Eric, 3G Viability- Thanks for your reply and your interesting answers- My comments to your answers.
(I would have replied sooner but we had a power outage most of the day)
1. My Prior Comment>> “<< Again, Dr J was “right on” when he stated in Cannes two years ago that WCDMA would not be commercially viable until 2004/2005 and very much chastised by everyone for speaking the truth. >>
Your answer>>>
“Especially chastised by the market although I guess you are talking not about Cannes where Qualcomm acquitted themselves reasonably well in 2001, but about the stopover in London on the flip flop when as a byproduct of trying to play salesman, IMJ managed to take 20% off the valuation of Qualcomm in a single day.. “
“It wasn't real sensible timing for the sales pitch he attempted to make in the manner he chose to make it, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
“In reality, Qualcomm's share price would be just about where it is today regardless of whether or not he had done that stopover. Capital markets have not recovered, infra isn't rolling, and GSM carriers are looking to get by with GPRS, while they weigh EDGE investments against WCDMA, and we sure can't blame IMJ for that. “<<
My follow-up>>
a. I’m still somewhat unclear on what you’re saying here. You appear to be upset that Dr. J “spilled the beans” about the real time table for WCDMA commercial deployment while his GSM/WCDMA brethren where trying to keep the wraps on same. You also appear to be upset that “IMJ managed to take 20% off the valuation of Qualcomm in a single day.. “,yet you say “In reality, Qualcomm's share price would be just about where it is today regardless of whether or not he had done that stopover “.
You are often critical of Qualcomm management for making statements you consider lies regarding their ASIC schedules, yet you appear to be suggesting that Dr. J should have just kept that dirty little secret to himself rather than suggest to the carriers (and the investing public) that CDMA2000 could provide a significantly quicker time to market solution as by revealing the truth “managed to take 20% off the valuation of Qualcomm in a single day.. “ (but longer term it didn’t matter anyway).
Could it be that you had just plunked a bundle down on Qualcomm only to see Dr. J cause the price to drop 20% in one day?
Matter of fact, I wasn’t a happy camper either after the price drop. I’m not so sure, however, it was because of Dr. J’s statement or the barrage of unkind articles that followed (i.e. Greg Jones) that curiously generally seem to follow when something detrimental to the GSM/WCDMA crowd is spoken by the CDMA camp. ( Issa, recent example)
Or, could it be that you had just told a few of your technical sales clients that everything with WCDMA was “hunky dory” and had some big time explaining to do after they heard of Dr. J’s remarks?
b. You also refer to Dr J’s WCDMA revelation as FUD when you say “after the London debacle before he went on his next FUD attack at CTIA”. I’m not so sure you can correctly label Dr. J’s revelations regarding the real time table for WCDMA as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) when in fact he was speaking the truth.
2. My prior statement << WCDMA was to be several years (3+) behind the technology curve vs CDMA2000 >>
Your answers>>>
“WCDMA is in fact several years behind 1xRTT Release ZERO aka IS-95C (not an ITU IMT-2000 standard), an upgrade to ANSI-41 cdmaOne operating in 800/1800/1900 MHz, and according to Qualcomm and CDG an interim step to 3G (until they promoted it, or attempted to, in April 2000, to 3G). “
“With multiple 3GSM WCDMA carriers (6) now commercially launched with multiple dual-mode handsets commercially available that 3+ years behind the behind the technology curve you refer to has shrunk big time, if you get a little closer to apples/apples. “ And,
“That technology curve advantage keeps on shrinking, and in fact in the major addressable market, CDMA2000 is behind the curve, and has yet to integrate voice and data. “
My follow-up-
The DB report you kindly linked in your prior post was also revealing in another aspect.
Snips from pages 6 and 10>>
“By 2007, we assume that 37% of Western Europe has WCDMA service with urban-like coverage (at least 64 kbps and up to 384 kbps at the cell edge) only for 8.2% of the assumed landmass. The rest of the coverage area supports up to 64 kbps at the cell edge for suburban-like coverage and only 12.2 kbps in rural areas.”
“So what does AT&T receive for $1.5 billion in WCDMA capex? Based upon our model, and assuming suburban-like coverage (at least 64 kbps and up to 144 kbps at the cell edge), we estimate that the operator can only cover 4% of the land mass in North America.”
If I’m reading this correctly, DB doesn’t have much confidence that AWE’s WCDMA coverage by 2006 will even come close to that offered in 2002 by PCS and Verizon. Further, the data speeds may not even match those of CDMA2000 1X which has been commercially deployed for several years already. And, all but 8.2% of the European land mass will data speeds of up to 64 kbps at the cell edge for suburban-like coverage and only 12.2 kbps in rural areas.”
The 2nd phase of CDMA2000 (EV-DO) has been commercially deployed for some time with average speeds download speeds much higher than WCDMA- “while on the go at speeds from 300 to 600 kilobits per second” according to this article- ( Verizon To Unveil Ultra-Fast Wireless
Mobile Network to Debut In D.C. Area This Summer investorshub.com with the following -
a. “ Ellison (director for mobile wireless at IDC) noted that EvDO technology is already popular in South Korea, where consumers use it for tasks from video conference-calling to watching television on their cell phones. "It is blazingly fast," he said.
b “During preliminary tests that Verizon Wireless conducted in an area from Falls Church to Rockville, people could download files while on the go at speeds from 300 to 600 kilobits per second, or about five to 10 times as fast as a dial-up modem. While stationary, users could access the Internet at speeds up to 2.4 megabits per second, about 60 percent faster than a cable modem. “
From the above, your statement ““That technology curve advantage keeps on shrinking, and in fact in the major addressable market, CDMA2000 is behind the curve,…” doesn’t appear to hold much water.
Regards, jim |
