www.theage.com.au/news/t...10131230265.html
A third of Australian consumers own a 3G-capable phone but two thirds of these do not use the available 3G services, a new report from the Australian Communications and Media Authority has revealed.

Half of those who owned a 3G phone but did not use the 3G services - which include mobile internet, video calling and music streaming - had no interest in them. Others cited high costs and lack of knowledge on how to access the services.

Surprise Surprise.. This is what i have noticed for a long time. Most people i know, do not use their 3g Phones for Value added services. Mostly, Talk and Text.
Also why, not too many Rural Users, were keen to drop CDMA.

The promotion of Value Added services is a waste, when good old fashion service and Value for Money is all that is generally required for the most. The value of 3g services will be mainly seen in Wireless Broadband supply.

The rip off rates would scare most users off

jok11n writes...

The rip off rates would scare most users o

Yes.. I used my Mobile to access Internet Banking and another little job online task. Took all but 10-15 minutes. That little stint on PAYG cost me $60.. (Helstra)

Up the Creek writes...

Took all but 10-15 minutes. That little stint on PAYG cost me $60..

Enough to scare any normal person off trying it again

Up the Creek writes...

Took all but 10-15 minutes. That little stint on PAYG cost me $60.. (Helstra)

that was probably when it was $15 a mb its $2 a megabyte pay as you go now still way to expensive.

video calling is very exensive to, no wonder people hardly use 3g services.

Aside from that, excepting NextG, there's a significant percentage of the population currently not covered by 3G... Tasmania for example.

It seems to me, that Revenue cant be flowing in very well, with the poor usage of value added services. Surely it would make more business sense to drop the pricing to something more affordable. That in turn, would encourage more to use the 3g value added services,thus generating a larger pool of revenue for the Telcos??

I use data alot on my phone. To be honest, I disable 3G and just use GPRS - a hell of a lot easier on the battery.

While it's useful for the tiny fraction of the population who need/want mobile data on a laptop - HSDPA 3mbps+ speeds on a mobile phone, is quite frankly, useless...

iPhone for example. If it's 3G, it's just going to do the same thing as the current one - about 3seconds faster, but with 60% of the battery life. I'd rather lose 3seconds of my life waiting for an email, than have the stupid thing run flat every evening...

iConfused writes...

I disable 3G and just use GPRS - a hell of a lot easier on the battery.

My LG TU550 is hard on battery. I might Try 2g for a while and see how it goes. Thanks for Tip.

I use data on my phone quite a lot too. Quite frankly one of the major reasons people aren't using it is ignorance of how convenient it can be. And it's really not that expensive especially if you utilise data packs and free content. And I am selling more and more PDAs and handsets specifically for the purpose of accessing email while out of the office.

Make no bones about it - the usage of 3G data is on the rise dramatically, and while voice revenues are dwindling across all the major carriers, the revenue from VAS continues to rise. Mobile data is the next big growth area for telco revenue.

Always Waiting writes...

Mobile data is the next big growth area for telco revenue.

Wireless modem data , i would agree, but the reports above, mainly refer to handset usage. True - data packs are increasing in value, and thats good, but the report also shows a significant number are just not making use of it as yet.

one of the major reasons people aren't using it is ignorance of how convenient it can be.

I dont agree with that. I think they mainly dont have any real use for it , especially with the costs related to Tesltra and Optus. Data packs are the way to go, but like myself, would only use it while travelling on holidays or something. Not worth having as an ongoing data pack.

james up north writes...

that was probably when it was $15 a mb its $2 a megabyte pay as you go now still way to expensive.

Hmm so 300mb on Telstra PAYG is 600 bucks but on virgin its 10 bucks. Sweet...

video calling is very exensive to, no wonder people hardly use 3g services

It isn't to bad on vodafone. It counts in with your cap and even though it costs something like a dollar a minute or what ever it is if you have a cap and video call for 10 mins its not much of a big deal. If you are on one of the higher caps like 79 or to a lesser extent 49 no reason why you couldnt video call on a regular basis.

Up the Creek writes...

Others cited .... lack of knowledge on how to access the services.

