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: sisuman who wrote (4841)	5/14/2000 6:10:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 34857

<What do you think that piece of crap masquerading as analysis is good for? Is it supposed to prove in any way that CDMA and its future direction is better than GSM and its future direction? First of all, it is paid for supposed research - without any definition of who paid for it and why> It was written by a European who use to work for Vodafone. Now you were saying?

To: sisuman who wrote (4841)	5/14/2000 6:17:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

How about discussing this, from another thread> If NOK can pull this GPRS-EDGE-Direct Spread CDMA upgrade path off on the poor operators and citizens of Europe they will sell a huge amount of unnecessary equipment that they would not sell if QCOM's Multicarrier CDMA was used and they will slow progress greatly. The European governments will be their accomplice in screwing over the citizens om Europe. Just look at this link which indicates the extra unnecessary equipment sales that would come out of this upgrade path. mobiledataevolution.com Deep down in their hearts, all Europeans are Serfs looking for their governments to tell them what to do and give them a hand-out. It is hardly suprising to see such a scheme come out of Europe. If NOK and ERICY pull this off, I may just buy back my NOK stock and let those dumb European Serfs pay me lots of dividends by purchasing lots of unnecessary equipment. Somehow, I think the Chinese will see through this European Socialist scheme to sell the Chinese lots of extra unnecessary equipment.

To: sisuman who wrote (4841)	5/14/2000 7:33:00 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

<< What do you think that piece of crap masquerading as analysis is good for? >> Cool talk SilverTongue! This "piece of crap" describes the migration path for CDMA and GSM systems in a reasonably objective fashion, and was written by engineers (consultants) who worked for or with Vodaphone on the "Newbury Project" in 1998. As you might recall, on this project, Qualcomm and Nokia collaborated in a live test environment on behalf of Vodaphone to overlay a CDMA air interface on a GSM network. If you are not familiar with the project and its methodology and would like to learn more about it, here is the report on same: 3gpp2.org You might also want to note that the article in question is on a site that has a significant GSM bias. Despite that, the article and the site are both reasonably objective and informative. I would be very curious as to your comments on anything in the article that you consider to be inaccurate. I can find nothing. - Eric -

To: sisuman who wrote (4841)	5/14/2000 8:51:00 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

sisuman. This analysis which you call crap is quite thorough and, in my mind,clearly reveals the deficiencies of the proposed upgrade path. Simply put, the Europeans are going to have to make huge unnecessary equipment expenditures if NOK's route to upgrade prevails. Also, they will eventually have to rip out all the equipment and replace the air interface with W-CDMA which appears to have possible technical problems and use spectrum inefficiently compared to multicarrier CDMA. What needs to be done to minimize equipment expenditures and use spectrum efficiently is overlay the current GSM with a multicarrier CDMA air interface. This is what China will probably do and probably what VOD wants to do. The winners are the Citizens of Europe who get to 3G with a minimum of equipment expense and the Operators who also have a minimum of equipment expense. JohnG