It is almost fashionable to badmouth third-generation (3G), specifically Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), cellular technology these days. In fact, there is plenty of fodder, in particular the total absence of sexy, bandwidth-hungry “killer applications” with which to justify the untold billions spent on 3G development and deployment.
But it may turn out that relatively mundane capabilities-such as significantly improved radio capacity and coverage-will ultimately warrant 3G networks. In other words, the traditional imperatives of cellular carriers, not demand from consumers, may actually drive 3G migration.
3G networks are far more spectrally efficient than current second-generation (2G) GSM networks. That is, they carry much more traffic per slice of radio spectrum than 2G. Additionally, the radio coverage of 3G networks is significantly higher than that of 2G. These facts have significant, real-world implications.
Spectral efficiency means that, as traffic grows, carriers can delay the points at which they have to purchase additional radio spectrum, to the relief of shareholders. It also means they can support this traffic with-depending on design decisions-fewer cell sites. This benefits shareholders through reduced operating expenditures, not to mention benefiting the community through a less cluttered landscape.
Furthermore, buildings, parking garages and other locations that might have weak 2G coverage may, again depending on design decisions, exhibit better reception with 3G services, which improves subscriber satisfaction. The benefits of 3G over 2G are thus real.