That would be me. The mobile phone manufacturers certainly don't provide a great deal of detail on the use of their phones for these services (or the basic ones for that matter) so perhaps the phone companies should start doing it in a comprehensive way.

At home and at work I have a big screen with mouse, keyboard and speakers. In comparison mobile broadband on my phone is a very poor experience. Add silly prices and it's no wonder people turn off.

A third of Australian consumers own a 3G-capable phone but two thirds of these do not use the available 3G services, a new report from the Australian Communications and Media Authority has revealed.

It's not a great surprise.
But it still leaves one third of consumers that DO use 3G services, this must be a massive jump since 3G launched back in 2003.

The promotion of Value Added services is a waste, when good old fashion service and Value for Money is all that is generally required for the most. The value of 3g services will be mainly seen in Wireless Broadband supply.

While it is true that perhaps we would all be paying less for mobile calls if operators did not deploy 3G, the world isn't going to stand still, and there is still a huge growth in demand for many 3G services.

Remember just 2 years ago, mobile broadband was pretty much unheard. Now there are hundreds of thousands of people using it.

Up the Creek writes...

Surprise Surprise.. This is what i have noticed for a long time. Most people i know, do not use their 3g Phones for Value added services.

Yep, definitely noticed that as well, no one really cares. But I for one do use pretty much all my 3G services, Planet 3 for news and sport updates, google maps, MSN, ANZ banking, gmail, surfing websites when i'm bored....

And also, lets face it, using the net on a mobile phone is not the best experience. It's tedious, slow, and, for me at least, frustrating.

That'll change as more internet-friendly phones arrive here, like the iPhone. AT&Ts data suggests that iPhone users use the net a lot more often, probably because it had plans and a UI designed around internet use.

__RavErz__ writes...

Hmm so 300mb on Telstra PAYG is 600 bucks but on virgin its 10 bucks. Sweet...

You're comparing Telstra's PAYG rate with Virgin's $10.00 data pack rate.

If you compared Vigrin PAYG to Telstra PAYG you'd find:

Telstra 300 MB PAYG: $600.00 ($2.00 per MB)
Virgin 300MB PAYG: $4608.00 (1.5c per kB)

So for PAYG usage Telstra is cheaper.

Lee writes...

So for PAYG usage Telstra is cheaper.

Both are still a rip off anyway

simmoo writes...

It's not a great surprise.
But it still leaves one third of consumers that DO use 3G services, this must be a massive jump since 3G launched back in 2003.

Same people who used data on GSM. They've just gotten a new phone in the last 5 years, and it happens to use 3G now instead. No significant increase here.

Keep in mind, the majority of those "using 3G services" are just using data to send an MMS message.

3G services are still charged like a precious metal in this country. $100/GB? No thanks.

When the first carrier gets real and simply levies $5/GB PAYG casual access (replacing excess as we know it), then customers will be queuing to get signed up. For a related discussion - /forum-replies.cfm?t=961081

hibernator writes...

When the first carrier gets real and simply levies $5/GB PAYG casual access (replacing excess as we know it),

If somebody wants to decimate quality of service by catering for the high volume/low revenue market like that, I'll be jumping like a rat from a sinking ship!

Lee writes...

You're comparing Telstra's PAYG rate with Virgin's $10.00 data pack rate.

If you compared Vigrin PAYG to Telstra PAYG you'd find:

Telstra 300 MB PAYG: $600.00 ($2.00 per MB)
Virgin 300MB PAYG: $4608.00 (1.5c per kB)

So for PAYG usage Telstra is cheaper.

Yea I knew this but I was implying that perhaps a data pack should be used rather than payg. He would of got 6 months of data pack for the light usage on payg that he paid 60 bucks for.

hibernator writes...

When the first carrier gets real and simply levies $5/GB PAYG casual access (replacing excess as we know it), then customers will be queuing to get signed up.

And the network will slow to a crawl, sending the customers happy to pay big bucks for access running to competitors.

The carrier would be left with a whole bunch of low revenue, low margin, unloyal customers.

I wonder what the percentage of people with 3G handsets don't live in a 3G serviced area, and how this report accounts for that. Specifically the take up rate of 3G phones.

llama009 writes...

