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: alee who wrote (92351)	6/10/2010 3:09:51 PM
From: pcstel	1 Recommendation Respond to of 196571

The problem is that the MediaFLO network is composed of high power (as in kilowatts) downlink only transmitters. There are typically only one or two transmitter sites per city. Cell sites run at much lower power and require handsets to be able to talk back to them at less than 1 watt of power. A MediaFLO network would not work for a private label cellular type of system. So the network build-out costs are not in the same ballpark. Yes, of course. This is well understood... And there is no doubt that it is a multi-Billion dollar undertaking. However, for the limited coverage areas. (Top 30 - 40 markets only) I believe the costs would be less than the 10 Billion dollars interjected here.) Remember, the goal is not to cover everyone. Only the population masses. It the same reason there are only Brick and Mortar Apple Stores in a given demographic area. You model a Private Label Network in a similar fashion. You are only building an IMS Core network. No Voice services. No voice mail, No interconnects to the PSTN. Take a look at the costs Metro PCS has incurred building out their network, and they provide voice and data services. They have service in New York, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Dallas, Detroit, etc... PCSTEL