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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mightylakers who wrote (26208)	8/29/2002 11:29:21 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 197272

Lakers, << Release A however has been driven by the full assembly of manufacturers and vendors ... Other than Samsung, who else is seriously doing Rel A now?>> I think I best ask you what you mean by "seriously doing". If you will answer that, I'll respond back. << I have to believe that the American carriers are pushing their vendors ... then maybe it's time to change your belief. >> I am not quite ready to do that yet. <g> << average rates from 50-70 kbps on PCS to 100 kbps. ... I don't know how could that be. I think I have told you about a year ago that Rel increases the peak rate of one particular user but not the overall throughput, I mean maybe a little improvement but not earth shattering. >> Well, you did say that. Now as much as I respect your inputs, I also have a great deal of respect for Sprint PCS's CTO. I have heard Mr. Valente say (on several webcasts) that with Release A PCS will increase average throughput rates across the network from average rates of 50-70 kbps to 100 kbps. and this is being echoed by the Chairman & CEO of the parent company when he talks about PCS 2003 phase 2 implementation early 2003. Somebody (some bodies) are setting this expectation. I'm going to assume (as dangerous as assuming can be) that the expectation is being set by Sprint PCS's 3 primary infra vendors one of which is also a significant 1xRTT terminal vendor. I further assume (as dangerous as assuming can be) that further input to this expectation is coming from PCS representatives that participate in TSG-C who converse with their primary vendors and Qualcomm. I'll further assume (as dangerous as assuming can be) that PCS has participated in tests or trials at their vendors labs with Release A enhancements (at whatever stage of development they are at) and conceivably on one of their own test switches. Now "somebody" having set their expectations, has caused them to in turn set ours, and the expectations of financial analysts, and wireless journalists. Their is going to be egg on somebody's face if those expectations turn out to be just more hype. << [Esprey] has said on numerous occasions that PCS will be upgrading to 307 six months after 1x launch ... let's see if they can get their Rel 0 work up to its potential after 6 months. >> LOL! I hear ya and that's why Valente's estimate (mid-year 2003) for Release A is more conservative than Esprey's phase 2 estimate, and he'd probably like to make it Christmas 2003 ... which is what I estimated in a previous post here. << I suspect that the American carriers are going to be "in a hurry". ... Other than public posture, do you have any other evidences of them doing so? >> No. But .... given that public posture, they are, IMO, going to expect it ready for field trial PDQ, particularly if QoS problems that Rel A functionality can alleviate drag out their timetables for Release 0 implementation. Verizon has postured less publicly but I guarantee you they will be just as demanding if not more so. But anyway, thanks for the conservative low hype heads up. Meantime, another question for you ... Now that Release A is progressing through early stages of commercialization, where do changes and corrections when made and suggested wind up? In addendum 1? Addendum 2? Addendum 4? I ask this because there is significant difference between the way 3GPP structures the standard (complete set of specifications) and publishes updates and the way 3GPP2 does it. Best, - Eric-

To: mightylakers who wrote (26208)	8/29/2002 11:40:49 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197272

Hey Mighty ---- Is it a reasonable prospect that advancing evdo services may take the bloom off of the allure of Release A upgrades? evdo provides true increase in throughput and peak data. And unless I'm mistaken, doesn't 1x + evdo provide simultaneous voice and data capability as well? Can Release A offer Korean carriers (or evdo destined Verizon and others) anything that is in addition to evdo upgrade capabilities? Is cash and CAPEX strapped Sprint - who keeps its outbudget light by posing with costly, complex, phantom, evdv - one of the few carriers who care? Thanks :-)