[LINK] 3G network coverage

[Richard Chirgwin]

David Boxall wrote:
> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/83554,optus-3g-network-coverage-claims-irk-telstra.aspx>
> ...
>   
>> Booth claimed the ‘reality’ is that Optus’ 3G network is ‘miniscule in 
>> comparison’ to Telstra Next G – and that Optus can only hope to cover 
>> 98 per cent of the population in 2009, something that Telstra already 
>> claims to have achieved.
>>
>> But Optus has responded to iTNews, saying it is 'on track to reach 96 
>> percent of the population by end 2008 and 98 percent by 2009'.
>>     
> ...
>
> So we end up with two networks, both covering the easiest 98%. Wouldn't 
> one network, with broader coverage, make more economic sense? 
Why would it?  Coverage might be bigger, but without  competition, the 
price would be a shocker. 
> Wouldn't 
> many retailers, competing to sell services on a more extensive network, 
> better serve consumers?
>   
Probably not. The retailers wouldn't care less, because neither the 
retailers nor most of their customers go into the distant, remote and 
thinly-populated areas where that last 2% live.

The problem is that to get 100% population coverage, you need 100% 
geographic coverage. The 20,000 or so base stations that cover 98% of 
the population only need to cover about 20% (my guess) of the landmass. 
Most of these are in cities, but (guessing again) you might need another 
20,000 base stations to get the remaining 80% of the landmass (so as to 
guarantee 100% population coverage).

OK: at (guessing) $500k per base station, that's $10 billion to get 
mobile coverage to 400,000 people. That doesn't really make economic 
sense (I leave, however, the social question for others to decide).

RC