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 : METRICOM - Wireless Data Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gus who wrote (2041)	1/27/2000 1:10:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3376

Gus - I guess we're not done yet since you brought up a major point of confusion for lots of people: TDMA/GSM is vastly cheaper where voice is the driver of demand, which is why wireless is expected to crossover with wirelines in the next few years. Aside from the logic problem (just because 'GSM is cheaper than CMDA' (assuming that were true, although it is not - see below) doesn't mean that it is cheaper than wireline), you are also propagating a falsehood. GSM/TDMA hardware is cheaper than CDMA per line. That is a long long long way from GSM being cheaper overall, which it isn't. The other factors in total cost are installation engineering costs, maintenance, and site costs (related to number of sites, which is related to number of calls/MHz). As equipment becomes less and less of the total cost, CDMA saves substantial amounts of money overall. This combined with the vastly more expensive technology needed for CDMA ($300,000 per base station compared with $80,000 for TDMA) calls into question what real savings CDMA technology can offer. As you probably know, the CDMA basestation numbers are completely outdated. (Whereas the TDMA numbers are probably close to current). Consider the source. In addition, remember that a CDMA basestation can handle twice the calls of a TDMA station. CDMA is more expensive per line, but not that much more. Clark