Obviously, if your take is accurate, then this would be great for CLYW. If it is not possible to seamlessly roam between the two networks w/out ASNAP, then this is good. I would imagine that there are other ways to accomplish seamless roaming, other than ASNAP, that is.

Perhaps another standard (other than ASNAP) could be chosen by the carriers?

I put some money in this company based on the hype, but I am getting nervous.

They have issued a number of press releases (some exact repeats) all of which seem carefully crafted and worded to CREATE hype. Announcing that they have been granted a patent on for this application is fine. But they consistently imply that anyone wanting to roam between Wi-Fi and Cell will need to use them, yet a carefull reading of all their press releases implies otherwise.

For example, the 'We are going to enforce our patent' release states "A number of vendors have said they will release mobile devices that work both with wide area wireless data networks, such as those based on EDGE and CDMA technology, and shorter-range networks such as wireless LANs. The patent, which was granted last week, covers a method of seamlessly roaming between the two types of networks, Calypso said."

Does this mean everyone will need a license? Or does it mean that everyone who uses CLYW's technology to accomplish the roaming does?

Are there and/or will there be other methods of roaming between these platforms?

No where do they explicity state that they have the ONLY way of accomplishing this. They always say they have "A" way of doing it.

I'm in, but I really feel this company is mostly hype. I am always skeptical of companies in the pink sheets, especially those who purchased a "shell" public company for the explicit purpose of trading their stock, and who then issue carefully worded press releases that appear to imply one thing, but technically mean another.

I would suspect the insiders are selling heavily into this and future press releases.

Eric:

How well does it work! We've talked about real world speeds before, have you used Edge in your home area yet? Please report!

What DO handset have you used?

This is obviously an error since the first 6 months of reported revenue exceeds 1.9 Billion.

Not sure what the alert refers to?

Love the wording in this EDGE Press Release:

"can boost data transmission rates to as much as 384KB/sec"

as oppsed to:

"will boost data transmission rates to 384KB/sec"

As we discussed on other boards, the only way to get 384 Kbps is to allocate all 8 Time Slots to data, and then one user at a time can use the 8 slots to get the peak data rate (under ideal cconditions). By doing this, 100% of the voice capacity of the 8 time slots vanishes!

Of course AT&T will not set their networks up this way, but will rather dedicate 2 or 3 of the time slots to data reducing voice capacity by 25% or 32%) and leaving their highspeed EDGE network providing speeds of 96Kbps or 144Kbps at peak, (meaning a single user at full power). But, it can boost data transmission rates to as much as 384KB/sec - it just won't????

Isn't this proof that 3G is dead?

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145163_1.html

Or.. are we finally starting to understand this WiFi WiMax thing?

"That's all I can offer (which admittedly isn't much)."

Isn't much? It will take me 3 months to digest this post!

Thank you.

Eric:

Regarding GPRS & Edge and their reported speeds...

As you know I recently tested GPRS extesnively on TIM's network in Italy, appearantly a very loaded network.

When using GPRS, the download often (many many times per connection) "paused" and registered no activity for 5 - 10 seconds, before continuing. While connected, I was downlaoding at GPRS speeds, but the pauses (and I don't know what or why these existed)cut actual time to less than half.

Whould they claim this GPRS network was downloading at its promissed rate (and not take into account the time periods when it was pausing, or not downloading?).

And do you know what these pauses are? Will Edge be subject to the same?

Incidently, though the GPRS network seemed faster in the US, it too exhibited these pauses in the download stream.

Rob - Please explain to the members of the Board what WiMax is.

Members of this Board - Rob will not comply with the above request, because to do so will either show his lack of understanding as to what WiMax is, or will make irrelevant all his pro WiMax arguments on this and other public boards. Instead, he will re-direct members of this thread (myself included) to find the answer ourselves, or that he has already posted the answer, or to intemperate the public information on WiMax for ourselves. He may choose to ignore this post entirely, but doing so will also be conceding that his WiMax spamming is just that. One thing for certain, he will continue spread his WiMax FUD, clouded by a complete misunderstanding of the technology he so dearly endorses, but will refrain and/or re-direct any attempt to understand (because, of course, he has been touting it is a breakthrough technology that will render data over wireless phone service useless, just wait... its coming....it really is..just read the article...well, some of it...just enough to re-direct.

Go ahead Rob - put me to shame.

I already told you that I would pay $10 if I needed the higher bandwidth which 1X does not offer, so yes I would pay $1 as well, but only if I needed the extra bandwidth. Otherwise, I am already set up with the 1X connection, so having to sign up or give a credit card in order to log on for a period of time is just a hastle (although I will do it when I find a WiFi network just to say I did!).

