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 174.690.0%Dec 24 12:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: pyslent who wrote (39048)2/1/2004 11:00:35 AM
From: kech  Read Replies (1) of 197031
 
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?

I don't know much about this comparison. I think the bulk of the cost difference for rural areas, almost 3 times the cost, comes from the coverage issue of 800 Mhz vs 2.1 Ghz.

Just some guess on cost of deployment in the same frequency would include the usual economies of scale arguments which in this case would favor CDMA vs WCDMA. There are also some claims that the asynchronous technology in WCDMA involves less of a soft handoff as in the synchronous CDMA. This might further require WCDMA base stations to be closer to get the same coverage as CDMA even at the same frequency. But I don't have hard data on these cost differences. There could also be some additional features such as the coding differences that give either greater coverage or faster data with CDMA vs WCDMA but I haven't seen detailed cost or performance details due to these matters. Perhaps Jim's approach of looking at installation cost estimates for ATT or Hutchison is the best way to do this.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext