SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)7/18/2004 6:34:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 74559
 
Gee Bubba, you are really pushing my hot button! However, I will save my breath.

Mq



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)7/18/2004 6:46:20 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 74559
 
Ok, ok, I can't help myself. Just one little comment < But for ordinary phone conversation, the old technology is adequate, except for inherent glitches such as transmission interference and limitations in distance, and power required for signal transmission.

1. Just two years ago there was a debate between 3G and GSM, and it looks like 3G has the upper hand now. It this correct
>

The old technology isn't adequate, because spectrum is in short supply and it can't be wasted on GSM. A company supplying GSM service has to charge a lot more than a company supplying 3G service [called 3GSM sometimes, or W-CDMA, or CDMA2000]. That isn't good for subscribers, who will buy a cheaper and better service.

Two years ago there wasn't a debate between GSM and 3G. There never has been. 3G was always going to be CDMA, not GSM. GPRS and EDGE are tweaks of the GSM systems, but could never compete with CDMA. They were a way to spin out the GSM technology a bit longer, and drain more revenue from subscribers imprisoned in the olde worlde of TDMA technologies.

The whole world is going CDMA and GSM competes in much the same way as a horse and cart competes with a Lexus, an SUV, or an 18 wheel truck.

How's that for restraint. The remaining 100 pages of comment are available in other streams.

Mqurice



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)7/19/2004 2:52:22 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
<<Can you tell me what and how big will this 3G technology will become, and what are its limitations as well as what newer and better technologies are currently under development.>>
3G will not only become big nut will become THE technology. Problem is the time-scale. The infrastructure <<for ordinary phone conversation>> is still not only adequate but one can milk profits from it for a little while possibly all the way to 2010. Keep in mind that it is voice that makes money today.

<<I think the new technologies are better in speed as well as higher density.>>

The newer technologies can use the air interface to carry data. This will enable you to do computerless Internet and email access. Today we are used to fixed Internet connection using computers.

1. Just two years ago there was a debate between 3G and GSM, and it looks like 3G has the upper hand now. It this correct?

The world will still live with the TDMA GSM split even as we enter the wireless data networks. It will converge, but again the time scale. (I'll write a posting giving my views on what this thing is going to be in ten years time.)

2. And do you expect massive consolidations in the wireless telecom sector?

It should have happened already. It hasn't because the management of the two parties to be merged will be engaged in an exercise of managing themselves out of work. Hence they don't actively pursue it. Even Marconi is trying to survive on their own.

3. What's Wi-Fi and how does it compete (or does it?) with 3G? I think Wi Fi is limited in its range, and good for a very localized area, say within one office floor. It can eliminate wire connections? It complements 3G?

Wi-Fi will not compete with 3G but will complement it.

4. What's "PAS" UTStarcom infrastructure?

PAS or DECT or PHS are Wireless Local Loop access WLL or fixed wireless. Using the same amount of spectrum which can be used for data, (3G or CDMA) you can set up a base station and connect the houses, business in its neighborhood.

It was supposed to replace the cabling from the Central Office to theses premises. With the advent of pre-paid, cheap GSM terminals and ubiquitous mobile infrastructure it became cost effective to use GSM to connect the masses with telephony rather than create a parallel mobile infrastructure to sell telephony.

Thus many people (Africa, Latin America, Asia) will never hear a dial tone. They will only know mobile telephony.



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)7/19/2004 3:09:40 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Where mobile wireless will be in 10 years time?

Today we are in mobile wireless in the beginning of the jet plane age. Circa 1952. It took 40 years to get air travel dirty cheap as it is today. (Blame the government sanctioned cartel IATA). In mobile it will take about ten years to get dirty cheap. (Blame in the monopolist roots of the telcos. We could already be more advanced)

In ten years time, network infrastructure will be in place and there will be need to maximize its use. A clever multiband device will be used to connect no matter the air interface around you. Lets say I have a Wi-Fi enabled lap top. I would sense the next base station. It is a CDMA, it connects through it and will "tunnel" through that CDMA infrastructure, piggy back it until it reaches a Wi-Fi Point of Presence (POP) to which it connects.

If I have a mobile phone, say a GSM, I switch it on, it senses a Wi-Fi point of presence, since it is multi-band, it goes VoIP through that POP. Operators will be doing business in a similar manner Star Alliance or other bunch of airline companies which gang up together to fill their airplanes sharing codes. There will be a lot of interesting stuff that other companies will do to use the ubiquitous infrastructure available in 2014.

Some of the applications that people have envisaged during the last tech bubble will then be common. Like reading your electricity meter and send the result over the air interface, you can picture the rest...



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)7/30/2004 6:20:14 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 74559
 
<<What's Wi-Fi and how does it compete>>

Message 20351189



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)8/25/2004 7:13:49 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 74559
 
Self-configuring multifunction mobile terminals

8/25/04

Software Defined Radios (SDRs) are mobile devices that can be reconfigured over the air. Users could download new services from network operators, and even have voice and email services provided by different networks. The SCOUT project has studied how SDRs will be regulated and marketed.