I wonder what the percentage of people with 3G handsets don't live in a 3G serviced area,

Or those that have 3g sets and running on 2g as per me..(Battery Saver)

Exorbitant charges is my vote.

You are (heavily) charged for everything. With Telstra NextG even the Free to Browse sites still get a $0.05 charge.
5 cents is tiny but free is FREE.
Now, if "free" means 5 cents imagine what a dollar will be ...

LFO writes...

You are (heavily) charged for everything. With Telstra NextG even the Free to Browse sites still get a $0.05 charge.

I find that access to "Free to Browse" material shows up as "telstra.internet $0.00 Data" in my history on Next G Prepaid.

I would imagine that not as many people use 3G services because with the exception of Next G, it's not available in locations that are far away from home.

When I was with Optus, I really wanted to use their data services but couldn't because I found the service to be so slow since stable 3G coverage was not everywhere I wanted to use it.

I also think that mobile data will take off when we can view the same webpage on our phones and PC. I think that the iPhone and Opera Mini 4.1 beta come close, but it's not close enough.

In terms of price, I think the low end data packs are price relatively well considering that it's a mobile service. I can get casual Whirlpool browsing done on my half an hour train journey and it costs me about 60 cents.

LFO writes...

With Telstra NextG even the Free to Browse sites still get a $0.05 charge.

That's probably happening in billing error because I find these charges of 1 and 2 cents, but I don't worry about it. I remember when I had the free Myzoonow teaser on when I was with Optus, my bills turned out to be about $250 each month (which got credited when I called to complain).

Up the Creek writes...

promotion of Value Added services is a waste, when good old fashion service and Value for Money is all that is generally required for the most.

Rubbish - its education that will increase this area.

Hutch 3G in 2007 had 63% of its customers pay for at least 1 content event each month. Up from 56% in 2006.

Snot writes...

At home and at work I have a big screen with mouse, keyboard and speakers. In comparison mobile broadband on my phone is a very poor experience. Add silly prices and it's no wonder people turn off.

+1 My thoughts exactly.

VoIP.ed (mr.wireless) writes...

Rubbish - its education that will increase this area.

Have to disagree with you there. To me a phone is a phone.

I may use it to play MP3's occasionally, but I'm not going to "buy them online" (on the train or on holidays).

Likewise taking photos & sending them from the phone is just a total waste of time & money.

I have never used my phone as a modem, although I do have a separate mobile broadband device/account. Possibly I might use it for that purpose, if the costs were the same (which they aren't), however I can only see odd problems always occurring due to connectivity etc.

I'd never use the phone for watching TV or a video conference. The screen/speaker is far to small to be usable.

GPS/Mapping - nice idea, but the screen/speaker again doesn't make it viable.

Internet WWW on the phone - hahaha - yeah right - not in a million years

SMS is useful to me, but I'll have to admit thing like "predictive text" really turn you off it fast. Sure I'll receive them, and in an absolute emergency I'll try and type them in on the keypad, but whenever possible I'll type them in on my PC and send them via bluetooth to the phone.

Sorry, can't see that stuff taking off any time soon, although if the prices weren't ridiculous I'm sure a lot more people would give them a go. Not my cup of tea though.

Hutch 3G in 2007 had 63% of its customers pay for at least 1 content event each month. Up from 56% in 2006.

What constitutes a "content event" ?

tRock writes...

What constitutes a "content event" ?

MMS?

Maybe i should have included a Poll ?, but i guess the report says it all.

Up the Creek writes...

MMS?

63% of their customers sent one per month? (presumably you don't have to pay to receive them)

Seems extraordinarily high to me..

tRock writes...

Internet WWW on the phone - hahaha - yeah right - not in a million years

I would disagree, with products such as the iPhone, I think this will take off for small things like looking up addresses etc.

Someone made a statement about the first radio transmissions saying something along the lines of:

It won't take off - who would want to listen to someone talking to nobody in particular.

Internet is available everywhere these days - work, home and internet cafe's are dirt cheap to use as well.

Why would you want to spend a fortune accessing it on your mobile?

I have a Nokia N82 I use for voip and the odd bit of net surfing etc but I can almost always find a free hotspot to connect to, if not (like on the train etc) I can simply do without it.

