>If you are not already working for Ericcson, may I encourage
>you to apply to them? Perhaps they would value the
>unique combination of lack of CDMA knowledge and arrogance
>you bring to this thread?
Dear Sanjay, I'm actually in the process of getting a marketing position with QCOM, selling WLL systems to the 3rd world people.
You see, WLL is a winning concept. Not only it combines the cost of mobile to the handiness of a fixed phone, but it also has incredible growth potential.
The network in Russia, for example, is projected to grow from the current 250 subs to no less than 750 by the year 2000. That's an incredible 200% increase, which makes the WLL the fastest growing and most sought after telecommunication technology there is. Think about the economies of scale!
Seriously speaking, the debate is bogged down by the never ending efficiency argument. How many channels more you get to WLL cell as compared to CDMA1 cell. I still doubt the incredibly high gain (although it has come down from x 3 to little less than x 2), but that's immaterial. That does not make WLL any cheaper than CDMA1.
People appear to make the fundamental error in thinking that if CDMA1 had a cost benefit when the cell capacity, say, doubles, the same would be true with WLL too. That is not the case.
It is not the case because you cannot find enough customers to exceed the cell capacity. You can not because the 3rd world people have used to cheap government subsidized fixed lines (with 3 year waiting lines) and suddenly somebody offers a WLL with mobile expense structure. Those who have dough buy mobile, those who don't stick to their neighbor's phone.
If I designed a CDMA WLL (I can almost see the engineer jumping on his engineer hat after reading the beginning of this sentence) I would sacrifice any unnecessary capacity increase and base it entirely on the CDMA1 technology to utilize the economies of scale that CDMA1 starts to strongly enjoy (good to put some pro-CDMA1 buffs here and there to make people euphoric). Also the terminals would be mass-produced cheap CDMA1 phones maxing out on the mass production cost benefit.
Thus you would have as-cheap-as-can-be WLL with limited one-cell mobility. This would able Mqurice to drive up and down his street carrying a conversation with his stockbroker buying more QCOM. Not bad. You couldn't get a better WLL, but, let's face it, it would still be an absolutely mind boggingly appalling dog when compared to true mobile. There you are.
Why does nobody stand up and say "WLL is a brilliant concept, much better than CDMA1". Answer: it isn't, its much worse and most people start to understand it.
- rajala
|
