had any problem calling any one after they have started billing. The call clarity is excellent. I have no problems with the range also. I recently had a trip to Goa via road. (Trivandrum -> Mangalore -> Goa -> Bangalore -> Madurai -> Trivandrum) and except in forests and other deserted places Relience has range, But BSNL was even better, and I would say Relience is a close second.

    The Video and Audio are working as advertised. I have a low end monochrome phone so cannot comment on the quality, but I guess it should be ok. They have a menu option called R-World and it has video audio and lots of other services.

    They also have a dialup internet service where phone is connected to computer via usb cable and connects to net at 115,200 bps. The cable costs around Rs. 2000. In the demo I saw they used a dialer in XP and connects to an unknown number. The sales guy put his own number in the phone no field. Other than that it is all standard. (TCP/IP and PAP) I am hoping to get it working on Linux once I get hold of it. And things gets even better when I get a Sharp Zaurus and I am online any where in India :)

    They do not have roming. They have some thing called TSS (Temp subscription service) Where I have t o dial *444 (etc...) from a new location and I get a new number. It is also told that i will be reachable in my old number also. But have not tested this. The customer call center is help full and reachable.

    raj

    PS: did not check for spellings, pl overlook the errors :(

  • incomes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delmoi ( 26744 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @05:49AM (#6039678) Homepage
    Yeah, the median income might be low, but there are still millions of people who can afford cellphones.

  • Behind the scene story... (Score:3, Informative)

    by mritunjai ( 518932 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @06:05AM (#6039708) Homepage
    ... about the mobile regime in India is that contrary to other countries, in India, the mobile wars are overlooked and regulated by TRAI (telecom regulatory authority of India).

    TRAI makes sure that operators are competing/fighting on fair grounds and big companies are not wiping out small players by predatory pricing. Thus making it easier for small players to compete big gorillas.

    Reliance issue was actually TRAI (and others) kicking it in butt for twisting (if not breaking) rules by allowing transparent roaming in its WLL service. By the set rules, WLL operators are not allowed to provide roaming facilites, but Reliance twisted the rules by providing trasparent and dynamically re-registering clients in the areas they visit and forwarding calls to that number. Thus the user dynamically gets allocated a new number BUT all calls on his original number are automatically forwarded to the new number... thus providing a roaming-kind-of facility. This is not roaming service by the book (the user gets a new number) but in spirit its twisting of rules, and TRAI kicked it in balls for this.

    However, while taking decisions TRAI officials (much detested so-called beaureocrats) keep in mind public benefit... this is evident in the final settlement that they allowed Reliance to continue BUT then it has to go by the book that says charges have to be network provider agnostic... ie. calls from all WLL operators will cost the same... so now other WLL operators cal also offer similar pricing.

    TRAI makes it a point to review policies often and make corrections. It forces companies to provide cost based tariffs so that big companies can't eat small ones for lunch by offering cheap service for short durations to take out small ones and then increasing prices. This also makes sure that state owned telecom providers don't subsidize their services to attract customers. Thus the state owned providers are competitive and actually make profit rather than losing money.

    Right now TRAI is reconsidering the license structure and license pricing... I'm hopeful that once its done it will open doors for more players to enter at cheap costs and those savings in costs will be passed on to customers in a fair way.

  • Clarifications (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The per capita GDP in India is $520. Measured
    in terms of purchasing power parity, it is $2300.
    As a thumb rule, roughly 30% of the population is
    above the mean.

    China is around 50% ahead of India.

    Land lines in India are not dysfunctional (unlike
    China). They are available and they work. GSM
    phones are winning because they are *cheaper*.
    (Land lines invovle dealing stinking monopolies).

    Mobile phones in India have grown at an average of
    85% per year from 1994 onwards. Now that there is
    competition between GSM and
  • Anyone interested in getting more info (as well as monthly statistics about the actual cellphone users (excluding the CDMA ones)) can visi the site of Cellular Operators Association of India [coai.com].

  • Some points (Score:3, Interesting)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @10:09AM (#6040368)
    The $390 per capita income thing is a bit misleading. One of the key things about living in foreign countries is that stuff is *cheap*. Labor is cheap, raw materials are cheap, etc. So even though the currency is converted into US dollars, it isn't representative of an equivilent amount by any means. When my dad was in Liberia, he changed $10, bought lunch every day for a week, and still had change left over. Whenever I go to Thailand, I feel really weird tipping the bell-boy a quarter, which is an enitrely reasonable tip there. Because of this discrepency in actual costs, its likely that rolling out these networks costs signficantly less in India than it does here, in terms of labor and materials costs.

    PS> This discrepency is also the reason that having to import stuff from other countries is so harmful to the economies of these countries --- the cost of foreign products is very out-of-line with the prices in the local economy.
  • Qualcomm is touting an expected 6 million Indian subscribers using CDMA by year end...How does a country where the per capita annual income is $390-$420 (depending on whose number you use) expect people other than the elite to afford mobile phone service

    In a country where there almost a billion people, those 6 million *are* the elite. It sounds like they're not actually expecting the non-elite to be able to afford it.

  • The huge Indian middle-class (Score:4, Informative)

    by jordandeamattson ( 261036 ) <jordandm AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 26, 2003 @11:42AM (#6040761) Homepage


    While the average income in India is quite low, this is due in large part to the disparities in the Indian economy at larget. While you have a family that makes $30 dollars a year, you have folks that make $30,000 a year. The Indian middle class is 50 to 100 million folks out of a population of 1 billion. They have the income and the desire to embrace cellular service.



    I just returned from India - on a business trip for my company - of the 200 people at our facility in India, I would estimate that 95% had cellular phones. When I went visiting, I saw people in the middle-class who had cell phones everywhere. Even my driver - who would be considered lower, middle-class, had a cell phone.


    Another factor to be considered is the quality - or lack - of landlines in India. It can take 3 or more months to get a phone line installed by the PTT. And just as long to get a service call. And you thought dealing with your cable company was hard? Wait until you hear some of the horrow stories that were shared with me.


    Finally, I think GSM has this market locked up. Folks in India go to Europe and the US frequently. They want one phone to meet their needs throughout the world. For them - and me - Triband GSM is the way to go.


    Bottom line: beware the averages, they lie! Look at the size of the "middle-class" and the income of this middle-class. These are the folks that will adopt cellular service.

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close