I think that this model could be feasible. It depends on a few items I find significant, listed below.
One factor is the bandwidth; the frequencies must be available, and the technology to use those frequencies must exist.
Another reason is a personal one: To me, the purpose of the network is to provide equally available communications; what this means for heavily forested, rural, and mountainous areas, is that towers--or other structures deemed suitable for a given location; not all areas need have ugly metal towers marring up the landscape (hint, hint, get innovative here, get innovative here!)--is that they have suitable coverage in a manner the is accpetable and effective for them.
The United States of America has a thriving rural population that has the need to have reliable cellular coverage. What's going to happen to this substantial market, is that new carriers like TerraStar--a satellite telephone/data service provider that recently launched a mega-huge communications satellite to cover North America--are going to be seeing a market with very limited competition--unless the ground-based systems step up to the plate and create more penetration-density to their rural customer base.
Take me, for example. I have Sprint PCS, and really love their service. Problem is, I live in an area whose geography consists of a river basin (I live a short walk away from the river in question), lots of broad leaf deciduous trees (oaks, maples, ash, etc.), and that is quite hilly all around. Add to the fact that I'm a full-time RV'er who lives in a thirty foot motorhome, and have to go outside to make calls on my BlackBerry Curve 8330, then you'll understand why another tower for this area is really needed. It wouldn't have to be huge, as there's a bluff across the river where my Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) has their wi-fi broadcast tower, so I suppose a contract could be had with the property owner. Give 'em free cellular service for life, or at least deep discounts on hardware and service, and go from there.
CDMA may seem backward, but, to me, that is just a matter of when GSM was adopted in the US, relative to CDMA's debut here.
CDMA technology is actually superior and more secure than GSM. GSM sprang forth from TDMA if memory serves me correctly, and was being switched to when CDMA was also just becoming popular, and AMPS carriers who were going digital were leaning toward one or the other. GSM follwed TDMA carriers in the US, with CDMA being TDMA's primary competitor.
GSM spurious emissions have always been a thorn to me when I have my active phone around computer hardware. I've never, for example, had a problem with a CDMA phone of any type causing interference over my electronic devices, whereas my GSM products have always made an annoying noise whenever the phone is polling for a tower or for data. CDMA is based on spread-spectrum technology that is much harder to crack due to the code multiplexing technology CDMA uses. I'm not saying it's foolproof--you still need scrambling is you want to be completely secure--but most people don't require that type of thing.
Ending the above--as this really isn't a thread on CDMA vs. GSM--LTE will probably change everything, provide all the bandwidth power users need, and be the next logical step, a step that will probably happen much more decisively than other technologies in the past, mainly due to the heavy loads that are already being incurred. IP based cellular technology is, perhaps, the next logical choice, anyway.
A final note is your statement regarding profitability. This particular subject has always clashed with my own idealology vs. my realization of the necessities of practicality in any business venture. The business side says "Yes! This must be profitable! That's why it's a business!" The idealistic side says: "All people must coverage as near as is possible to providing equal access to the network, both technically and ethically." (You might also pin 'Morally' on here, too, if you like.)
Obviously, the two points-of-view clash somewhat in actual practice. This is inevitable, but both usually get along well most of the time, having a few arguments along the way, but mostly striving to get the job done and keep both sides as reasonably content as they can. My main beef is that we need more rural coverage that actually works and penetrates into valleys and dense woodlands where a significant number of people do live, and where they need reliable cellular service.
Still, as satellite providers become more aware of a growing trend in consumer power users, even venerable companies like Iridium and GlobalStar (once they get their system back up and running again), may see a reason to increase their system's bandwidth capabilities (new satellite firmware?), and lower the costs of their hardware and put all-in-one price packaging in place.
I believe that when this happens, the satellite providers--especially the emerging geosync-based systems--are going to give the land-based services a run for their money. Perhaps, if it goes that way, everything will become less expensive and more open.
Just a few thoughts. Thank you for reading.
Warm Regards,
Firefishe
