SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 174.76+0.3%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kech who wrote (39038)1/31/2004 7:05:43 PM
From: pyslent  Read Replies (2) of 197016
 
GSM1x is cheap (for GSM upgrade), not solely because it uses GSM-MAP, but also because it uses slivers of spectrum at lower frequencies (than W-CDMA at 2.1GHz) which allows a lower cost of buildout.

Thanks Tom, point well taken. Implicit in your reference to Slacker's data on cell density (as a function of frequency) is the assumption that for each base station, it costs the same to deploy GSM1X as it does wCDMA. Is that a valid assumption? It was my uneducated guess that the deployment costs (per basestation) would be pretty close between the two, but this was met with some skepticism from Jim. Your post suggests that you also believe that all other things being equal (ie, for the same frequency), overlaying a 1X RAN costs as much as overlaying a wCDMA RAN ($6-10 per POP, according to AWE).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News