Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sommers who wrote (8362)	10/17/1999 9:01:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 54805

Hi Ruth, << CDMA has the lead by at least 18 months in rolling out hi-speed wireless data (CDMA2000). According to Nortel, trials begin in six months. CDMA2000 will have wireless data speeds up to 157Kbps, while doubling the voice channels per cell site >> Once again, I apologize for my irreverent and agnostic tendencies, but I respectfully have some difficulty identifying an 18 month CDMA2000 hi-speed wireless data advantage, since the first GSM-based WCDMA network field trials demonstrating 2 Mbps transmission commenced in October, 1996 long before the QCOM/ERICY IPR accord: nokia.com North American commenced 3G Trials using a Nortel test system in May on a GSM network: nortelnetworks.com The Europeans are at it as well: 127.0.0.1:3456/SI/download.pl?URL=reply-11578731 All FWIW. Q gets paid when 3G launches commercial regardless of which technoloy deploys its cdma air interface. 2.5G GSM GPRS systems are a different matter. NO Q content so here is where we lose ground. These systems are beginning to be built out as we speak. Expect several to be commercially operational by the time the Nortel CDMA2000 trial system you reference is operational, although really functional terminals are evidently a year away. The 2.5G GSM tornado will commence IMO, 6 to 12 months minimum before the higher-speed CDMA tornado. The BIG Three are highly focused on insuring the success of GPRS and minimizing risk. Potential risk is however, attendant. Yankee Group describes it thus: "During the first six months of 1999, Europe's GSM operators have placed the first equipment contracts for the supply of Next-Generation Cellular Data (NGD) Infrastructure. This will be deployed throughout Europe, with the start-up phase stretching over the next two years. For users, NGD solutions promise a means of performing the same cellular data applications that are available today, only faster, in a more user-friendly manner, and more cheaply. They also promise a host of new, high-data-rate applications that will enable users far more sophisticated applications. For operators, as well as for handset and infrastructure vendors, NGD offers new opportunities to increase their sales and win new market share. <snip> In their overall systems approach to GPRS, there are a number of inherent risks for operators. The first is that they will overinvest in capacity that won't subsequently be used. The second is that they will underinvest with the result that the first wave of users will experience a poor quality of service that will put the brakes on further uptake. The third, and by far the greatest concern, is that the new packetized data traffic will interfere with the operator's voice traffic, thereby increasing dropped calls and network congestion for voice users. Poor GPRS network deployment could potentially be disastrous for operators." << Someone on this thread said GSM already offers 14.4 Kbps. Is that a fact? >> Any day now. << Through which carrier (T?) >> No. 'T' is a TDMA carrier not GSM. Could we at least agree on this? <g> Initial implementations of 14.4 Kbps + data using HSCSD will be made by Sonera (Finland), Telenor (Norway), Telia (Sweden), and Orange in the UK. This appears primarily tactical, each network having employed data applications for some time, and most will then move to GPRS. US operators will skip HSCSD and move directly to GPRS. << and at what cost to their voice capability? >> At some cost and risk. I would assume that this is being accounted for in the planning stages. These are pretty sophisticated network operators. A pretty good article called " Mobile World Leader" (link below) states that although "easy and relatively cheap to implement, HSCSD provides a quick-fix boost but has the disadvantage of being both spectrum-inefficient and based on circuit-switched technology, which is better suited to voice than to bursty data applications": telecom99news.itu.int << Remember CDMA DOUBLES a site's voice capacity when adding hi-speed data channels >> Future tense, please. Remember that before 1XRTT is released, our advanced CDMA technology offer will be IS-95B which will not boast the capability you reference, and by joining multiple channels for data, it potentially reduces the channels allocated for voice. IS-95C (1XRTT) will be sexy technology, but it will not be commercially available as early as GPRS. You may be interested in referencing this article called "On the Road to CDMA": telecom99news.itu.int The technical stuff is hard enough to keep pace with, keeping the technologies, standards bodies, generations, evolutionary and discontinuous migration paths, straight is not an easy matter in itself, but it is what makes Q watching fun and challenging. Always great to chat. - Eric -

To: Sommers who wrote (8362)	10/17/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Ruth, In re: CDMA in general and Qualcomm. In responding to part of your post # 8363 and reviewing some previous ones, I noticed that you and I are using different vocabularies and mixing and matching some terms. Perhaps if we review some basic vocabulary we can communicate more precisely to the benefit of the thread. For starters perhaps we should refer to "CDMA Terminology and Definitions" on the CDG web site in order to differentiate cdma the air interface, from cdma the technologies: cdg.org >> * CDMA is a generic term that describes a wireless air interface based on code division multiple access technology * cdmaOne™ is a brand name, trademarked and reserved for the exclusive use of CDG member companies, that describes a complete wireless system that incorporates the IS-95 CDMA air interface, the ANSI-41 network standard for switch interconnection and many other standards that make up a complete wireless system * cdma2000 is a name identifying the TIA standard for third generation technology that is an evolutionary outgrowth of cdmaOne offering operators who have deployed a second generation cdmaOne system a seamless migration path that economically supports upgrade