Posted on 01/30/2002 10:18:44 AM PST by Defiant
OKLAHOMA CITY--Rural wireless operator Dobson Communications on Tuesday said it planned to upgrade to an advanced data-capable network based on the world's dominant wireless technology.
Dobson's decision follows two of its largest roaming partners, Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless Services. Cingular and AT&T Wireless are the nation's No. 2 and No. 3 wireless operators.
The three companies currently have digital wireless networks based on the TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) standard, but that technology cannot easily be upgraded with a high-speed data capability.
They have chosen instead to build a parallel network based on GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), the dominant wireless technology standard in the world. The advanced version of that is called GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) and it promises always-on, high-speed Internet connections.
Dobson said it also agreed to a new 10-year roaming relationship with Cingular Wireless. A company receives roaming fees when a customer from another service makes a call on its network.
The company provided no time frame for when the new network would be completed.
There are 2 main standards for cell phones worldwide. One, GSM is used in Europe (the Europeans prohibit other systems) and is the main system in Japan. TDMA, used here in the US by AT&T, SBC and some other networks, is a variant of GSM. The second standard is CDMA, a technology invented in the US, most identitied with Qualcomm, and utilized most notably by Sprint and Verizon.
For voice communication, both systems do the trick. For voice and data, which is the point of next generation wireless systems, CDMA is clearly superior. The reasons are technical, but suffice it to say that the engineering and technical gyrations that are necessary to squeeze data out of GSM are unbelievable, and in fact, they STILL have not figured out how to do it, in spite of years of claims that they will have 3G in place by some date in the near future.
Meanwhile, CDMA 3G networks are in place and running right now, in Korea, and will be built out in the US later this year by Sprint and Verizon.
It has been demonstrated that not only is an upgrade to CDMA 3G more economically efficient for existing CDMA carriers, but it is also more efficient for TDMA and GSM carriers as well. They could, if they so desired, rip out their existing infrastructure and install CDMA systems, and spend less money than if they were to go through the several layers of upgrades necessary to go from GSM or TDMA to 3d Generation W-CDMA. Yet, for 3 or 4 years, the GSM cabal, headed by Finnish giant Nokia, has obstructed this evolution, diminishing the prospects of CDMA systems while overplaying the capabilities of GSM's favored 3G system, W-CDMA. Why? Money, what else.
You see, Europe's big communications companies, Siemens, Alcatel, Vodaphone, Nokia, and Ericsson, among others, have billions invested in GSM. The sooner the switchover to 3G comes, the sooner they make their own capital equipment obsolete. So, it is in their interest to drag out the transition. In addition, at all costs, the Euros do not want Qualcomm's CDMA in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter. Currently, GSM's patent rights belong to a consortium of the big European players, who split about 15 percent or so of the cost of each phone and all cellular equipment between themselves. This is a gravy train that just gets better with each new phone design that consumer just HAVE to have, generating a new royalty payment.
The cabal is, in effect, banning CDMA from Europe and decreeing the implementation of W-CDMA, a standard which is cobbled together from technology contributed by members of the cabal, but at the same time has CDMA as its core. They hope that by putting a tweak here, a change there, they can claim a portion of the royalties, and thereby force Qualcomm to lower or abandon its own royalty rights for the core CDMA. Keep in mind that NONE of these tweaks actually enhance the system. They are there for one reason only--to muddy Qualcomm's rights.
If they can somehow force a compromise on royalties (which Qualcomm has so far held steadfast on) then the GSM cabal can keep the royalty gravy train going with the next generation of phones. They can control the standard, and they can slow down the implementation of 3G to a pace that allows them to maximize their capital investment, to the detriment of consumers. As part of this plan, it is important not to let CDMA gain traction by getting into too many markets, such as China and Latin America. Once the number of suscribers gets high enough, manufacturers will start concentrating more on CDMA products, and a snowball effect will be created.
The closest parallel to this situation is the PC wars between Apple and Microsoft. The difference this time is that the owner of the better technology is willing to license use of its product to anyone (Apple's mistake was trying to control the hardware and software), and that the owners of the lesser technologies are foreigners taking jobs and money out of the US. When people pick GSM, TDMA or W-CDMA, they are siding with a European consortium, and against a technology developed in San Diego, and which is supported by homegrown outfits all over the nation. It is downright unpatriotic to choose Euroland over a better, cheaper American technology, and if more consumers understood all the history and intrigue involved in this business battle, they probably would not.