I've noticed that a lot of hotels have free wifi-zones for Nokia Nseries phones these days - very handy when I'm away.

www.nseries.com.au/wifizone

If anyone is in doubt about the cost of this 3G service and they use it they'll soon find out just much of a brutely savage finacial gouge it really is.

Wow! not meaning to make offence but for a forum like Whirlpool some posters in this thread are bonafide luddites!

I, and a lot of people I know, use our 'three' mobiles for a large amount of wireless browsing. Even my mum does! I regulary use it for a mobile web connection on my laptop. I pay $8 a month and get 50mb data (another $4 and it doubles) and that's not one of the fairly decent value x-series plans. As well as all the news, sport, weather etc info I want from three's web portals. And I know that I'm not alone in this practise, partuicularly in my age group.

I wake up in the morning and check the news on my phone rather than flipping the lid up on my mbp and reading there.

Once the iPhone makes its way to Oz I would imagine every man and his dog will be utilizing wireless bandwidth.

If you're getting charged to use mobile bandwidth as much as some of you say, you're insane! move to another carrier that's not the corporate version of Satan.

:)

HN writes...

f you're getting charged to use mobile bandwidth as much as some of you say, you're insane! move to another carrier

Wouldnt tht be nice, but unfortunately many of us live outside major Metro Areas..

HN writes...

Wow! not meaning to make offence but for a forum like Whirlpool some posters in this thread are bonafide luddites!

Hardly.

I know I use a lot of the functions being pushed onto the phone, but I use them on the most effective platform, and that is not a phone.

Phones are great for making phone calls (and to a lesser degree SMS's)

Phones are not great for internet, TV, photos, music, GPS etc. Dedicated devices specifically for those purpose will always provide those functions in an easier and more usable format.

Thats hardly being a luddite, just because I'm not interested on compromising the experience of function (for example - watching a TV on a 4" square screen, or typing on a 3" square keyboard, or using a 10 megapixel camera with image stabilization etc)

I wake up in the morning and check the news etc on a 22" monitor attached to a broadband connection, During the day I check it on a laptop (sometimes connected to a 3G mobile broadband card, but never connected to a phone). I know which is the superior experience!

tRock writes...

Thats hardly being a luddite, just because I'm not interested on compromising the experience of function (for example - watching a TV on a 4" square screen, or typing on a 3" square keyboard, or using a 10 megapixel camera with image stabilization etc)

I have pretty large pockets on my pants, but I couldn't bring myself to carry a GPS, Camera, Phone, Wireless Modem, Laptop and iPod everywhere. I'm more than happy to watch the cricket on my phones 2.5" screen while im in a cube at work with no TV, as I am fine to check forums etc on the bus.

Yes, it's a compromise on the experience. But it's just not practical to lug all that stuff around.

I wake up in the morning and check the news etc on a 22" monitor attached to a broadband connection, During the day I check it on a laptop (sometimes connected to a 3G mobile broadband card, but never connected to a phone). I know which is the superior experience!

I never said it was a superior experience. But it is a damn convenient one :)

In my view the first 1/3 of the market were the quick 'n easy ones to sign up to a wireless service; starting with the (corporate) road warriors followed by anxiously awaiting 'geeks' equipped with their power toys, then of course there are those who couldn't any other way access broadband due to blackspot location -- all easy targets to be swooped up in the first year of major offerings.

Now with the above group/fringe group satisfied and rolled neatly into 24 month contract, reality has to set in for any carrier left wondering what has happened/will soon happen to their double digit rate of growth.

The next 24 months will prove a long and frustratingly slow uptake period for HSPA operators who've yet to capture the majority market in which persists the widespread view that wireless is not an 'essential' item (rather a compliment to DSL), and by this fact I submit will not be tempted until it finds;

1/ a reduction in contract length to 6 months

2/ elimination of the Telstra propagated 'excess rate' system which you rarely see used outside of Australia, including by other premium operators. Few nations will charge users a punitive 100-300 per Gig and many are seeing good sense in offering a 'flat rate' to customers.

3/ realistically sized data 'packs'. The latest have our shadow Optus 'experimenting' with a very useful 10 & 30 MB's micro-sized data packs to supply the low spend/infrequent user. ummm, good luck with that.. can't see myself downgrading my 1 year old/original X-Series 500MB pack just to save a few dollars, but thanks for that.

