OT – Windows 7 Phone, MeeGo, Android, etc…

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=AN]Flu, personally, I think the market will be big enough for all of them and having many big players competing will be great for consumers and 3rd party app developers like you and me. I’m enjoying my dessert too.

CDMA ENG, I have no doubt they limit bandwith at opening, but once software start to demand more bandwith, they’ll release it. Imagine streaming HD contents and everything being stored on the “cloud”.[/quote]

Well AN your are assuming that the carriers are holding-out on the customer (at least that is what it sound like your are proposing) in terms of Bandwidth. That is not true. Problem still comes down to a backhaul issue and what the consumer is willing to pay. ATT could give the consumer what they want in terms of bandwidth but they can’t afford it. The software is already demanding it and the carriers don’t like it. This is the crux of the problem.

That is why Verizon is going fiber directly to thier BTS’s. Its cheaper bandwidth on the IP cloud than traditional LEC (local exchange carrier – XO communications and such) backhaul. Clearwire is trying to avoid all LEC activity by building a microwave backhual system but in cities such as SD this is very difficult but the ONLY way they can deliver high data rates at “normal prices”. Currently thier bandwidth requirements are such the business model simply would not work if you had to pay for traditional LEC services. All companies is some form are trying to do something like this but it is extermely difficult from a logistics stand point (zoning big ugly dishes, low antenna hieghts due to clutter, ATTs slow response for new service in certian areas).

Just to give a idea… These device demand for bandwidth look soemthing like f(x)=1/2 X^2… over the last 2 years…

A disturbing trend. Also you need lots of network equipement at the switch level to support this… Equipment that goes idle after 5 PM. Lots of unused after hour equipemnt sitting idle… Carries don’t like this.

Then remember, after all we are PIGGs, that as the demand for a object rise and supply becomes more limited that the price for the object will also rise. I look at capacity charts everyday and

There are some many dynamics to this bandwidith arguement that is difficult to discuss them all.

Sorry for a bit of a ramble…

And AN… the EVDO part of a Lucent base station is also called… The AN… 😛

CE

[an]

CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?

[an]

CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?

[an]

CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?

[an]

CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?

[an]

CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?

[briansd1]

The reasonable price part is what I’m trying to figure out.

Voice prices are declining. Data prices have increased. But how much more can the carriers charge to make their capital investments payoff?

I don’t think that most consumers are willing to pay $30 per month just for the data plan on their mobile phones.

[briansd1]

The reasonable price part is what I’m trying to figure out.

Voice prices are declining. Data prices have increased. But how much more can the carriers charge to make their capital investments payoff?

I don’t think that most consumers are willing to pay $30 per month just for the data plan on their mobile phones.

[briansd1]

The reasonable price part is what I’m trying to figure out.

Voice prices are declining. Data prices have increased. But how much more can the carriers charge to make their capital investments payoff?

I don’t think that most consumers are willing to pay $30 per month just for the data plan on their mobile phones.

[briansd1]

The reasonable price part is what I’m trying to figure out.

Voice prices are declining. Data prices have increased. But how much more can the carriers charge to make their capital investments payoff?

I don’t think that most consumers are willing to pay $30 per month just for the data plan on their mobile phones.

[briansd1]

The reasonable price part is what I’m trying to figure out.

Voice prices are declining. Data prices have increased. But how much more can the carriers charge to make their capital investments payoff?

I don’t think that most consumers are willing to pay $30 per month just for the data plan on their mobile phones.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=AN]CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?[/quote]

Currently… Yes.

And of course your defintion of bandwidth at a reasonable price is open to interpurtation.

I think the biggest evidience I have towards this idea is the fact that ATT and RIM have both brougth this up.

Sitting on someones desk at RIM is a paper I authored about a year ago simply chornicalling how the device works within network. The device is a capacity HOG. Not in the fact that its demands are great but in terms of how many time it hits the network and due to the fact it is a very popular/numerous device. Carriers handset test groups were not thinking about this before they approved these devices. If it worked to a certian standard as a phone fine… release to the public… But now carriers are waking up to this.

