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 (14712)	8/31/2001 5:07:36 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Correct question :=) PBCCH, done this or way or that way, must be implemented to "harvest" the real goodies of packet networks and air interfaces (based on the legacy GSM, CDMA is even worse) But when will the voice/packet ratio of the cell/network traffic,capacity be at, beneath or above that edge?? (Note the E in GEran and WCDMA on the horizon) Turning on a incoming call, connecting and ending it is probably not a very demanding control channel task. (except when 10,000 youngster collect at that rock festival in that one cell) SMS messages is one more issue, the magic sauce the existence on the control channel. Me thinks the robustness of "GPRS" would be really compromised if there would be 10-100 millions of handsets roaming without a tested, verified packet control channel when that would be turned on, all handsets instantly switching to this unverified, optimal, complex feature. But now it seems handsets can be sold which will only use the tested and verified BCCH channel, more time to test the unverified, sometimes in the near future optimal and verified, PBCCH channels. --- Clearly DCCM did not now become "GPRS", as that bit wasn't approved nor voted on, withdrawn by Nokia (to reach the preferrable, finnish traditional, consensus decision, good for the future) But the duality of the "GPRS" control channel seem to have been approved as "GPRS" as PBCCH is not anymore _mandatory_ when someone throws the swith to activate it on the network,cell side. That is, the old handset go their old, tested, verified ways, and only the near-future , new handsets will "camp" on that new thingy soon to appear from the mast. And who knows, maybe even the new ones will be kind of dual and controllable, optionally now or mandatory in the soon to come future?? (door left open??) Ilmarinen pretty fun how the keyword is "optional", just like in investor "options". As well as "shorting", what Motorola tried their best at. "risk managament" is the real goodie, so difficult to describe in simple good-evil,right-wrong terms, what Nokia tried to bring up, with no approval for the "select this or that" thing. (a basic concensus rule is that no changes can be made until even the stupidiest has understand it, still waiting for Motorola, as well as Becket)

To: carranza2 who wrote (14712)	8/31/2001 6:05:30 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

c2, << A broader question which might be silly >> It is not silly. Essentially you are asking a question that carriers have been asking themselves and discussing with each other and with their infra and handset vendors over the last 45 days. The answer to this question relates to their timing for full scale commercial launches of their already commercially live networks, and sign off on integration testing of handsets they have on order, allowing their OEMs to ramp production. << If PBCCH is not used, isn't the whole packet-based nature of GPRS compromised? >> No. GPRS is a bearer service for packet data, with or without PBCCH/PCCCH. We are talking about CONTROL channels here. PBCCH/PCCCH are EXTRA PACKET CONTROL channels (in addition to BCCH/CCCH non-packet control channels for packet data - which is already implemented in launched and live GPRS networks) that allow optimization of a GPRS network and minimize congestion on that network when mass deployment is achieved. << is DCCM really GPRS? >> It would have been if acted upon but Dual Control Channel Mode (DCCM/A) is not anything (if my understanding of the status of the joint Nokia/Ericsson/Siemens/Vodafone proposal is correct). The proposal to amend the 'R97' standard (finalized in 1998 and amended since) with an optional dual-mode capability was withdrawn as I understand it last Monday following a week of discussion in the GERAN TSG meeting. Evidently PBCCH contains an enormous amount of functionality that can be divided into smaller features, but infrastructure that is currently being provided does not offer full PBCCH functionality and operators for the most part have not turned PBCCH on. IOT in the field is being conducted using BCCH/CCCH and available handsets have not been tested against a full, live, PBCCH implementation, and the issue that this created was the possibility of interworking problems with future PBCCH features as they are implemented in whole or in part. The e-mail reflector that Ilmarinen linked provides good background for the issues that faced carriers and vendors when they met in Naantali last week and this week. Message 16271581 Evidently by Monday a compromise was reached that allows vendors to supply a basic agreed upon level of requisite functionality in a GPRS handset with respect to packet signaling, and advanced "optional" features (leading to full compliance with the GPRS standard) that can be incorporated over time. This evidently will allow carriers to proceed with IOT while bringing PBCCH/PCCCH functionality forward on the network side without materially postponing commercial launches of GPRS networks. Vendors will in turn make decisions about whether or not to ramp production (and when) of GPRS handsets to avoid having to recall at a later date when PBCCH/PCCCH is fully implemented and turned on. ... at least that is how I understand it. No complete summary of what has transpired on this subject this week has been made public so far as I know but some research notes are evidently starting to circulate from sources other than CSFB and WitSoundview (where I picked up on the issue). Essentially what has transpired is that competitive vendors and carriers have once again demonstrated that they can work together cooperatively in committee to advance open non-proprietary standards and insure that the resultant technology implementation - regardless of which vendor supplies it - works in optimum and uniform fashion network to network. Thanks as always to Ilmarinen for the examples and explanations he has provided to those of us who are not deeply technically literate. If I have stated anything innacurately, I am hopeful he will correct. Maybe he already has since I started this post, but before I completed it (in between phone calls). Best and have a great weekend. - Eric -

To: carranza2 who wrote (14712)	8/31/2001 9:24:00 PM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

In the standard, a GPRS handset is supposed to use PCCCH / PBCCH if they are presented. The reason for the additional channels is that there will be more signaling msgs going on when you are running the packet show. And what you want is that you don't want to clogging up the CCCH / BCCH which are also carrying the signaling msg for the voice apps. But the problem with Nokia GPRS problem is that it just camping on the CCCH/BCCH and not doing the new channels right. When I heard this NOK GPRS interop problem about 2 months ago I didn't pay that much of attention, thinking it must be just a one time bug. Nor do I expect it can go to the standard body. So looks like from Nok's 1x interop to GPRS interop problems they find a quick and dirty way to deal with their own problems. That is change the standard to compensate their own incompetency. BTW, it is weird a Nok guy complaining standard is not "tested and verified" <ggg>