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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (27505)	7/24/2008 1:04:58 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Well, I seem to be the holdout. While I agree with you, Rob and others about eventual harmonization, I still see operators resisting. I think we'll see the dream of harmonization begin after the next 10 years. In the meantime, spectrum allocation is presently inappropriate, and the only commercial motivator driving operators is maintaining their revenue stream. Granted, they've made concessions for data-only plans (at healthy premiums) but statistics demonstrate that such plans are used by a small minority. Again, that's true largely because of pricing - but what possible reason exists for changing that practice? Rob makes a good point, here: " Intel isn't an infrastructure company and Ericsson has far less of a position in MIMO-AAS-OFDMA suite of technology developments and extension into smart distributed networking environments than they have in current CDMA wireless." Yes: Intel isn't an infrastructure company, Ericsson is and neither one of them is an operator. If you had to pick which one is aligning itself with operators' wishes, you'd say it's Ericsson, not Intel. In less mature markets, there's a credible argument that Wimax will be more successful, and exert more pressure on operators, presumably bending them more to harmonization. However, that remains to be seen. There's an equally credible argument that operators will be able to hold out, offering a premium service with better QOS that will remain relatively undisturbed by incursions for the next decade or so. Silicon Valley's vision of telecomms has the virtue of being opposed to anticompetitive behaviour and unsatisfactory performance by status quo players. For that reason, it tends to attract the attention of dissatisfied end-users. But the high ground and is still held by status quo stakeholders, and their commercial interests. They're the gatekeepers, aided by regulatory agencies and governments who've been paid handsomely for spectrum. The keystone of the gateway is revenue: for spectrum, allowed devices, and usage models on their networks. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (27505)	7/24/2008 1:27:00 PM
From: ftth	Respond to of 46821

from the article: "And IMT-Advanced calls for very wide channel widths. The technology needs 40MHz and preferably up to 100MHz channel allocations, according to Ekudden. Requirements of that kind are completely new territory for the cellular industry. Never before have such large spectrum allocations been needed. And that means spectrum availability will be a big challenge for IMT-Advanced technologies. [That's the understatement of the century!] "Regulators have to set aside more continuous spectrum to launch these systems," says Ekudden. "It's up to governments and regulators around the world to allocate this spectrum. The industry challenge is to ensure the new spectrum is made available for IMT-Advanced." " (I just thought this passage needed to be archived ;o).)