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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10536)	2/24/2001 4:12:52 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 12823

Thanks Mike <EOM>

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10536)	2/25/2001 2:02:13 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Mike your interpretation is right. Regarding WLL, elmatador was referring to the dismal rollout of what was forecast to be a killer technology some eight or nine years ago. My commens: Exactly! Local loop voice over a wireless network. Qualcomm used to push their WLL capabilites heavily. Apparently it's dropped off the map for them and all other players. My commens: Precisely. elmatador sees P-MP (point to multipoint) BBFW technology may be heading the same way. Personally I have no solid opinion on this but I wish I did. My comments: I hope you will keep discussing it here for us to have a better understanding. As far as P-P (point to point) I find his ideas interesting. GPRS(upgrade to GSM that allows data up to 62.4 Kbps) is mainly a software upgrade over the digital mobile wireless network. In other words, it's relatively simply to increase bandwidth between the cell tower and the mobile customer. BUT in most cases, this can't be done without increasing the capacity to backhaul that traffic in what I call the metro network--Hence equipment upgrades. Therefore, elmatador's optimism about increased spending by the wireless SPs specifically targeting the P-P equipment space. Note: elmatador mentions UMTS but I'm fairly certain the iterations on the way to UMTS also need backhaul upgrades too. My comments: It is obvious that the increased traffic over the air interface, when it reaches the Node B it will not reach a fiber point. It has to be connected to a hub (VIA MW P-P) and them from there over fiber. My concern about investing in the P-P space--I wonder who is not in the space already? I thought everyone and their brother has done, or is in the P-P equipment space. If anyone more knowledgeable about companies in this sector cares to comment, it would be appreciated. My comments: So do I. Thanks for your clarifications, Mike.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10536)	2/25/2001 2:53:39 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

It is not only capacity Mike. We need to closely pack the Node B's. Today the BTS's are far apart because we operate 900MHz. Hence we have to 'fill the gaps'. So more MW PTP Point to Point are needed. Then there is optimization of transmission. There we need also requirement for new MW. The there is speed. All operators building all networks at once. I don't know if you had had a look at the DMC STXN Thread. But we are having a good discussion there on that. Add to that hte fact that operators will build first just coverage and only after demand increases they build capacity.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10536)	2/25/2001 3:00:11 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Three questions a UMTS operator will ask a vendor: (Nokia, Ericsson Lucent,Siemens or Nortel) Does the solution work? Is there vendor financing? Will deliver on time? Whereas in 2G a vendor i.e., Siemens, Nokia, Ericsson Lucent or Nortel, could amass a bundle of contracts and prioritise the implementation of the ones that charged the highest penalty. For 3G will be a different ball game. Just for comparison sake: compare the case of Mobilcom, below, with the mere 250.000 Euro Siemens and Ericsson are forced to pay for delaying an implementation phase. Here we can delay one phase, be penalised, then complete the following on time get a bonus of 250.000 and offset it against the previous charge of the same value. We can come on top -without any loss- just by getting the implementation priorities right. That will change: Dagens Industri, the Swedish business daily, writes that one of the reasons for friction between Ericsson and Mobilcom is the penalty provision for any delay: 0.5% of the whole value of the contract per day, yes per day, of delay. Anyone providing solutions as part of a 3G turnkey project, such the illustrated above for Mobilcom, will be bound by the same stringent rules that Ericsson would be tied in. DMC is going to play according the same tune. This is more important because of the coming bottlenecks. According to the Financial Times: "Producers may also have difficulty keeping pace with demand. One problem is that so many European countries have licensed so many operators almost simultaneously. Another is that the 3G networks will be rolled out more quickly than their 2G predecessors. Both require many more base stations." Booz Allen & Hamilton consultancy, says that, as a result, in western Europe by next year demand for W-CDMA base stations will be double the level of current demand for GSM stations. And investment bank Lehman Brothers forecasts that about 60,000 W-CDMA base stations will be deployed in Europe and Japan this year and about 135,000 next year, thereby generating "one of the challenging ramp-ups in telecom supply history".