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: Eric L who wrote (4876)	5/15/2000 3:32:00 PM
From: sisuman	Respond to of 34857

In response to your message #4871. The authors conclude: "This will allow CDMA One carriers to offer the equivalent Internet services as GPRS and EDGE operators with a lower overall investment in equipment and human resources and without decreasing voice capacity". Where are the $ numbers to support this general statement? The authors cite the GSM to GPRS transition as costing $125 million for 45 million POPS. I think the operators will happily pay about $3 per POP for the opportunity for greatly increased revenue from each user. They also then cite the CDMA One to packet data transition as only costing $5 million, implying that these are comparable numbers for all costs involved. I don't think so. They go on to make a big point that GPRS, in fact, will only achieve less than 50 kbps, and lowering the number to 30 kbps later on. Nokia has cited 56 kbps as an initial target, which will be adequate for the types of services available in that time frame. They also go on to "prove" that EDGE will only achieve 114 kbps vs 130 kbps for CDMA - aha, see how much better CDMA is! Yet the I-Mode system, as I understand it, is operating at just 6kbps and some 6 million Japanese are using it every day. The authors make many qualitative assumptions to get at some kbps numbers without supporting their assumptions. They draw a blanket final conclusion regarding comparable investment but offer no quantitative support. I don't consider that good analysis. I am especially bothered by JohnG taking this analysis as the basis for saying that "the Europeans are going to have to make huge unnecessary equipment expenditures", which is absolutely not justified by this article. Okay, let's move on.