This paper got me calls from VPs of the company… Didn’t get me a raise or anything worthwhile though… 🙁

In actuality your CDMA based PDA is not a phone. It is a data device that dive down to the voice network every once in a while to behave like a phone.

UMTS is doing both at the same time but it is primarily a data device behaving like a phone as well.

Here is the thing… Everyone wants to talk about how fast the air interface is… ATT claims the fastest… which is true… But who cares! If I am providing backhaul to the BTS for data using 2-T1s then all I can get per user is max is like roughly 3 Mbps down. It all depends on the amount of T1s a carrier is willing to put at a site. And I guarntee right now that is only what the carriers are doing.

It all about the backhaul cost…

I am not as good with UMTS as CDMA but I am sure the rates are comperable. I have seen some drive test data that seems to indicate this.

Now UTMS shares a common channel with voice so they may have more T1s at a site then what I mentioned. But I know Verizon and Sprint with thier DO data channel at best can only untilize 2 T1s per channel and in low use areas only 1 T1.

T1s are expensive and account for a major part of the OPEX. Plus many of these T1s go cold after 5 PM. Carriers simply do not want to spend the money to provide some guy in downtown mopping the floors at 9 PM with 5 Megs of data service.

It is simply cost prohibitive.

Carriers will not provide fantastic speeds until the OPEX of backhual is greatly reduced… and this will take some time…

I know this is a bit of a ramble…

I simply am not a great writer…

Hope you found this of some use.

FLU and AN feel free to PM me and I could share some details that I can’t in open forum.

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=AN]CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?[/quote]

Currently… Yes.

And of course your defintion of bandwidth at a reasonable price is open to interpurtation.

I think the biggest evidience I have towards this idea is the fact that ATT and RIM have both brougth this up.

Sitting on someones desk at RIM is a paper I authored about a year ago simply chornicalling how the device works within network. The device is a capacity HOG. Not in the fact that its demands are great but in terms of how many time it hits the network and due to the fact it is a very popular/numerous device. Carriers handset test groups were not thinking about this before they approved these devices. If it worked to a certian standard as a phone fine… release to the public… But now carriers are waking up to this.

This paper got me calls from VPs of the company… Didn’t get me a raise or anything worthwhile though… 🙁

In actuality your CDMA based PDA is not a phone. It is a data device that dive down to the voice network every once in a while to behave like a phone.

UMTS is doing both at the same time but it is primarily a data device behaving like a phone as well.

Here is the thing… Everyone wants to talk about how fast the air interface is… ATT claims the fastest… which is true… But who cares! If I am providing backhaul to the BTS for data using 2-T1s then all I can get per user is max is like roughly 3 Mbps down. It all depends on the amount of T1s a carrier is willing to put at a site. And I guarntee right now that is only what the carriers are doing.

It all about the backhaul cost…

I am not as good with UMTS as CDMA but I am sure the rates are comperable. I have seen some drive test data that seems to indicate this.

Now UTMS shares a common channel with voice so they may have more T1s at a site then what I mentioned. But I know Verizon and Sprint with thier DO data channel at best can only untilize 2 T1s per channel and in low use areas only 1 T1.

T1s are expensive and account for a major part of the OPEX. Plus many of these T1s go cold after 5 PM. Carriers simply do not want to spend the money to provide some guy in downtown mopping the floors at 9 PM with 5 Megs of data service.

It is simply cost prohibitive.

Carriers will not provide fantastic speeds until the OPEX of backhual is greatly reduced… and this will take some time…

I know this is a bit of a ramble…

I simply am not a great writer…

Hope you found this of some use.

FLU and AN feel free to PM me and I could share some details that I can’t in open forum.

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=AN]CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?[/quote]

Currently… Yes.

And of course your defintion of bandwidth at a reasonable price is open to interpurtation.

I think the biggest evidience I have towards this idea is the fact that ATT and RIM have both brougth this up.

Sitting on someones desk at RIM is a paper I authored about a year ago simply chornicalling how the device works within network. The device is a capacity HOG. Not in the fact that its demands are great but in terms of how many time it hits the network and due to the fact it is a very popular/numerous device. Carriers handset test groups were not thinking about this before they approved these devices. If it worked to a certian standard as a phone fine… release to the public… But now carriers are waking up to this.

