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: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (16246)	10/31/2001 12:47:05 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Cax, << The cingular upgrade to gsm makes sense >> It does. For them. Did you happen to listen to the Cingular Webcast yesterday? I found it very upbeat, interesting, and informative, and I am somewhat surprised that the many articles published after it, have not alluded to some of the key points. Bill Clift (CTO, I thought, did an excellent job of summarizing the 4 primary reasons that Cingular made the move. He of course, like Steve Carter, commented on the unamed pundits that said EDGE would "never see the light of day", and that may in fact be a 5th reason. << but I am still very doubtful about widespread edge deployment. >> It is a little early to tell how widely it will be employed. There certainly is a remarkable recent shift in Nokia's, Ericsson's, and Siemen's positioning of their product range now that EDGE has completed (1st phase) standardization, initial product is starting to ship, and demo handsets are abvailable. The 3 major eligible networks in the US have committed, the smaller players will follow suit, so now attention shifts to Latin America where EDGE has been in play since Anatel was involved in their spectrum decision process. Europe, EMEA, Asia, hard to say at this juncture, but since GPRS is such a capacity hog, it is likely to come into play once GPRS networks are fully deployed. Worst case, the presence of GSM-850 and EDGE in the GSM migration path changes the paradigm. << If they do, I no doubt will have to eat mega crow. >> I would never make ya do that. <g> For one thing, the quicker we get to CDMA (any flavor) the better, IMO. Given what Ericsson and Nokia have burned in WCDMA R&D I think Jorma Ollila and Executive Kurt Hellstroem would agree. << Anyone have an idea of the incremental cost of moving to edge? >> From statements I've seen from AWS (and a few elsewhere) perhaps $2 per licensed POP (assuming you have the evolved GSM core, IP backbone, and EDGE compatible base stations). << Seems to me the strategy is to get some sort of system that will do data comparable to 1x at the least cost. >> That is pretty much the strategy, coupled with the inherent advantages that the GSM platform offers over the cdma2000 platform (which advantages are narrowing, but not necessarrily in time). Obviously the GSM platform has some disadvantages as well. << I seriously doubt, GPRS is going to provide much competition to 1X, and those who want decent data rates will migrate to PCS and VZ. In order to preempt that migration, cingular may figure the cheapest route is edge. >> That remains to be seen and I'll be watching with you. << But edge still sucks in capacity terms and is only an interim move before moving to some flavor of CDMA. >> I refer you back to Bill Clift's comments on that subject (and Steve Carter's). - Eric -

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (16246)	10/31/2001 1:46:43 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

- EDGE cost for handsets, zero (just software in the receiver) - EDGE cost for modern base stations, somewhat better RF parts. Basic handsets only need to receive EDGE, not transmit. Base Station has to transmit EDGE, but modern, non-EDGE RF solutions are already almost good enough. Just as with all multy-level-QAM systems, carrying more bits per symbol (bandwidth), they will work when the noise level is low enough, channel is good enough. Another less basic factor is that the "cross-talk" from other channels,cells must be lower than what legacy GSM demands. (not many of them in US) That is, a smooth evolutional path where dynamic allocation of channels, timeslots, even legacy and new handsets,etc will give the final result for the users. At that point, almost OFDMA, "practical OFDMA in practice" Ilmarinen Please do not use the split of voice and data on different QCDMA channels as GSM is split on many more channels, better isolated. The answer to moving to "some form of CDMA" is fun in US, a matter of when those higher, wider, line-of-sight bands will be available. QCDMA needs narrow bands not to lose to WCDMA+GSM, but GSM/GPR/EDGE likes narrow bands even more, between a rock and a hard place. Except if one would reinstate monoplies on bands. (that Napoleonic cap) How is ZIF going??