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: slacker711 who wrote (2586)	10/21/2002 1:11:52 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 9255

This falls in the category of dumb questions since the abbreviation for basestation is BTS (base tranceiver station)....but I had to ask since I couldnt find this explicitly spelled out on the web. It looks like it all comes down to who is telling the truth about the amount of physical infrastructure that needs to be changed. wirelessweek.com slacker711 Chicago, IL: There has been quite a bit of press lately devoted to EDGE. I have read that older GSM deployments will require a new tranceiver for EDGE....do you know what percentage of a basestation's cost is associated with the tranceiver? Andy Seybold: Slacker--a Transceiver IS the base station for a cell site--so if a new one is requried it means replacing the one that is there with a new one--the antennas and cable can remain the same but the transceiver--or base station must be changed out--in the U.S. most of the new GSM systems are upgradable via software to EDGE--

To: slacker711 who wrote (2586)	10/21/2002 1:18:17 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9255

<< Doesn't it bother you when you read the various comments about the "complexity" of GPRS? >> There was a time when it did. It certainly doesn't now. I wasn't alone back then, however. It surprised even the vendors, but I don't think the vendors really expected (or wanted) GPRS to have as much forward compatibility to WCDMA as it actually does or WCDMA to require as much backward compatibility with and dependence on GPRS. GPRS was "all new". Unlike cdmaOne which was designed with mobile IP connectivity (however rudimentary), GSM was designed initially in the ISDN early days before TCP/IP. GPRS required quit bit more than just plugging in routers and firewalls. Add to that carriers inexperience with IP and packet data. IS95B (and PDC) although not deployed outside of Korea, Japan, and Korea really gave the carriers and vendors a heads up in deploying packet data in a mobile environment I am currently reading a very good new book called GPRS Demystified edited by John Hoffman who in real life is a truly witty and clever guy. John didn't write the book. It is a collection of articles on GPRS written by a variety of industry players on a wide variety of GPRS related subjects. It is very good overall and not overly technical. Darn it. I can't find the book right now. John has a good line in his introduction that I wanted to quote to you. When I find it I will. Back "then" it bothered me that Nokia was apparently late to "the GPRS non-party". It turns out that they weren't late at all, and there certainly was no party, but hopefully the party is about to begin, and hopefully customers will attend. I think that the GPRS experience has made the vendors (and carriers) smarter and sharper then they were. Part of the "learning" as they say. One of the real benefits of the ordeal is the interoperability labs that were set up and are now being utilized for WCDMA. I also think that the Open Mobile Architecture initiative is one of the great outcomes. << It was sold as the relatively easy upgrade path for GSM....just as EDGE is now being sold. >> I don't put the two in the same basket. EDGE is simply <g> a new modulation scheme building on GPRS with added QoS. << I think carriers are going to wait to actually see data traffic materialize before spending their precious cap ex on EDGE. >> That could be. Here is the rub though. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they aren't going to roll out WCDMA to the degree that you and I (or Nokia and Ericsson) had expected or would like until they can make a comparison of the comparative cost/benefit of one v. the other v. GPRS. - Eric -

To: slacker711 who wrote (2586)	10/21/2002 7:46:55 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 9255

Why is it that you remind of the guy on the left of "waiting for Godot", the noble servant?? Ilmarinen Quoting the words of the master he is waiting for to come back

To: slacker711 who wrote (2586)	10/21/2002 7:48:43 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 9255

<.where the hell are the location-based services> SMS message "where" to 15400, if you would have done it 2 years ago, you would have known where you were then.

To: slacker711 who wrote (2586)	10/22/2002 3:05:02 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9255

Review: Orange SPV - Microsoft Smartphone 2002 Stinger 'Canary' by HTC Jørgen Sundgot reviews it and the device sounds pretty impressive and I'm glad I have MSFT in my wireless basket along with NOK & QCOM: infosync.no One thing in the review particularly caught my eye: Whilst on the topic of OTA capabilities; it's also possible to update both the operating system and the radio stack of the phone wirelessly by means of Action Engine's software, so any patches or updates for the SPV can in theory be downloaded and installed without ever connecting it to a PC. As I've commented before that capability has been the Holy Grail of OTA capabilities and it is a potentially killer capability. Long talked about. Never implemented. Also as mentioned before Nokia Ventures is backing a Mountain View, CA (Nokia neighbor) firm called Bitfone that claims this capability. bitfone.com Action Engine website here: actionengine.com - Eric -