This paper got me calls from VPs of the company… Didn’t get me a raise or anything worthwhile though… 🙁

In actuality your CDMA based PDA is not a phone. It is a data device that dive down to the voice network every once in a while to behave like a phone.

UMTS is doing both at the same time but it is primarily a data device behaving like a phone as well.

Here is the thing… Everyone wants to talk about how fast the air interface is… ATT claims the fastest… which is true… But who cares! If I am providing backhaul to the BTS for data using 2-T1s then all I can get per user is max is like roughly 3 Mbps down. It all depends on the amount of T1s a carrier is willing to put at a site. And I guarntee right now that is only what the carriers are doing.

It all about the backhaul cost…

I am not as good with UMTS as CDMA but I am sure the rates are comperable. I have seen some drive test data that seems to indicate this.

Now UTMS shares a common channel with voice so they may have more T1s at a site then what I mentioned. But I know Verizon and Sprint with thier DO data channel at best can only untilize 2 T1s per channel and in low use areas only 1 T1.

T1s are expensive and account for a major part of the OPEX. Plus many of these T1s go cold after 5 PM. Carriers simply do not want to spend the money to provide some guy in downtown mopping the floors at 9 PM with 5 Megs of data service.

It is simply cost prohibitive.

Carriers will not provide fantastic speeds until the OPEX of backhual is greatly reduced… and this will take some time…

I know this is a bit of a ramble…

I simply am not a great writer…

Hope you found this of some use.

FLU and AN feel free to PM me and I could share some details that I can’t in open forum.

CE

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=AN]CDMA ENG, I thought you were trying to say in your previous post that the carrier would try and limit the bandwidth you can consume:

[quote=CDMA ENG]The carriers will only give you enough to keep you somewhat happy. Devices will be regulated in the future, in my humble opinion, to limit thier bandwidth.[/quote]
Sorry if I miss understood you. So, are you trying saying that carriers are physically incapable of providing bandwidth at a reasonable price?[/quote]

Currently… Yes.

And of course your defintion of bandwidth at a reasonable price is open to interpurtation.

I think the biggest evidience I have towards this idea is the fact that ATT and RIM have both brougth this up.

Sitting on someones desk at RIM is a paper I authored about a year ago simply chornicalling how the device works within network. The device is a capacity HOG. Not in the fact that its demands are great but in terms of how many time it hits the network and due to the fact it is a very popular/numerous device. Carriers handset test groups were not thinking about this before they approved these devices. If it worked to a certian standard as a phone fine… release to the public… But now carriers are waking up to this.

This paper got me calls from VPs of the company… Didn’t get me a raise or anything worthwhile though… 🙁

In actuality your CDMA based PDA is not a phone. It is a data device that dive down to the voice network every once in a while to behave like a phone.

UMTS is doing both at the same time but it is primarily a data device behaving like a phone as well.

Here is the thing… Everyone wants to talk about how fast the air interface is… ATT claims the fastest… which is true… But who cares! If I am providing backhaul to the BTS for data using 2-T1s then all I can get per user is max is like roughly 3 Mbps down. It all depends on the amount of T1s a carrier is willing to put at a site. And I guarntee right now that is only what the carriers are doing.

It all about the backhaul cost…

I am not as good with UMTS as CDMA but I am sure the rates are comperable. I have seen some drive test data that seems to indicate this.

Now UTMS shares a common channel with voice so they may have more T1s at a site then what I mentioned. But I know Verizon and Sprint with thier DO data channel at best can only untilize 2 T1s per channel and in low use areas only 1 T1.

T1s are expensive and account for a major part of the OPEX. Plus many of these T1s go cold after 5 PM. Carriers simply do not want to spend the money to provide some guy in downtown mopping the floors at 9 PM with 5 Megs of data service.

It is simply cost prohibitive.

Carriers will not provide fantastic speeds until the OPEX of backhual is greatly reduced… and this will take some time…

I know this is a bit of a ramble…

I simply am not a great writer…

Hope you found this of some use.

FLU and AN feel free to PM me and I could share some details that I can’t in open forum.

CE

[Author]

Posts