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: Claude who wrote (19328)	4/3/2002 5:20:06 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

Claude, << is there no relationship between max throughput and capacity? >> Yes. << if you are capable of providing "X BPS", and instead you find the market is really for small apps that only need "x bps" then can't you service many more customers (apps) at lower speeds? >> Yes. << If so, seems to me that the REAL CDMA advantage is not speed (although it is one) but capacity. >> So far as I am concerned that is, and has been, the real primary advantage of CDMA - in our current wireless world, the real primary advantage of narrowband CDMA, whether we are talking voice, or data. At any moment in time, this technology is faster than that technology, but that is transitory. << 1X EV DO will only add to that advantage. >> It will. It is more efficient for data than 1xRTT is for data ... ... however 1xEV-DO in most implementations will be combined with 1xRTT for voice and will be used primarily for relatively high bandwidth applications, and the penalty is that 1xEV-DO is essentially taking available capacity from voice or fully integrated voice and data services. << QUACK <G> >> QUACK, QUACK <ggg> - Eric -

To: Claude who wrote (19328)	4/3/2002 5:30:01 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 34857

Take what I say with a barrel of salt as I'm no techie but simply someone who has picked up a thing or two along the way. is there no relationship between max throughput and capacity? Absolutely. This is what Dr. J. had to say on EDGE in November of last year: Now some people are talking about moving to EDGE, particularly here in the US. There are now forecasts I noticed that EDGE would be available next year, in quantity using the GPRS infrastructure approach. What will has to happen there is there has to be a new modulation per timeslot over the air and that allows, theoretically, a significantly higher data rate. One can take 60 Kbits per second per timeslot and multiply it by eight and get up to 480 but in fact one has to worry about two things, you have to put some coding to handle data so that number is probably similar to the number that was originally quoted for GPRS, somewhat over 100 kilobits per second. In fact I think we will be seeing something like thirty kilobits per second per timeslot, using all eight timeslots is not particularly economic so you will probably see something like 240 kilobits per second except for one other problem. Ant that is that the coverage of this advanced modulation is less that you can achieve presently with GSM and so either you add some more base stations or you accept a lower data rate. The other problem is that for susceptible to interference, so that the frequency reuse patterns are in question. Well, you might say that all this has been well tested and everybody knows exactly what those numbers are, I hope somebody does, but it is not quite clear yet. Some people are saying however that they have made their first data call using EDGE. So people are committed to moving ahead on it. I think they may have been oversold on A: the time for availability and B: the data rates that will be supported. Probably see the economics but we shall see.

To: Claude who wrote (19328)	4/3/2002 6:38:21 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Claude. So true. Broadly speaking, avg throughput determines the quality of the user experience AND capacity determines whether the carrier will make a profit providing customers with a satisfactory experience. GPRS and EDGE may uptimately provide users with a successful broadband experience while FAILING to succeed due to having very low total data capacity. A tower in a given cellular layout may successfully supply 10 broadband customers with a successful experience before seing a breakdown in performance whereas, a 1XEV RTT tower might supply 50 users with a satisfactory broadband experience. Clearly, in such acompetative environment, the CDMA operatou could charge maybe 1/5 the price for the same service. Seeing this problem, Voicestream is moving to supplement GPRS with 802.11b wireless in high density fixed locations. Voicestream has a contract with Starbucks to install 802.11b ---thus increasing their capacity on the cheap. However Boingo has positioned itself as a national source for affiliated independant 802.11b installations -- and as such will provide 802.11b high speed wireless to CDMA customers, GPRS customers, and any one willng to purchase their service. Clearly, the CDMA crowd still hold the economic high ground in this environment, but the Voicestream crowd can extend their network on the cheap.