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: Clarksterh who wrote (16545)	10/16/1998 3:49:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>Ok, I'm confused. Didn't we discuss this before and you agreed that >a WLL network was likely to be substantially cheaper than mobile >one. Clark, what I agreed after reading your very good and informative postings, is that WLL is cheaper to install, more robust and easier to tune. What I disagree is that it would be "substantially" cheaper. Lets have a look at this: The infrastructure is virtually the same. Installation costs are mostly the same (acquiring the BTS sites, building them, fitting the masts, getting the transmission such as microwave links or cable, getting the power source, telling the families living in the building they will not get brain cancer). Savings come from the fact that you don't have to be so much concerned with quality. The operation is also easier and cheaper, as it is only Mqurice who has fitted the WLL into his car and the handoff problems and resulting dropped calls have not to be monitored and fixed. Its adequate to make sure that certain buildings are covered (plus Mqurice's drive in case his car breaks down just there). IMO a good analogy is that with WLL you build a Cadillac with a Yugo engine to save costs. Then you try to flog it to the third world to the less fortunate. - rajala