A decisive point affecting the acceptance of the HSPA technology by the network operators, as well as its rapid introduction into the market, is the fact that it was always conceived as an upgrade and not as a replacement for the existing standards. In practice this means a large saving in terms of investment and operational costs, and also a significant time advantage for its introduction into the market. The commercial success of the HSPA technology, which can now be assumed as given, is thus a good example of how the intelligent combination of existing network technologies with concentrated activity in clearly defined areas can lead to significant technological and economic value added. The standardization process itself is also a good example of what can be achieved when the operator and the producer tow the same line and understand the definition of a technology standard to be a joint task.   

Evolution not revolution

Despite the wide range of options described above, and the ­flexibility included in the early definition of the 3G standard to ensure that the transition from the existing 2G networks was as smooth as possible, the introduction of the 3G networks was, seen from today’s perspective, rather abrupt. This was ­because the third generation networks were set up and operated in ­parallel, alongside the 2G networks. The synergy potential that the standard offered for the networks to network with one ­another was not used to the extent that it might have been. One of the main reasons for this was that this aspect was not very high on the operators’ list of priorities. The steep success curve expected for 3G services, and planned for by all the market ­players, was ­based on the assumption of rapid availability and not on careful integration of the new technology into the existing network. 

There are a number of indications that the transition from the current, improved 3G and the coming 4G network generation will be much less spectacular, and also much smoother, than that between 2G and 3G. All those involved – operators and infrastructure providers – have learnt their lessons and implemented new strategies as a result. These new strategies are often related to the term ‘evolution’. What does this mean in our context?    

The experience gathered during the introduction of the third generation of mobile networks as described above certainly plays a role. For the network operators in particular there was a discrepancy between the economic expectations – fired on even more by the Internet euphoria – and reality, which did not justify the investment costs made. It is therefore fair to claim that the consequence of this sobering experience is that both the standardization of UMTS and its evolutionary forms HSDPA (3GPP Rel. 5), HSUPA (3GPP Rel. 6) and HSPA-Evolution (3GPP Rel. 7), and the definition of the LTE standard (3GPP Rel. 8) are seen mainly in terms of an attempt to secure return on investments which have already been made and which are still to be made.