4/ Many providers still insist on the purchase of a USB Modem in cases where it ain't needed and that just annoys us - it's of no practical use to myself or any other person considering the use of VoIP on 3G. Time to embrace the USIM user doncha think?

Ideally our 3G services should compare against those used overseas, but with slow progress from Vodafone and losing money 'Three' I don't think there can be much movement from these dinosaurs - TLS, SGT. :(

hibernator writes...

Now with the above group/fringe group satisfied and rolled neatly into 24 month contract,

Just finished my 12 month 3G mobile broadband contract, so I'm free as a bird to jump on the next best thing :)

Time to embrace the USIM user doncha think?

The laptop manafacturers need to get upto speed, while we see the first few doing WWAN now, they are still ridiculously expensive (they are mostly restricted to the high end laptops).

Ideally our 3G services should compare against those used overseas

Took my '3' mobile broadband card/laptop overseas last year on their "3 like home" plan, used it in Hong Kong, UK and Italy, worked perfectly in all those places, yep, its about ime the likes of Telstra got their coverage and prices up to scratch - they are falling a long way behind :)

tRock writes...

its about ime the likes of Telstra got their coverage and prices up to scratch

I don't mean to pick on this sentence, but I don't think that coverage is an issue on Telstra's network. However I do agree that they cost too much.

It's well know that Aussies love to pick up new gadget technology but the average mobile user sensibly won't pay the prices to use these 3G services. Maybe we just like the physical gadget rather than all the services.

Well how much is all this data even costing phone companies? Theoreticaly shouldn't providing 5GB to a phone cost the same for a company as providing 5GB to a computer. Obviously there is issues with paying Telstra etc but really like in terms of the difficulty, burden, and cost, wouldn't it be about the same. Doesn't seem entirely right... even 10 bucks for 300mb on Virgin seems a little crap. 10 bucks for 1gb sounds at least something of some sort of value.

I'd be interested in knowing stats on mobile data usage (which surely can be isolated to give email data usage too), because I KNOW that is different to other "3G services"

james up north writes...

video calling is very exensive to, no wonder people hardly use 3g services.

try doing it from Germany back home to Australia.

5 minute video call cost me $30 AUD ...

Thats ok the company is paying for it, but yeah not good if your going overseas and want t vdeo call back home (mind you o2 Germany back to Vodafone 3G the connection was rock solid and stable with no lag)

in Sydney it would of cost me only $1.15(Three 9cTalk plan includes same price for video call)

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services ... oops 3.5G services because its to damn expensive, at least Three offer value for money when it comes to 3G services.

Gaz Iggi writes...

but I don't think that coverage is an issue on Telstra's network

It was definately tongue in cheek, but it just gets my goat that Telstra carry on about how much coverage they have "in Australia" and how it is worth a premium, which in reality 99% of the population couldn't care less about.

People like myself would rather have coverage "where it counts", which is mostly in capital cities, and when I go away on holidays in the destinations I travel to. Other providers have this and Telstra can't compete when you start including "overseas" coverage.

Netstats writes...

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services ... oops 3.5G services because its to damn expensive, at least Three offer value for money when it comes to 3G services.

exactly. Telstra have a huge amount of infrastructure which is basically "sitting idle" because they won't offer it at competitive prices.

ADSL2 and 3G (and even landlines with their ridiculous $30 per month "line rental") are probably the standout ones from recent times, but I'm sure there are many more.

And what about their now "extinct" CDMA network which Telstra have just turned off?, I'm sure there would be plenty of players willing to buy it off Telstra, obviously Telstra have put a $0 value on it now. Can you imagine how much Telstra would want for a $0 value network IF they decided to sell it?.

That will never happen though, we know they will just "throw it out", because it would compete with their expensive NextG network.

Netstats writes...

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services ... oops 3.5G services because its to damn expensive

www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/f...339288390,00.htm

Sol Trujillo was quite happy to brag publicly about how the transition to Next G has lifted the company's ARPU by around $20 a month, and there is clearly something the rest of the industry can learn from this -- even if it is just that the market will bear higher prices.

