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: pyslent who wrote (31489)	1/21/2003 8:47:45 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197067

What are the pros and cons of overlaying GSM1X compared to operating independent GSM and CDMA networks in parallel? Good question. I am not a telecom engineer, so I want to be careful to not say more than I know. That being said, I'll take a stab at it, but you seem to have as good an understanding as I do so I may not help you much<g>. GSM1x, as you indicated, saves money on the back end by not needing to build out a parallel network. Since 1x was not designed to run on GSM MAP, I am assuming that there are compromises made to make it work. I don't know what they are, or what effect on end users or carriers they have, but I have a hard time believing they aren't there. I asked once on this board about them but did not get the answer I was looking for. If your goal is to move to CDMA2000, do you really want to be saddled with a GSM MAP core network when you're done? If the compromises were significant enough to make you want to convert to pure CDMA when your customer base has moved, you would have spent an awful lot of money on GSM1x that gets trashed. GSM1x is new and unproven. It is not the sure thing, slam dunk that native 1x is. Does a carrier really want to take a risk on new technology? Especially carriers running from or challenging WCDMA, a highly touted technology the whole world was behind but it fizzled anyway? Why waste time testing GSM1x for months/quarters when you can be using that time rolling out 1x native? If you are a carrier in a country that restricts spectrum, GSM1x might be an easier sell to regulators than 1x native. No sure thing, but with GSM in the name it can't be all bad, right?<GGG> GSM requires a SIM. I'm not sure if GSM MAP requires the SIM but I think so. If that is the case, then GSM1x is not as good as 1x native when it comes to international CDMA roamers because they're native CDMA phones won't have SIMs. Of course the carrier could build their CDMA 1x native to require a SIM and take away this advantage, but will they? My guess is that GSM1x was developed back when Qualcomm thought it could be used as a transition strategy with a long lead over the transition strategy of dual mode GSM/CDMA phones. Now, with the dual mode phones so close, I bet the only place GSM1x still has juice is Europe, and that is political not technical. I welcome feedback and alternate points of view on this from all threadmates, not that my not wanting it would stop you<g>.