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 Corp. (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (1390)	9/29/2001 11:49:04 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9255

re: GSM coverage in North America << is there any map on the web on the "whole picture"?? (New Orleans, etc gaps) >> The best coverage maps are available from "Wireless ScoreKeeper" and use a map-based CD-ROM program. I used to have access to my former companies subscription. They are now owned by Global Information, Inc. (GII). The North American GSM Alliance & North American GSM Alliance (GSMNA) has this not so detailed one (doesn't show carriers) which is updated through 01/15/01 gsm-pcs.org Shows some of the holes but we do of course have a lot of desert, mountain, forest, lakes and rivers. Be that as it may, GSM is still building out in the US because of that whole C Block fiasco (and also some of the D/E/F stuff - financing had really dried up for these carriers - timing is everything). Another issue regarding GSM buildouts in the US was that the carriers with big bucks and name brand, for the most part selected IS-136 TDMA or IS-95 CDMA for digital buildouts (BellSouth an exception and to some degree PacBell which spun from an RBOC). SprintPCS (big winner in C-Block) was really pivotal in this. The decision between GSM or CDMA for them was purely a financing decision. I suspect Ericsson regrets not coughing up the financing. Nortel with both CDMA and GSM1900 wanted to see CDMA get a start - same with Motorola and of course AT&T (now Lucent) was pushing heavy for CDMA. Nokia couldn't play because they didn't have PCS1900 (GSM1900) infra back then. - Eric -

To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (1390)	9/29/2001 12:09:41 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 9255

re: EDGE When & How I'm a bit nervous about the comments attributed to John Byrne of Nokia by John Hoffman re Nokia EDGE terminal time frames: Message 16216878 Any idea who John Byrne is? I have a very interesting 1.2 MB PowerPoint 20 slide presentation called "The Performance & Cost Balance for EDGE Terminals" by TTPCom Ltd on file. I can't find the original link (which I think is burried somewhere on the UWCC site). I'd be delighted to e-mail it to anyone that PM's their e-mail address to me. It starts out: >> THE CHALLENGE * are you afraid that EDGE will be the "new GPRS"? - huge claims followed by even bigger delays - relax! EDGE will be different... - it’s a matter of DIFFICULTY, rather than COMPLEXITY - in GPRS everything was new, here we’re highly focused on one thing: the modem << It states (in re the Radio) that the "most challenging aspect is linearity of modulation" After discussing DSP Procssing Requirements it states: >> DSP SUMMARRY * "there’s no such thing as a free lunch" - you just have to decide how you’d like to pay for your meal! - you can’t get more bits down the same radio channel without paying * we pay in algorithmic complexity realised in (1) greater DSP power (2) more memory (3) increased silicon size / complexity (4) higher power consumption << - Eric -