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: carranza2 who wrote (7076)	9/4/2000 11:47:42 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

HDR transmission speeds "several-fold" That is simple to design, implement, worse to actually get it to work in real, mobile life for more than one user. That is, one just adds more amplitude levels, going from 2 to 4 doubles the bitrate, and going to 8 triples it (16 quadruples,etc). V34 modems use even more than that, in the high hundreds, but not that easy in an enviroment where specifically the amplitude, changing channel is a problem due to fading, as well as at noisy cocktail parties. However, if one just concentrates on one semi-stationary user per cell or sector, it is not that difficult, becomes a regular radio link. Although it has little value for most users who probably have no need to put up the money for the battery needed to power that small multi-array-DSP radio link pumping data through filters, rakes and calculating forward error correction at 10-20Mbps (as well as fast power control to handle the amplitude..oops,sorry, assumed it was stationary) But burning rubber is also fun to smell, especially when locking the frontwheels to stay stationary. Ilmarinen.

To: carranza2 who wrote (7076)	9/6/2000 8:06:48 AM
From: EJhonsa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Did you notice Gilder's statement that Q would announce, before the end of the year, that HDR would support data transmission speeds "several-fold" in excess of the current 2.4 Mbps? Should these speeds be made available soon, what future do you see for W-CDMA, particularly in view of the costs for new spectrum? I'm not quite as optimistic as I once was on HDR for the short term, although I still think that it has a lot of potential for the long-term. The problem with HDR for the time being is that, unless you're planning on using voice-over-IP (not a smart idea for a number of reasons), it's a data-only upgrade. I'm beginning to think that, in the eyes of the carriers, 3G is just as much about voice as it is about data. GSM and TDMA operators upgrading to 3G are looking at potential capaity increases of over 6-10x what they currently have, and this will all take place in brand new spectrum. Even if you keep in mind that a good amount of this capacity might be allocated for data, not accounting for occasional patchwork (adding an extra base station or two in a highly trafficked area with weak coverage), 3G could become the last major wireless voice upgrade; and a couple of years after the "enhanced" versions of these expensive rollouts have taken place, carriers might start dropping costs to the point where fixed telephony would face a fate similar to that of AMPS. Suddenly the spectrum costs would only seem a little steep, rather than completely absurd. While this trend doesn't bode well for HDR in the short term, it's a highly positive one for the technology's long term potential; for while voice capacity demands might max out within a few years, I don't think the demand on the part of the carriers for additional data capacity will reach its limits for quite a while. It probably won't happen until dozens upon dozens of DVD-quality streaming video broadcasts can be transmitted by a single base station, and until wireless internet access can be pitched a full-fledged last-mile solution capable of handling thousands of high-quality MPEG and/or HDTV-based digital TV broadcasts, with enough bandwidth left over to provide a user with an internet connection comparable in speed with cable and DSL...all for somewhere around $20-$30/month. In other words, it's going to be a while, most likely well over a decade, thus creating a huge time gap between the point where carriers no longer need additional voice capacity and the point where they no longer need additional data capacity. Once the former of the two's reached, it'll make no sense for carriers to spend money on upgrades that boost both voice and data capacity when cheaper data-only upgrades exist through HDR and its derivatives. Add to this the fact that even though they're cheaper, they provide superior capacity and data rate gains, and it quickly becomes obvious what the best alternative is. Of course, there's other data-only mobile solutions out there. Motorola and Nokia are working on 1xtreme (http://www.motorola.com/aspira/pr39.htm - not set to hit the market until the end of 2002, about a year later than HDR), although I think it might be an inferior solution in terms of capacity given that it doesn't fully seperate voice channels from data (this could make it more flexible, however). Also, these companies have a conflict of interest of sorts considering that their primary focus is on attaining more lucrative 3G contracts. Meanwhile, some of the OFDM vendors seem to be making a lot of noise. Here's an article on Flarion, one of the more well-known OFDM developers. According to the article, Flarion's technology, which it calls Flash OFDM, is much easier to deploy than standard wireless solutions. However, its current peak data rate of 1 mbps seems to lag well behind HDR. Nothing's mentioned regarding its potnetial capacity when compared to other 3G-level solutions: techweb.com Eric