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 (17550)	12/28/2001 6:07:47 PM
From: EJhonsa	Respond to of 34857

Why even compare 1X and GPRS? The proper comparison is between what Sprint already offers and GPRSux. Does it take four seconds for a WAP browser utilizing GPRS to make a connection? Do I get charged by the minute for GPRS downloads? Not a valid analogy. What's particularly troubling about this situation, however, is the fact that it's true that Sprint and Verizon have had a technology that's comparible to GPRS in upgrade costs, and perhaps marginally superior in terms of average download speeds, available to them for roughly two years now, and have opted to ignore it altogether. It's called IS/95B. If I remember correctly, SK Telecom launched the world's first IS/95B system in August '99, with its competitors all launching by the end of the year, and KDDI (then DDI and IDO) following suit early in 2000. With Nextel, a relatively small operator without a very strong consumer presence, being the only nationwide competitor with a robust packet data solution (I'll ignore AT&T's CDPD, with its walled garden apprroach to WAP, for now), and with the market for mobile data services still in the pre-natal stage, Sprint and Verizon decided to wing it. And in all fairness, between WAPlash and the limited capabilities of the average mass-market handset regardless of air interface, their decisions probably haven't hurt them too much. But with most MSM-based phones produced in the past two years containing IS/95B support, I suppose we'll never know what they might've been able to accomplish had they acted differently. Nextel's done some interesting stuff with Java on $150 Motorola phones; perhaps Sprint and Verizon could've reciprocated. But now, with each firm quite possibly pushing back their 1x launches until the middle of next year, it looks like, in a number of their markets, they each might be stuck with the patentedly absurd (no pun intended) position of pushing an inferior mobile data technology to their subscribers for the next few months. Eric P.S. - Happy New Year and all that. At one point, I thought that 2001 stood a good chance of being a transition year for the industry. Hopefully, 2002 will manage to fill in. But until the applications make themselves ready, the concept of the "transition year" could be about as elusive as the perpetual motion machine.

To: carranza2 who wrote (17550)	12/29/2001 12:18:14 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Yo GPRSuxter and QualcommHypster and sorta, kinda, Nokia shareholder, << Meet my argument that PCS wireless web speeds are comparable to GPRS's. >> Why? They aren't, and one is circuit-switched and one is "always on" packet switched. Using my old QCP 860, stationary in my home office, I could achieve about 10 to 11 kbps on a file transfer on Verizon without using compression. What do you achieve? Despite some attempted help from my headquarters computer jocks, I could never get my KYO 6035 configured for use as a modem with a Dell Latitude laptop running SE using Verizon's "Mobile Office" which uses a client based compression package called Venturi from Fourelle. No questions asked when I returned the product for a refund. Verizon has completely withdrawn the product for the 6035, and they are showing "out of stock, do not bother to order" for the other "data capable" products they offer it with. I am told that they had one heck of a time trying to support the product, which is one of the obstacles to wireless data adoption. I gave up using Verizon WAP long before I purchased the 6035 and the only data service I currently use is AvantGo although I used to use ProxiNet until it became whatever. WAP is useless and web browsing gets old fast on even a display the size of that of the 6035, and it's not a matter of data speed. One of my golf mates is a frequent visitor to Bellvue and Issaquah, WA and he is currently testing a prerelease version of a 4+2 1900 MHz GPRS PC Card Modem (already type approved to GSM Phase 2+ standard and FCC approved and about to ship commercially). In his hotel room near VoiceStream headquarters he is able to do file transfers at about 38 kbps and at his local office here in the Philadelphia MTA (but in a somewhat fringe area for VoiceStream reception) he can transfer at about 20 kbps. This is without data-compression and optimization ... which he will be testing soon. The MIS jocks at my midwest headquarters are waiting for the same modem card. They'll be testing it on VoiceStream as soon as it's received (and a 900/1800 version on Cellnet in the UK). They'll also test it on AWS when AWS launches GPRS there, and eventually a similar version of the card on Verizon. Me, I'm standing by waiting for to beta test 1xRTT "Express Network" for them on Verizon. I'm 45 miles from the Liberty Bell where the service is being beta tested, but it is not available here yet. << Why even compare 1X and GPRS? >> Because one is rolled out nationwide in the US and one is not, and right now GPRS is live and commercial on at least 10 times as many networks as 1xRTT worldwide. This gets interesting because theoretically Sprint and Verizon have a window of opportunity to offer faster data rates at possibly lower cost than those of GPRS to road warriors in the US for whom data speed has some significance, before the 3 major US GSM carriers move to EDGE. The later 1xRTT rolls out, the shorter that window is. The real comparison then will be between 1xRTT Revision A, and whatever speeds 3G EDGE is able to achieve. The difference is likely not to be appreciable although it is a little early to tell. For road warriors coverage will be as important as speed and so will security of transmitted data when connecting to an intranet or extranet. Cost of course always in play. Now, I'm talking about road warriors, not Josephine SixPack who will buy a < $200 phone. Josephine will be using WAP, and services, content, and applications (as well as cost) rather than speed are going to be important to her, IF she is going to become a wireless data user, and that is a big IF at this stage of the game regardless of whether or not she purchases a 1xRTT enabled phone. << The proper comparison is between what Sprint already offers and GPRSux. >> Sprint might as well keep offering it then ... heck, they are. WAPSux whether with CDMA or GPRS. Maybe 2.0 will change that. ... and oh, by the way, why don't you send me a text message using "Send SMS" (Sprint to Verizon) wishing me a Happy New Year. <g> << What do you think would happen to GPRS if it were to be installed in Korea? >> When it is installed in Korea it will be as the bearer service for WCDMA. << I know you like GPRS >> I know you "love" your phone, but I don't remotely "like" GPRS. Unfortunately by 2005, it will be the dominant wireless voice and voice and data service in the world despite the protestations of the head cheerleader on the "no cheerleading" Mod Q thread. Me, I'll be using the niche technology, 1xRTT ... by 2005 maybe 1xEV-DV. Sometime in 2004 I might even be able to ditch my VoiceStream sub and travel abroad with a single subscription. Now truth be told ... ... GPRS does Suck ... ... but ... ... it will suck less with each passing month and each passing year ... and unlike 1xRTT ... ... it will be ubiquitous. As I said earlier: 1xRTT where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu? Happy New Year and keep your fingers crossed on Qualcomm's earnings. You know how good they are at warning when they should warn, and I hate to here a grown man like you you whining like you did last quarter. <ggg> - Eric -