TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:elj474$hge$2@aioe.org...
> At 10 Dec 2006 12:53:46 -0800 carcarx wrote:
>
>> > So the only thing Nokia is building for CDMA phones
>> > going forward is their logo!
>>
>> So, Nokia's not paying anything to those companies to build the
>> phones and not getting any profit from putting their names on
>> those phones?
>>
>
> Of course they are, but Nokia is a phone manufacturer. I'd say that
> letting others do the manufacturing for them is close enough to "getting
> out of the CDMA business."

Once you get past Nokia's spin-of-the-week it's hard not to notice the most
obvious reason:

"...the more important issue for Nokia is an ongoing licensing dispute with
Qualcomm.
Nokia's current intellectual property licensing agreement with Qualcomm
expires in April 2007."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...kiacdma_1.html


--
Mike

Todd Allcock wrote:

> I suspect this is Nokia's way of keeping their brand name top of mind
> with CDMA customers until such time they "come to their senses" and
> switch to GSM. It also helps them maintain market share vs. Motorola
> which they're having difficulty with these days, particularly in the US.

I'm surprised that Nokia is willing to write off more than half the U.S.
Market. CDMA leads GSM in the number of subscribers, and has an
increasing market share (though Sprint's problems are now giving GSM a
chance to gain share).

Similarly, in many countries in the world, where there is a spectrum
shortage, CDMA is increasing its market share.

I think that Nokia's position is based solely on their dispute with
Qualcomm over royalties.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Of course they are, but Nokia is a phone manufacturer. I'd say that
> letting others do the manufacturing for them is close enough to "getting
> out of the CDMA business."

Navas' statement

John Navas wrote:
> CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it,

implies that one won't find cdma2000 phones with Nokia's label on it.
That and some of Navas' other "half truths" leads to unwarranted and
errant conclusions.

carcarx wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Of course they are, but Nokia is a phone manufacturer. I'd say that
>> letting others do the manufacturing for them is close enough to "getting
>> out of the CDMA business."
>
> Navas' statement
>
> John Navas wrote:
>> CDMA2000 is actually on the decline, with Nokia having abandoned it,
>
> implies that one won't find cdma2000 phones with Nokia's label on it.
> That and some of Navas' other "half truths" leads to unwarranted and
> errant conclusions.

The biggest whole untruth is that Nokia abandoning the manufacture of
CDMA phones has the slightest relation to the future success or failure
of CDMA. Nokia is angling for lower royalty payments to Qualcomm for
W-CDMA, though why Qualcomm would ever agree to this is beyond any
analysts guess. Love or hate them, Qualcomm has the patents on CDMA, and
anyone that wants to use Qualcomm's patents, has to pay up or have a
cross-licensing agreement.

CDMA continues to gain market share worldwide, of course the reason for
this is that they are starting from zero in so many countries.

At 11 Dec 2006 10:40:54 -0800 SMS wrote:

> I'm surprised that Nokia is willing to write off more than half the
> U.S. Market.

I'm not- Nokia hasn't been very successful in CDMA so far.
Except for some low-end low-profit margin phones, neither Verizon nor
Sprint have semed to really embraced Nokia's offerings.

The real money is in high-end phones w/PDAs, MP3 players, GPS, etc, and
engineering versions for the US CDMA carriers takes money and effort,
whereas a GSM quadband version can be sold "out of the box" to hundreds
of mobile operators worldwide.

> CDMA leads GSM in the number of subscribers, and has an increasing
> market share (though Sprint's problems are now giving GSM a chance to
> gain share).

But again, other than a few minor software additions/deletions, US GSM
carriers can use the same models Nokia offers everywhere else, without
any major re-engineering.


> Similarly, in many countries in the world, where there is a spectrum
> shortage, CDMA is increasing its market share.

Worldwide use of CDMA is still a drop in the bucket compared to GSM, and
until such time CDMA is a profitable venture for Nokia they can simply
ignore it or OEM it.. Let's face it- most users change phones often
enough that Nokia can drop back into the CDMA game whenever it makes
sense to them.

