To: Ramsey Su who wrote (11700 ) 6/22/1998 8:13:00 PM From: Greg B. Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
Ramsey, Montefiore said, "the way GSM and cdmaOne are developing their data applications, most people will be pretty well served by them. The killer applications for the kind of speed that 3G is about haven't materialized, and there are very few applications that will need that kind of power." "You have to ask: What are these multimedia applications? Is speed really that important? What's the killer application that has the mobility aspect? There are all sorts of rather whimsical applications, like video-on-demand, but would you really pay a premium for them? Our experience suggests you wouldn't."Well, that depends on the size of premium you're talking about.. Perahaps GSM operators see the potential for the high-data rate applications, but know better than to embrace a technically and economically compromised standard, because they don't want to end up as chapter 11 roadkill - paying too much for massive infrastructure replacement because somebody who economically benefits from it said so. Even the operator community warned the world in the trade press, suggesting that there was not enough operator participation in the standards definition process. So now it seems like these GSM operators are going to manage this awkward situation by playing "show me the money." This includes questioning whether they really need W-CDMA in the first place. It certainly then becomes a great reason for considering alternatives like the CDMA-GSM overlay. Maybe GSM operators are not going to acknowledge the wideband wireless market potential and, at the same time, criticize the all the efforts that went into specifying W-CDMA. Heaven Forbid! The other possible alternative is that there truly is little or no market for high bandwidth applications. Regards, Greg B.