"From the high level perspective, mobile terminal evolution will drive network evolution," says Markus Dillinger of Siemens AG and SCOUT coordinator. "SDR Mobile terminals will evolve more and more capabilities. You could be connected, simultaneously, to a Wireless LAN network and UMTS or GPRS. I could check my emails whilst receiving phone calls."

The project has considered some of the big questions and started the debate in new areas. These include user, operator and regulator requirements in cellular and ad hoc networks, new business models for the reconfigurable mobile terminal, and procedures for managing the downloaded software on reconfigurable terminals.

"Telecom regulators have an interest in the deregulation of radio spectrum, which in turn could lead to new services and new ways of providing services, and which could drive the EU economy one step further," comments Dillinger."At the moment, frequency bands are allocated according to services, but one might consider refarming spectrum so that, for example, UMTS could operate in GSM frequency bands."

Achieving a coherent European view on frequency spectrum use and deregulation is difficult. Each country has its own issues and regulation policies are markedly different in, say, France, Germany and the UK. Nevertheless, one of the members of the SCOUT consortium was the German Regulator, Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post, which generated a questionnaire directed at manufacturers: what factors are important, what should be controlled by regulators, do regulators have a role to play vis-à-vis SDR? This has opened up the debate to a wider public and put SDR on the agenda.

More than a standard issue
"We've also considered so-called adaptive multiphase standards," adds Dillinger. "If you have a mobile terminal that can be reconfigured via the network, why should we have to wait for a fully-matured standard to be drawn up? You could reduce the time to market if a minimal standard was published and, as new parts were agreed, mobile terminals could download upgrades as required."

Agreement on the original GSM standard was relatively quick, because it was a small group of European interests. UMTS has taken longer to become adopted partly because discussions had to take place on a worldwide basis. "The next generation, 4G, may well take even longer unless the approach we take to standards improves. It's difficult to please everyone and, in practice, not all aspects of the standard [or specification] may be in place within the prescribed discussion period," comments Dillinger.

Cognitive radio is a concept that takes into account the users' preferences and immediate environment. "The mobile terminal would realise that you don't want to download large email attachments while you're in a metro train, and would only download the message headers," says Dillinger. "The terminal could also decide to use a UMTS connection rather than a Wireless LAN connection because it provided a better service or cheaper tariff at the user's location."

Research shows that one of the most commonly-voiced user preference is the ability to roam across networks. For the SDR, this means not only roaming from one service provider to another, but from one technology to another: Wireless LAN, GSM, GPRS, UMTS, etc. "Roaming would very much be the enabler for SDR flexibility," says Dillinger. "What's more, if there's a need, reconfigurability could be used to provide even more services to the end user."

What technology should be used in these SDR mobile terminals? According to Dillinger: "Well-known standards, such as GSM and UMTS, are sufficiently stable and well-understood to have been committed to ASIC [Application Specific Integrated Circuit] early on,” the programming of which is usually fixed at the time of manufacture. "But there are other devices, such as DSPs [Digital Signal Processors] and FPLAs [Field-programmable Logic Arrays] that are eminently suited to providing the processing power in an SDR because they can easily be reprogrammed."

The conflict between the classical standards approach and the IETF [Internet Engineering Task Force] still dominates how SDRs will be controlled. "To what extent should SDRs be supported by networks," says Dillinger. "At one extreme, you have UMTS and GSM networks that are controlled by operators, and at the other you have Wireless LAN networks that are privately owned and autonomous. We need to strike a balance that will, ultimately, stimulate economic growth. At the end of the day, however, you have to prove that spectrum deregulation is beneficial."



To: BubbaFred who wrote (51631)9/15/2004 5:55:06 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 74559
 
<<do you expect massive consolidations in the wireless telecom sector?>>

European comment: Telecom suppliers
By Paul Betts
Published: September 14 2004 03:00 | Last updated: September 14 2004 03:00

In the civil aircraft business, two dominant aircraft manufacturers and three engine makers supply scores of airlines. In the telecommunications industry, nearly 100 companies supply no more than a dozen large customers who are themselves busy consolidating.


Something has to happen, says the head of one of Europe's leading telecom equipment and network suppliers. What and when is another question. But there are already three compelling reasons to trigger the long overdue consolidation of a sector now finally recovering from the technology bubble.

First is the need to spread rising research and development costs that have traditionally accounted for 14-17 per cent of annual revenues over a wider base.

Then there is the impetus given by smaller suppliers who managed to finance themselves before the market crashed four years ago. This has helped them ride out the crisis but pressure is now mounting on them to group together.

Last but not least, many companies risked going bankrupt four years ago but were salvaged by their bankers. But the bankers are increasingly anxious to return to their banking roots rather than remain shareholders and industrial saviours of telecom equipment companies. The quicker they can get out, the better.

Who will pull the trigger? To the chagrin of the Europeans and Americans, it may well be the Chinese who are showing a growing appetite to expand westwards in the telecom and electronics industry.

news.ft.com