Mobile broadband busts loose from the city

David Flynn16 April 2009, 9:33 PM

Vodafone’s new 900MHz 3G network and Three’s roaming deal with Next G help mobile broadband stay connected beyond the ‘big smoke’.


People who live outside Australia’s capital cities and cityfolk who regularly travel to major regional centres for work or holidays are about to get a more choice when it comes to mobile broadband.

Vodafone will roll out its extended 3G network over the next four months, using slabs of its 900MHz GSM service – but upgraded using 3G HSDPA technology – to provide long distance coverage similar to that enjoyed by Telstra’s 850MHz Next G network and beyond what’s possible with the standard 2100MHz 3G band.

Vodafone says that its current USB and ExpressCard modems are dual-band and can switch automatically between the 2100MHz and 900MHz bands while retaining HSDPA speeds.

Major centres that will go live during the first week of May include Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Ballina, Bunbury, Byron Bay, Cairns, Darwin, Hobart, Kiama, Lismore, Mackay, Newcastle, Toowoomba, Townsville, Wollongong, Bowral, Nowra and Wagga Wagga.

The second phase will kick in on August 31, with NSW towns on the roster including Coonabarabran, Blackheath, Port Macquarie, Dubbo, Bathurst, Goulburn, Broken Hill, Parkes, Yass, Thredbo, Nambucca, Muswellbrook, Bega and Cooma. A similar spread of regional towns in other states will see Vodafone’s network reach 94 per cent of the Australian population.

This should put Vodafone on par with Optus, which claims that 96% of the Australian population falls under the wing of its dual-band 2100MHz/900MHz mobile broadband service which has been running since last year.

And as of this week customers of 3’s 3G-only network, which is restricted to the capital cities (barring Darwin and Hobart) and the Gold Coast, will be able to roam onto Telstra’s Next G network when outside a 3 coverage zone.

The roaming cost is 50c/MB, a drastic drop from the previous $1.65 tariff for wandering onto Telstra’s steam-powered GSM network. 50c/MB is still a fair whack but getting at least ten times the speed for a third of the price is a pretty sweet deal.

Of course, the more time you spend outside 3’s 3G coverage the better off you’d be just going for a Telstra Next G service in the first place. It’s Australia’s most expensive mobile broadband service but in every test APC has conducted it’s also come out as the one with the fastest download and upload speeds, the lowest latency and the one with the best signal reach.

This worry could be what prompted 3’s press release announcing the new deal to avoid all mention of Next G, and instead talk up its “new 3G Roaming Zone”.

Only a handful of devices currently run on both the 2100MHz and 850MHz networks, however. This includes Three’s latest Huawei E160 USB modem, which is included in 3’s $29, $39 and $49 mobile broadband plans over a 24 month contract, or $to existing customers for 149 upfront.

Some mobile phones running on 3’s X-Series service can also swap between networks – these include Nokia’s E63, E71 and N85 and the BlackBerry Bold.

Not to be outdone in the speed stakes, Telstra this week released its BigPond 21 USB Mobile Card which taps into the recent Next G upgrade to 21Mbps. Telstra claims that “typical download speeds”  can hit as high as 8Mbps “in selected CBD, metro and regional areas”.

The modem sells for $399 upfront, although a current promotion involving a 36 month contract includes a full rebate on the purchase price. The modem runs under Windows XP and Vista, with Mac drivers due in May.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Pauly (User):

how is 94% on par with 96%? Maths not really your strong suit? As for being similar to Next G coverage, the difference between 96.9% coverage and 99% coverage (the difference between 3's new 3g coverage and full next g coverage) is double the surface area of australia. Love the extra competition but could we have some more research next time?

17 April 2009, 11:24 AM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djsflynn (APC staff):

1. Using the meaning that 'par' is an amount or level considered to be average or a standard, 94% is close enough to 96% to be considered on par in my book. We're talking about a difference of .02.

2. I didn't make any claims about 3's coverage 'being similar to Next G'.

3. Networks tend to list their coverage as being based on population, not surface area.


17 April 2009, 12:20 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Pauly (User):

Quoting djsflynn:
2. I didn't make any claims about 3's coverage 'being similar to Next G'.
No you made claims that Vodafones 94% coverage is similar to Next G. I was pointing out that if 96.9% is less than half the surface compared to 99% of population, then 94% is even worse.
Going back to the meaning of par, Im sure we will hear from a few golfers who wished they could claim par when being 2 over. the difference between 94% and 96% is 2.0 not 0.2 and that is huge in terms of surface area. Networks may not talk much about surface area coverage but it is a far better comparison dont you think?



17 April 2009, 1:48 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djsflynn (APC staff):

Quoting Pauly:
No you made claims that Vodafones 94% coverage is similar to Next G.

Ah, I see what you mean -- my comment that Vodafone's use of 900MHz would "provide long distance coverage similar to that enjoyed by Telstra’s 850MHz Next G network".

Okay, there's a difference in usage here. In that instance I wasn't speaking of total network coverage – Telstra's is still unsurpassed - but rather the long distance reach of 900MHz as a frequency, which is similar to 850MHz but vastly superior to 2100MHz.

So yeah, I can see where 'coverage' in that context can be taken to mean network coverage, but that wasn't the point I was making - it was about the extended (per base station) coverage of that frequency.

As to 'par', the golf meaning is based on a more precise definition, but that's just one of several definitions applied to the word. 'Par' can mean an exact amount, an amount considered to be average or standard or even in general usage, 'typical' – eg 'par for the course' as an expression is taken as 'typical, pretty much what you'd expect' rather than the actual golf-course meaning.

As for population vs geography - well, as the networks use population then that's the standard of comparison. Personally I find % of population more practical, especially in a place like Australia (or Canada, Alaska, etc) where the cost of covering large empty slabs of the country would be immense and passed on to the rest of us, so 98% would subsidise the 2% who live in near-wilderness. I think there'd be more cost-efficient ways of providing them with communications, such as two-way radio or even satphone – the former we can subsidise, the latter they or their employer can pay for.

17 April 2009, 2:11 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Pauly (User):

Quoting djsflynn:
.Ah, I see what you mean

Ah, gotcha, sorry misunderstanding.
I can just see the headlines for the update of the new nbn broadband system though. 96% of the population will be receiving fibre to the home broadband at over 100mbps, the remaining 4% will be issued walkie talkies. I can hear brendan grill (aka sylvester - thuffering thuckotash) and the nationals right now!


17 April 2009, 3:39 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djsflynn (APC staff):

No worries. I'll be more mindful of how I use 'coverage' in that context in future, too.

17 April 2009, 4:09 PM (11 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags