Qualcomm building new high-speed wireless network
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted Nov 3rd 2004 8:06AM
posted Nov 3rd 2004 8:06AM
Qualcomm says that their MediaFlo division is going to build a new high-speed wireless network
specifically for downloading stuff like audio and video content. It's meant to complement, rather than replace, the
regular high-speed 3G cellular networks that are being built out right now, but the upshot for Qualcomm is that
cellphone makers'll have to buy their chipset if they want their handsets to be able to access the network. The big
unanswered questions, though, are whether people actually want to watch video on their cellphones, and if they do,
whether a new wireless network to do that is really needed.
how about just make a high-speed wireless network that costs the same as home cable internet service(about 45 bucks)... so that I can dump Time Warner... and stay mobile all the time.
"It’s not meant to complement, rather than replace, the regular high-speed 3G cellular networks that are being built out right now"
So this means that it IS meant to replace 3G networks?
First, a significant aspect of MediaFLO is its audio channels.
As for video, the concept is brilliant in creating a new media approach as significant as satellite TV, basic cable, extended cable or over-the-air TV.
This discontinuity will create new classes of programming which will bring as much creative change as going from CBS/ABC/NBC oligopoly of yore to 200+ cable channels today.
Consider the simultaneous changes occuring: the capacity & QoS of the FLO air interface, the link budget at 700 MHz, the screen resolution and battery life using the new Iridigm technology (which QCOM recently paid $170M to acquire), the steeply declining cost of SD memory, the explosion of IP-based video content and demographics of people <30.
Comparing MobiTV to MediaFLO is like comparing WAP 1.0 to the interface on a Treo 650.
Past failure is not necessarily a good predictor of future failure.
How many different companies are going to try and fail before they understand that no one wants to watch video on a 2 inch screen, and if they do, it's while thier waiting for a bus. It's a perk, if anything, of modern cell phones to waste your time with web sites, games and now live tv (?) for a phone. If I want my latest news, I'll watch a REAL TV, can anyone out there actually picture themselves hearing about a news worthy event on thier phone and then actually staying put in front of thier phone instead of going to a real source? Is this worth the countless billions? I wouln't watch unless I had nothing (and I mean NOTHING) else i should rather be doing, and even then.... do I care?