to 3G features and services within existing spectrum allocations for both cellular and PCS operators. The network interface defined for cdma2000 supports the second generation network aspect of all existing operators regardless of technology (cdmaOne, IS-136 TDMA, or GSM). This standard has been submitted by the TIA to the ITU as part of the IMT-2000 3G process. << While we are on the CDG site, and to further clarify the above, perhaps we should review some sections of a dated but classic history and future view of CDMA called "The Path to Next Generation Services with CDMA" by Andrew Viterbi of QUALCOMM: cdg.org Now we can differentiate generations of cdma technology (I think). * cdmaOne (technology using the IS-95-A standard) is the existing and commercially deployed Second Generation (2G) cdma technology. [cdma was 1st deployed in Hong Kong in 1995, Korea in early 1996, and in the USA in late 1996][cdma 1st did data in 1998 in Korea - circuit switched, then packet switched, and circuit-switched in the USA in 1999]. * Evolved 2.5G CDMA will be based on IS-95-B, IS-95-C, and 95-HDR. They are not commercially deployed but will be over the course of the next few years and they will continue to be deployed concurrently with 3G technologies well into the next decade. I am candidly not sure what the target timetables for commercial deployment of these services are. * cdma2000 is 3G cdma technology. In most countries (USA likes to be different) it will be employed in separate (not existing) spectrum and under separate license. This makes specific timetables for deployment a bit difficult to fix but we should be rolling along by 2003 and into gear by 2004. cdma2000 is also referred to as FDD MC-CDMA or G3G CDMA MC which are draft standards for the technology which are available after registration 0n the 3GPP2 web site. Having in a simplistic sense, established a base vocabulary for cdma, lets attempt to apply the same to the worlds dominant digital wireless technology, GSM. * GSM is an end to end 100% digital wireless technology that was first deployed (GSM Phase 1) in 1992 and from the outset has featured both voice and circuit-switched data services. * 2G GSM specifications are maintained by ETSI and are exceptionally comprehensive and robust (6,000 to 8,000 pages). They are currently in their 3rd iteration, GSM Phase 2 specifications were released in 1994 and Phase 2+ in 1997. Phase 2 and Phase 2+ added significantly to data capabilities. * 2.5G GSM will evolve from circuit-switched HSCSD to GPRS (both of which are being deployed now but neither yet in commercial operation) to EDGE. Like 2.5G cdma, they will continue to be deployed concurrently with 3G technologies well into the next decade. * 3G GSM will be called UTMS. The cdma air interface will called UTRA. Phase one draft specifications are due end of this year and are in advanced draft form now on the ETSI web site which can be linked from the 3GPP web site. WCDMA is currently being used to describe 3G GSM technology (and other technologies) since standards are draft only. WCDMA may continue to be used as a generic term after standards are set because it may encompass multiple standards, not just ETSI UTMS. * GSM based WCDMA will be the 1st 3G commercial deployment, which will be made in Japan in early 2001. Eventually this deployment will be upgraded to a UTMS system (or a close variation of it) once vendors have a chance to bring the initial implementation into compliance with the specifications that have not yet been published or harmonized. << My position is that GSM and TDMA (AMPS) - sorry for using both technologies in the same context - are moving towards 3G, but at a slower pace than CDMA. >> Actually, you are either referring to 3 technologies or confusing the fact that TDMA is a 100% 2G digital technology (albeit no data services) while AMPS is 1G technology. Perhaps you are confusing the fact that 'T' has operated in dual mode since day one as has BAM and other cdma operators. I personally find it difficult to compare technology evolution by lumping GSM and TDMA into the same category, even though they formalized an alliance made 1 year ago in January of this year (which presented Q with both a 3G upside and a 2G downside) and interoperability with GSM will occur in 2000. TDMA standards are of course managed by the UWCC, and will continue to be even after the EDGE convergence. 'T' is not the only major carrier using TDMA of course. We also have both SBC & BellSouth very actively involved in the evolution of TDMA, UWCC standards and to complicate matters (and unlike 'T') they both manage very successful GSM networks as well as TDMA networks. << Isn't it the customers who will drive the demand for CDMA? >> No. Customers (IMHO) will drive the demand for better quality and less expensive voice services today, and eventually bigger, better, more useful, and reasonably priced data services. They could give a rats's a** about the technology employed. Customers look for value and may or may not feel they receive it in a cdma based technology offering. Today customer value is about Cost and Coverage. Today 'T' has the most coverage at the lowest cost. It appears that customers are willing for the moment to put up with problems caused by capacity issues that are not purely capacity related. In re your previous post # 8167 << CDMA 2.5 will clearly hit Main Street well before the "new" GSM or TDMA systems >> Main Street is a long way away for wireless data related services by Geoffs definition of the Technology Adoption Cycle. GSM has led us across the chasm with 2G based data services and by my measure we are in the early bowling alley stage ... but this is a subject for future discussions. Long Post. My Apologies. Reasonably accurate I think, but never 100%, and some opinion is thrown in, so inputs from others are welcome as I evolve my thougt processes out loud relative to my best possible understanding of my new favorite gorilla. While we work on this one together, you and I can start to build a vocabulary to communicate on the GMST thread. Right now, I'm not much of a contributor there (read clueless) <g>. - Eric -