John,
<< You are getting a little Eurocentric. >>
LOL! I'll pass that on to my European mates.
Chaz claims I've always been Eurocentric.
Actually, I thought I was being a little globalcentric.
<< I am guessing that under a real life load, the relative rated would hold >>
I would rather see practical user rates represented.
Reality has started to set in about what various technologies will yield in real life deployment and this in turn has lead to disenchantment.
The slide you referenced serves little value unless it is properly qualified, which it wasn't.
The investing public and the carriers are getting a bit tired of "peak data rates" and the hype surrounding same, as they will get translated into actual mobile, pedestrian, and fixed or portable use.
One thing we all know is that 1xEV will (as it is currently standardized and being trialed) does not come close to approaching 2.4 Mbps under any circumstances when married to 1xRTT other than an occasional packet burst, even in a fixed environment.
One very refreshing recent vignette was the newsreel out of Cannes with Irwin Jacobs demonstrating VOD using 1xEV at 84 kbps in a fixed, portable, and pedestrian environment so that multiple users could use the system.
With my user hat on, I remain very curious about what I can expect for data rates and battery life as a soon to be user of 1xRTT in a mobile environment, and 1xEV in a portable environment, and what I will pay for the privilege of using both.
We certainly have not learned much about 1xRTT from the Korean trials yet in that regard.
As a frequent visitor to Europe and EMEA, I look forward to the day when I am issued a Verizon SIM/R-UIM, so I can at least take my subscription and US mobile number with me when I travel (without a separate GSM subscription), regardless of whether or not their is a multi-mode, multi-band device available to me on the short haul.
<< Thus, ASS-U-M&ME that and we see that CDMA 1xEV is vastly superior to W-CDMA >>,
John, I have a file drawer full of QUALCOMM slideware, promotional material, whitepapers, et al dating back to 1994.
I have, as a consequence, learned NOT to ASS-U-M&ME anything from their material. It is an has always been, a nicely packaged mixture of fact, theory, fable, and hype.
There are companies in this industry that take a different and more credible approach to the preparation of slides they present to the public.
1xEV (DO) appears to be solid technology. I look forward to its commercialization and hope it becomes widely accepted.
I look forward to the standardization of 1xEV-DV which probably will have considerably wider acceptance.
As a QUALCOMM investor I am very hopeful the technology can be integrated into an end to end standard that is more robust than cdma2000.
Whether or not 1xRTT/1XEV is vastly superior to W-CDMA we will NOT learn from QUALCOMM or CDG slides.
<< which incidentally, is using the entire 5MHz to achieve even a 61 sec download. >>
Ah yes, the 5Mhz carrier that carriers implementing 3G in IMT-2000 spectrum wanted, for what they consider to be valid reasons, but QUALCOMM has as of yet steadfastly not provided. The end result is that as of yet not a single carrier preparing to build out in 2GHz has let a contract for cdma2000 (and I am including KDDI who is trialing the technology.)
<< Needless to say, the CDMA operator could convert two more 1.25 MHz channels to data >>
There are pros to this, and their are cons to it. Segregated data and voice has advantages, and integrated data and voice does as well.
QUALCOMM will provide both ... someday.
The real question becomes whether or QUALCOMM can expand the utilization of their technology beyond their current user base.
They might need a different set of slideware for that, an enhancement of their marketing capabilities, and their standardization initiatives.
<< Clearly this graph says it all: See slide 2 >>
Well, it says something ...
Is it meaningful? Maybe.
The trick to that slide is to understand the complete set of assumptions that are made about GSM, W-CDMA, and 1xRTT/1xEV, having those assumptions validated in real life operation when 1xEV (and W-CDMA) advances beyond the vaporware stage, and get a GSM carrier, and their technical side decision makers, with consultancy from the vendors who will commercialize the technology, to buy off on it.
To do this, that one slide will have to be permutated into many variations, but ONLY after validating the base assumptions.
Network capacity planning is about as difficult as it gets.
Even an untrained eye can formulate a lot of questions about that slide you cherish. For starters we are not in the desert. Next we are comparing 1xEV at 2.4 Mbps to W-CDMA at 384 Kbps rather than UTRA at 2Mbps.
Data rate, and network capacity then need to be balanced against interoperability, cost, and other economies of scale. Economies of scale, and device type availability are created by technology adoption.
QUALCOMM is disadvantaged by the fact that they have been down this path before.
Unsuccessfully.
Unsuccessful because some of the base assumptions they have presented over the years didn't hold water, and because their product has not been fully commercialized on the timetables they established.
In the world beyond the carriers that represent 11.5% of the wireless mobile subscribers in the world, QUALCOMM has some credibility to establish.
There was a lot of great stuff in the slides and presentations made last week, and there was also some questionable stuff, hype, sleight of hand, hocus pocus, and the normal bashing of any technology that was not created in San Diego.
I'm used to it by now. I guess I've been following them too closely, and too long.
I'm glad I supplement my QUALCOMM position with some Nokia. Somehow I find their presentation material and their presentation style very refreshing.
- Eric - |
