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.

Technology Stocks : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2607)	10/29/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 34857

Mobile Operators Should Compete on Voice Not Data, Says Report By Vanessa Clark 29 October 1999 Mobile operators should use wireless data as a way to increase voice calls and not try to compete with fixed operators in the data market says a new report from U.K. analysts Schema Consulting. The report, Opportunities for Unified Telecoms Services: The convergence of IP, intelligent networks and mobile technologies, sets out to advise mobile operators on business strategies that will justify the investments being made in wireless data technologies. It warns operators that they will not be able to compete with fixed operators in data alone as technologies like xDSL and cable modems mean that wired data rates will continue to outstrip mobile rates. However, Schema sees new technologies like WAP as an excellent chance for operators to drive voice revenues, reduce churn and provide unified telecoms services - but will only ever generate incremental revenues themselves. "Mobile operators are ... going to have to think about the ways in which mobile data can complement the services provided over the fixed network, rather than try to compete with them head on," said Henry Harrison, senior consultant at Schema. Location-based services are going to be crucial here. For example, calls made on a personal mobile phones could be billed to a corporate account when they are used on-site. Another service Schema suggested was that shopkeepers could offer free phone calls from within their stores to attract customers to special offers. The shopkeeper would pay the operator for the calls with the cost off-set by increased sales. Harrison said that pure mobile data is a gamble for operators, especially in Europe where they are being asked to commit billions of dollars to untested networks and technologies as part of the auctioning of licenses. In the U.S. operators are taking a more evolutionary approach to 3G not requiring a massive initial investment. Harrison warns that "expectations for mobile data are in danger of being over-inflated because of a focus in top speeds for new technologies." For instance, GPRS rates, set at around 107.2 kbps, are shared by all the users in the cell - so the more users means a slower actual rate. And although 3G standards make the promise of data rates at up to 2Mbps, this is only under ideal conditions, stationary and at the middle of the cell. It is crucial that operators manage users expectations now to avoid this impacting the market later. Harrison says that operators will have to set up pricing models that charge a premium for higher rates. "Whatever the technology, lower speeds are cheaper and the pricing of data services has got to follow this model," he said. The $500 million study was conducted over the last five months in Europe and the U.S. and consulted operators, ISPs and vendors as well as 700 end-users

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (2607)	10/29/1999 9:44:00 PM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

From: America's Network Magazine- Letters to the Editors A U.S.-Centric 3G I read Alan Pearce?s ?World War 3(G)? [Last Call, Feb. 15] with interest. The view that cdma2000 should be the new world standard struck me as so U.S.-centered. As an international executive, I feel lost in the U.S. because I am without communications; my mobile does not work there. In the rest of the world (almost), my GSM phone works with global roaming. People can call my Australian number and the call reaches me, even if I am in Sweden, Poland or the UK. None of my business cards from U.S. executives have a mobile phone number listed. All of my European, Asian, Australian and other non-American business colleagues do. This reflects a sea of difference between mobile cultures in the U.S. and the rest of the world. The article states that cdma2000 is backward-compatible to IS-95 (CDMA). What use is that to 99.9% of the world?s population? If a new worldwide digital standard should be backward-compatible with anything, it should be backward-compatible with GSM, because that?s what the majority of the world uses. Your magazine is called America?s Network, so I guess you should represent the American interest. It is in the ordinary American?s interest to be part of a mobile standard that is worldwide. And it already exists: It is GSM. The main drawback with GSM is the lack of data comms (or low capacity). Otherwise, it works okay. The U.S. put together Iridium to get global coverage. Europe pushed GSM. Look at the speed of subscriber uptake for Iridium; it falls far short of the uptake for GSM in any country for any operator anywhere in the world. And Iridium is sold worldwide! W-CDMA is a totally new standard. It is mainly pushed by the suppliers. It would be great for them to get a new standard, because it means global refurbishment with new equipment. As to the technical merit of W-CDMA, I have not studied it and don?t have an opinion. In telephony, there has been a tendency for the U.S. to adopt one set of standards versus the rest of the world. Examples: Europe and Asia have E1, while the U.S. has T1; U.S. has AMPS, while Europe and Asia have GSM; U.S. has a very fragmented network of operators, while Europe and Asia have a small number of operators with a great deal of transparency from the user?s viewpoint. Nils Oman CEO Radio Design Pty Ltd. Melbourne, Australia