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: foundation who wrote (32498)	2/17/2003 9:56:31 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197348

3Q is the present backslide date for EDGEfantasies: ERICY joins the fray - though with PC card - not a handset... NOK's long-late handset is now due 3Q as well - it's amusing how vendors coordinate their FUD... leaving plenty of time to backslide after this PR is long forgotten by most... At least ERICY omitted the performance histrionics... ========== Sony Ericsson Unveils Its First EDGE-Product and Announces Strategic Alliance With AT&T Wireless Monday February 17, 9:02 am ET LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 17, 2003--Sony Ericsson today further enhanced its global connectivity offerings with the introduction of its GC82 EDGE PC Card for Dual Band 850/1900 MHz GSM networks in North America. The GC82 EDGE PC Card will provide fast and easy wireless access to Internet and corporate intranet sites for laptop users. Sony Ericsson also announced a strategic alliance with AT&T Wireless (AWS) to support the carrier's roll-out of EDGE services in the United States. EDGE products and services will provide heavy data users and mobile professionals with the fastest wireless data speeds available. The deployment of EDGE in the U.S. marks an early step in taking advantage of real 3G networks, offering efficient and cost-effective mobile wireless services. The GC82 fits in the PCMCIA-slot of any laptop, providing a plug and play, fast mobile connectivity solution. Combining AT&T Wireless' leading position in wireless services, strong distribution network and expertise in mobile computing with Sony Ericsson's leadership in providing mobile connectivity products, the strategic alliance will enable the companies to offer an attractive solution to corporate organizations, i.e. operators, PC-Vendors and mobile professionals. Under the agreement, the GC82 EDGE PC Card will be jointly marketed and distributed by both companies. "Our deployment of EDGE will give our company the first true 3G network. The higher speeds this network delivers will enhance our already strong portfolio of data services," said Rod Nelson, chief technology officer for AT&T Wireless. "The EDGE PC card from Sony Ericsson will enable laptops to take advantage of the faster network speed, particularly for enterprise applications. We are pleased to be partnering with Sony Ericsson for PC card products, ranging from the current GPRS products to the new GC82." "This is an important step for us in expanding our offering of fast wireless connectivity and mobile computing solutions to the North American market, and the partnership with AWS ensures us that we can reach corporate customers and consumers in an efficient way", says Anders Franzen, Corporate Vice President Machine-To-Machine Com at Sony Ericsson. The two companies are working on a number of initiatives to deliver the benefits of higher-speed wireless services to customers. For example, in addition to the third quarter release of the GC82, Sony Ericsson currently offers the GC75 GPRS PC Card Modem, which is supported and certified by AT&T Wireless for sale in the U.S. EDGE was developed to enable mobile transmission of large amounts of data at high speeds, delivering up to three times faster speeds than GPRS. This means greatly improved downloading speeds, which are very useful for wirelessly downloading e-mails with large attachments. biz.yahoo.com

To: foundation who wrote (32498)	2/17/2003 1:24:24 PM
From: q1000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197348

Do you conclude that 1x and wCDMA are parallel and identical in their relative efficiencies at any frequency? Sprint presently uses 1x at 1900mhz - roughly the same frequency and characteristics as Euro 3G spectrum - do you conclude that it "would also be a problem" for Sprint to provide economic network capacity/coverage/performance? The point of my comment was to show that IJ was being far friendlier in his handling of WCDMA at the meeting this year in contrast to his ripping apart the arguments for WCDMA two years ago. By mentioning higher frequencies as the first problem, he was linking WCDMA with all other technologies and in effect defending it a bit. Regarding Slide 27 on Frequency Propagation, IJ said, “One interesting thing is that as you go up in frequency the effective area covered by a cell site is reduced… And so there is additional cost as you go up in frequency.” This IJ statement was the basis for my statement suggesting that 1x would also have “weaker propagation of the signal at 2.1 GHz.” I do not know why you jump from my statement to talking about 1x and WCDMA being identical in their relative efficiencies. I have no idea how many cell sites are needed in 1 square mile in a city. But if it were 10x cell sites for 1X at 800 MHz, IJ’s statement could mean that you needed 12x at 2.1 GHz. If WCDMA needed 15x at 800 MHz, IJ’s statement could still be true if WCDMA needed 50x at 2.1 GHz. My point again is that IJ was dealing very gingerly with WCDMA – presumably because he is working with the European carriers every day trying to solve their problems and does not want to demean their technology choice in a public forum. I did not hear him say anything that refutes what you have long been saying about WCDMA cell sites. Indeed his answer to a question about the number of cell sites for WCDMA question spoke of “some fairly dense provisioning of cell sites in urban areas – a limited number of urban areas – to support higher data rates” supports you analysis (IJ put emphasis on the “a limited number of urban areas” in his answer). On Sprint, I will try to restrain myself. I have been a Sprint user in the Bay Area for about 5 years. My calls are still dropped on some heavily traveled corridors that I use frequently - the SF Bay Bridge west of Yerba Buena and on the top of Fell Street in SF. I have no coverage on a heavily traveled city street in the East Bay which connects the flat lands of Oakland to the hilly Montclair district – the problem area is 5 or 6 blocks long and runs through a sort of canyon. My daughter has Verizon and has no problems in these areas or others. I have just about made up my mind to switch to Verizon which operates at 800 MHz in the Bay Area to obtain better coverage (including within my house which has thick stone walls) even though Verizon seems 6-12 months behind Sprint in introducing the latest model phones. I was surprised that IJ stressed that the 1x and 1xEV-DO would be offered in the 2G spectrum in Slide 28. It would seem to be easier to obtain regulatory approval to change the 3G licenses to permit the operator to use both WCDMA and 1x in the 3G spectrum than to change the rules for the 2G spectrum. In addition, there would probably be some capacity problems already in some of the 2G spectrum. However, I assume IJ proposed use of the 2G spectrum because it would be cheaper and quicker for the operators – they would use the GSM core and would simply add 1x equipment at existing cell sites to pick up the 1x signals. In fact, IJ said: “And so what we propose is that those other frequencies using the same antennas – cell sites – in fact fewer of the total, one can put on CDMA2000 with an expansion in voice capacity – considerable expansion – as well as the higher data rate capability because they can get by in less frequency than required for the WCDMA.” Thus, 1x seems to be more efficient in propagation than GSM since fewer of the cell sites need to be used. But if use of the 3G spectrum for 1x required that the cell sites be only, say, 20% more dense than GSM, I assume the costs for coverage comparable to the existing GSM would be much more substantial and there would be delays due to the need to do more cell site leasing.