Yes Telstra is damn expensive compared to others, but they are making plenty of money on it.

tRock writes...

Telstra have a huge amount of infrastructure which is basically "sitting idle" because they won't offer it at competitive prices.

Did you make this up? There is plenty of data going through that network. If it is "idle" it's because they put in so much capacity.
They don't need to offer at "competitive" prices as there is no competition in many areas (yet).

That will never happen though, we know they will just "throw it out", because it would compete with their expensive NextG network.

All part of business. Telstra aren't a charity, they are like any other company trying to make a profit. If you don't like that, blame the previous government.
NextG isn't any more expensive to use than CDMA was if you just use voice/sms.

Up the Creek writes...

Surely it would make more business sense to drop the pricing to something more affordable. That in turn, would encourage more to use the 3g value added services,thus generating a larger pool of revenue for the Telcos??

Sadly very few companies accept that logic. It's typically only something only consumers dream of.

vivadangermouse writes...

Sadly very few companies accept that logic. It's typically only something only consumers dream of.

So - Bunnings, BigW, Kmart. Woolworths, Coles dont know what they are talking about?

I'm on an Optus $49 cap, and the price for data included in the cap is way too expensive. I was away for a week on holiday and used in once a day for about 5 minutes, and it blew my cap and I had to pay extra. Left me with a bad feeling about it.

I'm not really into paying heaps extra for regular data on my mobile, especially when the browsing experience isn't that good. I've got broadband at work and home, and drive to work so can't use it on the train.

simmoo writes...

Yes Telstra is damn expensive compared to others, but they are making plenty of money on it.

Not from me they're not. And they never will ;-)

Up the Creek writes...

So - Bunnings, BigW, Kmart. Woolworths, Coles dont know what they are talking about?

An interesting comparison seeing as these companies generally sell things at a reasonable consistent price.

Rozza writes...

I'm on an Optus $49 cap, and the price for data included in the cap is way too expensive. I was away for a week on holiday and used in once a day for about 5 minutes, and it blew my cap and I had to pay extra. Left me with a bad feeling about it.

I'm not really into paying heaps extra for regular data on my mobile, especially when the browsing experience isn't that good. I've got broadband at work and home, and drive to work so can't use it on the train.

Are you on a $49 capped plan? Because on turbocharge now for the 50 dollar cap you get 100mb of data included.At 2.2 cents a kb, the price for browsing on weekdays, thats 2252.8 dollars 'worth'. Its half that on weekends. So I guess the deal is pretty good. Virgin 10 bucks for 300mb is better but I don't think they have prepaid caps do they?

Bob B writes...

An interesting comparison seeing as these companies generally sell things at a reasonable consistent price.

In the case of Woolworths and Coles though they know that people will always need food. People will not always need 3G services. Woolworths lowers their price as low as possible for consumers that they can do to still turn over a very good profit (it isn't a charity). They can do this though since well everyone in australia will want food. Not every man, woman, child, elderly, baby etc will want 3G.

These are commodities people will ALWAYS want/need. Even If 3G prices are lower not enough people will jump on the bandwagon since many people, especially people 35+ see things like mobile tv a waste of time. These people may have internet at home for the kids, and come home and look at a few pages, but wanting to actually look at the internet when outside the home probably isn't of interest to them.

Whirlpool is the minority. A lot of people will not be interested. Infact my dad was happy with his Nokia 3310 until just this year.

Up the Creek writes...

Half of those who owned a 3G phone but did not use the 3G services - which include mobile internet, video calling and music streaming

Those billionaires like Li-Ka Shing (owner of 3) should get off their high horse (for a few days) and see how normal people live and spend money. In 2003 he built a 3G network saying "video calling, that would be great!" "people would love be make video calls".

Without realizing that for most people, mobile phone calling is too expensive is it is. Why would the masses start using video calls? They really ought to spend a day or a week with normal people to realize how most of the population spends its money. 3 is still yet to make a profit on their network. I wonder why!

tri400 writes...

most people, mobile phone calling is too expensive is it is. Why would the masses start using video calls?

