Position clarified
Dear Editor:
In the article, “EDGE: The People’s Choice,” (Sept. 25, page 55 by Sheila Mickool, president of the Universal Wireless Communications Consortium) I am quoted as saying “quality networks with low bit error rates will be delivered at low cost in order to enable mass-market adoption.” The article implies, in the words of the article’s writer, that I am endorsing EDGE as a technology that “will take a 3G leadership role, providing early and easy implementation of 3G services.”
This juxtaposition of the writer’s words and mine distorts what I said. My full quote is as follows:
“All new technologies always take longer to deploy, cost more and rarely deliver as promised. The key issue is not so much which technology is better but rather how well the networks are built. In order to deliver quality networks with low bit error rates-essential for delivering non-voice services-network operators must be prepared to increase cell density and make the necessary financial commitment. The issue is can this be delivered at low cost in order to enable mass market adoption. This will be true regardless of technology.”
Herschel Shosteck Associates does not endorse any 2.5 generation RF technology as superior to any other. Regardless of claimed theoretical elegance, all will suffer the agonies of maturation. All will initially fail to deliver the performance promised. All will cost more to deploy and all will take longer to be adopted than their proponents have claimed.
Indeed the pain of deployment will prove so great that we have long held that none of the 2.5G technologies (with the possible exception of GPRS)-whether EDGE, HSCSD, 1xEVDO, 1xEVDV, or others-will prove commercially successful. There are not enough engineers in the world to develop them. There is not enough money to deploy them. And, if deployed, the issues of terminal availability, interoperability and interference will prove a nightmare of despair.
The extent of these problems will become so great that network operators will discard the 2.5G technologies and go directly to UMTS/IMT-2000 (in the case of TDMA/IS136 and GSM) or cdma2000 (in the case of CDMA/IS-95).
We discussed and analyzed these issues in depth in our study, “Third Generation Wireless (3G): Why, When and How It Will Happen (November 1999).” We shall continue this discussion and analysis in our soon-to-be-released study, “Third Generation (3G) Wireless, the Continuing Saga.”
Jane Zweig
Executive Vice President
Herschel Shosteck Associates Ltd.
Two candidates
Dear Editor:
Regarding the article in the Sept. 25 edition of RCR, “All the Vice President’s Men,” I think it was very premature to print an article that pretty much ushers in Al Gore as the next president of the United States per your quote, ” … as polls increasingly are suggesting … ” and what benefits his presidency would give to the telecom industry.
Since recent polls suggest a statistical dead heat between Bush and Gore in the latest polls, why not give as much space to what it would mean to the telecom industry if Bush is the next president? Why not profile some of the possible candidates in the Bush administration and give them the same space in your publication as you did Gore?
Obviously, you appear to be just another media outlet that caters to the liberal agenda of the Democrats rather than providing a balanced view for both political parties. Most of the time I think highly of your publication, but this time I think it was a big mistake to pretty much write off Bush as having any possible chance to be the next president.
Let’s promote fair journalism and give each party time if you have anything to publish at all.
David Franklin
Editor’s note:
The article you refer to was not meant, as you suggest, to usher in Al Gore as the next president of the United States. Quite the contrary. The point was to show how strong a presence Big Telecom might have in a Gore administration, given the vice president’s close association with many top telecom lobbyists who also act as campaign advisers. There was no mention of a similar potential conflict in a Bush administration for the simple reason that the Texas governor is not surrounded by telecom lobbyists.
