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: Mike Buckley who wrote (22187)	4/3/2000 9:50:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: You are quite right (as usual) in your surprise. The problem is in the assumptions and when these "projections" were made. The projections do not reflect realism on 2.5 IMO - specifically because the role of data is not adequately taken into account. For example, there is no indication that HDR is considered at all. Persumably the next set of projections will be more realistic. These are rough indications of a minimum, not what is likely to actually take place in the future in reality. Just IMO as always, or course. But based on a bit of analysis and thought. Best. Cha2

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (22187)	4/3/2000 10:23:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, << surprised that the 2.5G growth never gets as high as 2G >> Remember that 2.5G is simply an extension of 2G is basically employed to extend the life of very expensive investments in infrastructure. While 2G does rudimentary data transmission at the blazing speeds of 9.6/14.4 kbps it is essentially voice technology. The real craving for wireless data in a world I can't totally imagine will be satisfied by 3G. 2G (2G and 2.5G) will hang around for a very long time just like 1G Analog has. << 2.5G appears to be more like a band-aid that holds things together long enough to wait for 3G to come around >> Well put. That is what it is. This is more true for GSM/TDMA than it is for cdmaOne/cdma2000, IMO. Part of the beauty of CDMA, is in what appears to provide a more seamless migration path to 3G. The ETSI folk have admitted that with GPRS or at least EDGE (lite) they have taken existing infastructure or infrastructure fully compatible with existing infastructure as far as they can take it. BTW: When I talked about my disappointments in CDMA in 1999, I forgot to mention what I saw as the REAL 1999 CDMA positive (other than the ERICY accord), and that was that CDMA finally launched data services in the US (actually the Koreans had actually launched data services a year earlier, a fact that escaped many people, including me). This was always the real knock on CDMA by the GSM zealots, since GSM launched commercial with data services in 1992, and CDMA seemed to take forever to appear. - Eric -