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: 100cfm who wrote (37366)	1/2/2001 11:48:05 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

100, << One thing that did concern me was the removal of the statement of 1X being 4-5 times more efficient then GSM ... If it isn't 4-5 times better, what is it? >> Network capacity planning has a host of variables, so metro v. suburbs v. rural, v. terrain, etc. all enter in to it. The acceptable number is 2 to 4 (depending on the variables). I guess under certain conditions it might even be 4 to 5. 3.5X is acceptable and 3X is probably a safer acceptable. Things get more confusing in the 3G world. 1xRTT doubles voice capacity (not data) but then again W-CDMA supposedly has comparable voice capacity. Good news is that CDG has eliminated something that is potentially misleading and has been at the heart of a controversy for some time. << And should that not be of concern to us? >> No. 3X GSM certainly makes CDMA much more spectrally efficient than GSM, and GPRS doesn't change spectral efficiency. What is perhaps of more concern is how this translates into how much less (or more) CAPEX is necessarry to build out CDMA v. GSM in a greenfields environment. Nobody seems to really know. That is why AWS contracted Strategis fall of 1999, to try to determine the relative costs. This is not a study that will ever be public, but for sure it is shared with UWCC partners. CDMA has more expensive power control elements (some say) and has sufferred from a lack of "economies" of scale. Qualcomm or CDG presented a slide in Brazil in June that adressed this issue if I recall (showing costs of CDMA having sharply declined because of econoies of scale) - Slide is called "Capital Spending Per Subscriber Gains": cdg.org Note - There are a couple of other interesting slides in this presentation: * Subscribers end of 2000 are projected at 100,000. This slide was presented AFTER Korean subsidy ban was in effect and it was unrealistic to project 100,000 subs. Source IS NOT Volpe Wheelan Brown. Hopefully we will reach 90 million (80% YOY). * One slide shows that the CDMA air interface will prevail after 2005 ... so there is your 2006 (one year earlier than my projection). Hope they are correct. Source is Volpe Wheelan Brown (credible) Forecasting is always "Crystal Ball Gazing", however, when this far out. << We were believing in something that wasn't true >> Caveat Emptor. You might want to reread the article from "Wireless Week" I posted a month back about CDG: 127.0.0.1:3456/SI/stocktalk/readmsg.aspx?msgid=14934197 Warning: It contains these sentences: "But how has CDG contributed to CDMA’s expansion? And how, in the process, has it become the group some folks love to hate?" "Unfortunately, CDG and its members exacerbated the problem. "Underpromise and overperform" weren't in their vocabulary. Credibility was strained. Some viewed CDG as an extension of Qualcomm’s marketing department." Still it is a good read and CDG is getting better at lots of things, IMO. Also a pretty good article quoting a very candid Perry LaForge here: americasnetwork.com GSMA is an organization much like CDG. It is of course larger and better funded (established longer and more carriers funding). I have always found that articles and information posted on GSM's web site seem to be more objective, and claims are stated more conservatively than CDG's. I cross check detail. In between lies reality. It helps prevent "over exuberance", for which there is no cure. - Eric -