To summarize, GSM and its successor, W-CDMA, have higher royalty rates than CDMA; it is less efficient, and more expensive to use as the basis for 3d Generation; W-CDMA is not currently ready for deployment, and the intellectual property rights are in doubt. It is controlled by foreign carriers, who use trade restrictions to keep out competition from CDMA, while the US imposes no similar restrictions on W-CDMA, GSM or TDMA. The GSM cabal has taken unfair business practices to new heights (or lows) in manipulating foreign governments in Asia and elsewhere to try to keep CDMA from gaining traction.
It is therefore a disappointment every time a US carrier sides with the GSM cabal. The better technology may still win out, but that would be in spite of GSM toadies in the US business community.
I recognize Nokia -- they're the folks that make the phones that actually work, except when the batteries fall off while you're talking. They seem willing to make phones for any system since I have seen them for Sprint, Verizon, Cingular and ATT.
I'm pretty sure that the main economic concern for the folks deciding which system to go with is the power cost of running the towers. This would be affected by the broadcast frequency and the compression technology that allows many channels in the alloted band.
Geex ... you didn't quite nail it at all.
What you cited actually plays very little in making the decision as to which technology to employ.
THERE ARE currently only two bands in use in the USA - and EACH air-interface/RF standard is going to make the most of any compression schemes ...
The choice of mode (again, the "Air-interface standard") is coming down to 'modes' that area compatible with Europe's (GSM format) systems.
First of all, what do 'satellites have to do with it? I don't know of ONE single cell site that has ever been 'backhauled' to an MTSO via a 'space link'. Microwave, yeah. T-spans, yeah. Satellite - no.
Secondly, you have better revise your idea of 'broadcasting' not needing/using a CDMA/DSSS mode - the new XM service uses this mode exclusively ...
Thirdly, there are more digital channels in service on those cell sites you mention than you realize - with the 'cellular' carriers (at 800 MHz as opposed to PCS at 1800 MHz) the policy is to leave allocated a number of analog channels (based on observed traffic numbers) so as to serve 'roamer' traffic. The *real* subscriber traffic in the US is now down using digital. Analog just *doesn't* allow the utilization of the spectrum that are demanded of today's wireless systems.
Whatever the technical details, it boils down to having the greatest possible bandwidth available to sell, since the frequencies are regulated. Digital (using any system) is cheaper than analog because it enables more compression. When you say that one digital technology is better than another, it implies that it squeezes more information into the same bandwidth.
Geez kid ... you're talking to some sales types who received a few hours of training for their job ... they aren't the engineers or the system designers or the analysts who review the numbers up front in the business office where all these 'costs' are actualy seen and evaluated each month!!!
Okay, fine. Believe what some ex-shoe salesman-type tells, you ...
Satellites are equivalent to line of sight. Digital comms don't diffract well into and out of forrested valleys. The mind has a hard time filling in the parts that are missing. Analog comms are better at this. Digital sounds like spotty spurts of unrecognizable sound. At least I can make out the analog transmissions.
XM is satellite radio, there's a requirement there to maximize band usage to conserve resources. There's a centralized controller.
Go back to your whinerhole, if you knew anything , you would post the fact that CDMA and TDMA are air interfaces, not platforms. The TDMA platform's correct name is IS-136, the CDMA platform's correct name is IS-95 .If GSM is so bad, why are Cingular and AT&T both switching? Because GSM has major advantages that CDMA will never overcome, such as open-faced architecture. Get a life.
Is Cricket service analog or digital?
The Cricket network is digital, specifically it is based on CDMA technology.
I prefer to look at a 5 year chart comparing Qualcomm to ATT.
OK, how about WorldCom?
OK, how about the big cheese, MicroSoft?
Wow, QCOM has twice the growth of MicroSoft?
Yeah, if you were an idiot, and bought QCOM at 150 in late 1999, you lost your shirt. But then, you were gambling, playing momentum, and you deserved to get taken. Investing requires some knowledge of fundamentals, and a long-term outlook. If you have that with QCOM, you got in early, and made a bundle.
At the end of 1999 there was a huge, artificial blip as the bull market spent its final fury, but when the market settled down, QCOM went to a reasonable level, and it has been trading there ever since. It has been fluctuating between 45 and 70 for the past year, and will probably continue to do so, until 3G takes off. Then...who knows? If I did, I'd be rich.
Oh, yeah, I am.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.