Gregg: Agree totally with your comments, well almost:
"Finally, will all due respect, Mika is incorrect about GPRS. Several carriers have specifically told me that GPRS will require both new handsets and infrastructure replacement."
New handsets yes, not infra replacement (addition yes).
"I believe that this is one of the reasons why the GSM carrier community is so rabidly anti-IS-95/cdma2000."
Absolutely...that was what the 'war' was about (the issues raised here were merely ammunition and political manouvering).
"Since IS-95 carriers have a MUCH CHEAPER, MUCH SMOOTHER AND MORE FLEXIBLE upgrade path, they will have a significant competitive advantage as high data rate services take off. The TDMA-based GSM community would very much like to have leveled the playing field, but the Ericsson deal changed the equilibrium."
Agree in principle, as I noted above.
"As for Nokia's pursuit of GPRS/EDGE, well gee whiz Mika, I guess that's all Nokia can do right now considering it doesn't have a CDMA infrastructure license. Do you really expect Nokia to go around telling customers that GPRS is an inferior, more costly, upgrade path that will yield lower data rates that 1XRTT, impose substantial spectrum planning challenges, obsolete existing handsets and then obsolete these newer handsets again when EGDE gets deployed? Not bloody likely. Nokia's credibility is getting stretched pretty thin on this topic in my humble opinion."
Ahh, but the 'new champion' is also telling the same story as Nokia. The GSM evolution systems are never replaced, so to get a new service you buy a new handset (that comes with natural upgrades and new subs). BTW, cdmaOne handsets may handle fast data rates as they evolve, but I bet you will need new handsets to run the applications to make use of these services?
I suppose that is the reason why operators are already ordering GPRS, outside the US it is not a question of 'if' but 'when'.
All the best,
Mika |