I just traveled through Italy using TIM's GPRS when I could, and I have to say it does not even come close to 1X (in terms of coverage, connection ability and speed) but I would also have to say it doesn't come close to GPRS in the US either.

I had to download a 5MB file, and paid $6 for 1/2hour of internet time on the Hotels Computer to do so.
(not that it took 1/2 hour, but that was their minmum charge).

I'm curious about something. My Wife has a pottery studio w/out internet access. Whenever necessary, she plugs the 1X phone in and she does here software updates, E-Mail, Browsing, etc. We are toying with the idea of adding a WiFi Access Point, so customers can use our connection while at the studio. But as I mentioned, it is a 1X connection. My question is, are we offering WiFi or 1X to our clients?

$2? Honestly no. But...

If for some reason I needed the higher bandwidth, to download a huge file for example, then the answer is yes - even at $5 or $10. It will be a good test in the real world when and if it comes up. I've never been anywhere where I had the option of WiFi and 1X. Again, in all honesty I've never seen a public or private WiFi network pop up on my computer when searching for one in any hotel, airport, lounge or conference room (other than my home and offices), so I have always used the 1X connection.

L:

". 802.11 is a far better connection than any jknown form of cellular"

Far too subjective a statement.

How do you define "better"? The only instance in which WiFi is better than 1XRTT is in the small percentage of areas where the two overlap (I'm guessing in less than .01% of 1XRTT's coverage area), and when there a fewer than 10 users on the access point (speed degrades proportional to users), and where you are unconcerned about security.

Everywhere else that 1X exists (and no WiFi) I think 1XRTT is better. And from a portability standpoint, 1X is better. And from a cost standpoint, 1X is better. And from a coverage standpoint, 1X is better.

For the record, I constantly travel with my laptop, WiFi card and 1XRTT phone, all over the US. Since I love both technologies, (and am a techno nut) I always try my WiFi at every hotel, airport, and meeting I am at. I have yet to be able to connect to a single network, anywhere with WiFi. I have been 100% successful with 1X.

When and as this changes, I would prefer the faster (though less secure) free WiFi connection. If i ever see one, I will use it instead of the 1X connection. But it will need to be free. I would not pay $5 for a WiFi session, when I have my 1X phone with me.

Edge threat?

From a technical perspective, I'm not concerned.

Every GSM enhancement (GPRS, EDGE, Etc) has come with a detriment to network operation. Sure, they can get data on the network, but you have to give up voice capacity and/or quality. This is what makes GSM a dead end technology, and why operators are going ith W-CDMA.

On the flipside, each CDMA enhancement (CDMAOne, IS95A to IS95B, to CDMA 1X to EV-DO CDMA) comes packed with network quality enhancements - additioanl capacity (by factors, not 2 digit percentages), enhanced quality, and enhanced security.

Whenever you read about the GSM improvements, read between the lines carefully. In this case, they get 4 times the speed of EDGE, by utilizing 4 Edge channels, meaning 1/4 the capacity.

The biggest hindrence to GPRS currently is that it takes so much capacity from voice - and since many carriers (GSM ones that is) are already capacity restrained, its tough to take more away for data.

To tie this to the other thread running through IH today, the reason for all the dropped calls at Cingular, AT&T and T-Mobile is more capacity than coverage. When you leave on cell for the next, and the next is full, you get dropped.

The reason Verizon and PCS don't drop as much is because they have plenty of capacity in their technology.

Again, very BAD, UNFAIR, and MISLEADING reporting......

"SG Cowen Securities Corp. on Thursday (June 12) lowered its estimates for Qualcomm Inc. in its fourth quarter and next fiscal year due to inventory issues with CDMA technology.

The lowered estimate follows similar news from Motorola, Nokia, and Texas Instruments, which earlier this week separately lowered their forecasts for the second calendar quarter of 2003. Motorola, Nokia and TI blamed their outlooks on SARS and weak handset sales in Asia, especially China"

Does this not imply that QCOM has a problem, not that SG Cowen thinks they have a problem?

Read these paragraphs again, armed with the knowledge that MOT, NOK and TI each warned the markets that sales will be lower in China due to SARS, and QCOM reaffirmed previously raised sales targets in the same area, and for the same quarter.

The reference to "similar news" does not exist.

"Many of our friendly analyst and the current market view
is that Qcom faces a difficult next few quarters"

These are the same analysts that predicted difficult quarters begining four six ago. They keep saying QCOM is going to struggle, and QCOM keeps raising, then exceeding estimates!

Unfortunately for QCOM longs (myself included), investor seem to be acting on this "analyst hype" rather than QCOM's "actual" performance. Eeerily similar to what happend in 1999, only in reverse.