And they dont..
So there is only those with deeper pockets, that will make use of it, on a regular basis. The lower Masses may make the odd Call now and then, but it all comes down to cost, and the masses simply wont wear it. (So the report reflects.) Ok, so there will an increase in usage as time goes on, but it will never be a universally accepted norm, until reasonable data pricing is introduced.

What is the point of video calling though? Why would I pay more just to see the person I'm talkin to? Unless that person is super hot and doing naughty things I can't see myself ever wanting to use video calling, particularly on a tiny screen with crappy sound.

Up the Creek writes...

The lower Masses may make the odd Call now and then, but it all comes down to cost, and the masses simply wont wear it. (So the report reflects.) Ok, so there will an increase in usage as time goes on, but it will never be a universally accepted norm, until reasonable data pricing is introduced.

I don't think mobile video calls will ever take off.

The reality is it has been available for a long time for FREE with Instant Message programs, people try it and then quickly lose interest.

Similarly, Microsoft FREE video conferencing software receives little attention.

tRock writes...

Have to disagree with you there. To me a phone is a phone.

Your a classic example of what I mean - as you learn what it can do you will grow with it. Maybe {:-)

I'm using mine now all the time and 6months ago I didn't know how too

VoIP.ed (mr.wireless) writes...

Your a classic example of what I mean - as you learn what it can do you will grow with it.

Happy to accept the challenge.

Provide me with a FREE account and "education" for 6 months, see if I'm willing to continue to pay for it :)

Netstats writes...

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services .

can you please send me the figures on that please Netstats that you must be referring to...as a shareholder I would like to see that in black and white so I can decide whether to keep my shares or not, or is this just another one of your stab in the dark assumptions????? Thanks.

Netstats writes...

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services ...

Jeez you are so absolutely full of it netstats - why do you make this crap up? Are you just trolling?

For the record, Sol Trujillo is on the record as saying that Telstra is making an extra $20 per month per customer from NextG. That is a phenomenal uplift - nowhere on earth has such a jump in ARPU been observed with 3G services.

www.australianit.news.co...10-15306,00.html

TELSTRA is generating $20 more per customer every month on its NextG services compared to its 2G services, telco boss Sol Trujillo has told a business leadership forum in London.

Netstats writes...

The fact again is that Telstra with NextG is making NOTHING from so called 3G services

I think they'd want more than a few hundred K regular subscribers (or whatever the total figure is in last annual) for the substantial investment in nextG to pay off, earn the astronomical return TLS want.

hibernator writes...

I think they'd want more than a few hundred K regular subscribers (or whatever the total figure is in last annual) for the substantial investment in nextG to pay off, earn the astronomical return TLS want.

ummm - there are over 2 million NextG subscribers as per the last annual report.

Well if want to see another list of unhappy 3g users, maybe you would be interested in the comments from this news report.
www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/...your_mobile.html

Telstra's non SMS data revenue is now over half of all mobile data revenues (of ~$715M).

And they have 3.5M 3G customers.

www.telstraenterprise.co...nnouncement.aspx

Urgit writes...

Telstra's non SMS data revenue is now over half of all mobile data revenues (of ~$715M).

A lot but it still only represents a small percentage of their turnover on mobile, 3.2 Billion for the half year, given the exorbitant price of data it may not mean a lot of users using much data

Big numbers regardless

Wireless broadband revenue grew 205%, fuelled by the addition of 136,000 subscribers for a total of 464,000.

So it looks to be a while before it passes the first 1M subscribers -- you might ask why people aren't picking that up?

I would call 22% of revenue "a lot".

With, what would be a projected 4M customers at present, $20 a month makes around $80 million of extra revenue a month. That is a big number.

These things make a complete and total mockery of netstats earlier statements.

hibernator writes...

So it looks to be a while before it passes the first 1M subscribers -- you might ask why people aren't picking that up?

Ummm - near on 500K wireless broadband customers is pretty good going. These customers are paying the big $ for this service and are getting a premium experience. Put it this way: These 500K customers are paying between 55-$120 month as a minimum. That is revenue of around $28M-$60M a month. Not bad all things considered.

Of course they were going to boost the ARPU in the early generations of NextG. Whether that's sustainable or not is the question (and not really one that's answered by Telstra).