>
> I think that Nokia's position is based solely on their dispute with
> Qualcomm over royalties.

That's a lot of it, I'm sure, but frankly Nokia is VERY tired of the
carrier-subsidy game eroding the perceived value, and the profit margin
of their phones (customizing handsets costs money, even if it's only
custom software.) Nokia is launching direct-sales stores worldwide this
year and next (including a couple in the US) targeting "power users" with
unlocked, unbranded handsets. Verizon and Sprint wouldn't go along with
that even if Nokia was building s**t-hot, "must-have" CDMA phones.

"Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote in message
news:g3oeh.8186$sf5.1878@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> Absolutely incorrect. You do not need an unlocked phone to have service.
> If your phone functions on the 900/1800/1900 GSM frequency bands and your
> local service provider has a roaming agreement with the overseas provider
> your phone will work. However you per minute cost might be through the roof,
> so by having an unlocked phone you can purchase a local SIM card and get
> much better rates.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of the "buying a pre-paid
SIM" approach for overseas use, and thinking that was going to work perhaps 1
time in 10.

My mother spends most of her time in New Zealand these days. She has one of
the Sprint/Samsung CDMA/GSM phones (SCH-A790), which shes uses with a pre-paid
Vodafone SIM in NZ. Interestingly, the phone will roam in CDMA mode on
Telecom NZ's network... but the rates are outrageous, and you say.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:457e13f0$0$69031$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Love or hate them, Qualcomm has the patents on CDMA, and anyone that wants
> to use Qualcomm's patents, has to pay up or have a cross-licensing
> agreement.

Any idea how much those royalties end up costing? $.01 per handset? $10?

Joel Kolstad wrote:

> My mother spends most of her time in New Zealand these days. She has one of
> the Sprint/Samsung CDMA/GSM phones (SCH-A790), which shes uses with a pre-paid
> Vodafone SIM in NZ. Interestingly, the phone will roam in CDMA mode on
> Telecom NZ's network... but the rates are outrageous, and you say.

Yeah, if you're interested in the most international roaming, without
prepaid SIMs but willing to pay the high roaming charges, then the
CDMA/GSM phones are definitely the best choice. Not only can you roam in
countries with no GSM at all, such as South Korea, but you can roam onto
both GSM and CDMA networks in countries that have both. This advantage
is increasing as CDMA networks in formerly GSM-only countries are being
greatly expanded. Alas, some of the new CDMA networks coming on-line
soon will be 450 MHz. It never ends.

I keep an unlocked 900/1800 GSM phone for use with prepaid SIMs in
Europe in parts of Asia. I have a lot of colleagues that tried to use
Cingular GSM with a tri-band 900/1800/1900 phone, back when Cingular was
1900 MHz only GSM in the west (and the rest of Cingular was TDMA), and
they gave up because the GSM coverage in the western region was
terrible, and the GSM roaming onto Voicestream (now T-Mobile) in the
rest of the country was expensive. Some of them have switched back to
Cingular now, using a quad-band phone, as the coverage is much improved
ever since the 800 MHz GSM deployment.

> Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in
> good standing.

Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need to be
sent in?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cprjn29otgjhmirvasble196a2mkhmhjgi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:55:44 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
> <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <12njd9i6m51h090@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4578a722$0$82615$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net. ..
>>> "Both T-Mobile and Cingular had an advantage not available for Verizon
>>> and
>>> Sprint users: their GSM-based phones can usually be used in many
>>> non-U.S.
>>> countries, CR observed."
>>
>>"Usually" is probably rather overstated: Unless someone specifically
>>purchased
>>an unlocked phone from their U.S.-based GSM carrier, I'd say the odds of
>>the
>>average person having such a phone is perhaps... 1 in 10?
>
> Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers in
> good standing.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

At 13 Dec 2006 00:04:24 +0000 Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Both T-Mobile and Cingular will unlock phones on request by customers
> > in good standing.
>
> Is this done while-you-wait at a company store, or does the phone need
> to be sent in?


Neither- generally you call them and they give you a gazillion-digit code
you type into the phone to remove the subsidy lock.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com