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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: METMAN who wrote (8588)	2/17/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I am a little perplexed reading the economics of overlay discussion. The first paragraph below states that the GSM-CDMA solution costs "just 38% of the cumulative capital expenditure and 28% of the annual operational expenditure in year 2005" of a GSM expansion at 8kb/s. It then goes on to say that for greenfield, a GSM-CDMA scenario "brings more modest cost benefits of approximately 10 percent for 13 kb/s and 30 percent for 8 kb/s as compared to GSM microcells. " I gather this is just poorly written and means that while for overlay the savings are 100%-38% or 62% for capital and 100%-28% or 72% for operational expenditure, the savings for greenfield are only 10% and 30% for 13kb/s and 8 kb/s respectively (and doesn't distinguish between capital and operational costs). The third paragraph seems to support this interpretation by saying the savings are 53% for overlay and 16% for greenfield. Anybody else confused by the way this was reported? The text follows: * For the overlay scenario, a capacity driven situation, a GSM-CDMA (13 kb/s) solution costs just 38 percent of the cumulative capital expenditure and 28 percent of the annual operational expenditure in year 2005, as compared to a GSM microcell solution (reuse factor of 12 to 15). Differences are even more pronounced when considering GSM-CDMA 8 kb/s solution. * For the greenfield scenario, a coverage driven situation with medium- traffic demand, a GSM-CDMA solution brings more modest cost benefits of approximately 10 percent for 13 kb/s and 30 percent for 8 kb/s as compared to GSM microcells. This scenario utilized very conservative assumptions; for example, a two-decibel (dB) link budget difference between GSM and CDMA was used. It is recognized that for equivalent voice quality, a larger link budget difference is appropriate. Additionally, spectrum constraints (5 MHz only) or higher traffic demand increases the cost benefits of GSM-CDMA. * In both "greenfield" and "overlay" network scenarios, the GSM-CDMA solution brings significant spectrum savings: 53 percent and 16 percent respectively. The extra spectrum can be used for new services, such as wireless local loop or data, or to achieve higher subscriber penetration.