Thanks Gary, When people uninstall something, it is a bad sign for the supplier! With low unit costs, software makers and internet suppliers are going to have to be very careful with product quality to attract customers and keep them. Looks like Eudora is off to a very good start.
The following is some comment extracted from remarks by Mr Frezza. He is extremely critical of CDMA in general and Qualcomm and their "Mafia" in particular. The fact that delays of several years have happened bears witness to his critique, as does reduction in claimed talktime [power control being a problem area].
According to Individual Inc [to which I recommend you subscribe for excellent telecommunications information] :
"Network Computing via Individual Inc. : One year ago I took Qualcomm to task for
the fantastic claims its executives and investment bankers were making about
the capabilities of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital cellular
technology. (See "Succumbing to Techno-Seduction," April 1, 1995, page 39 or
http://techweb. cmp.com/nwc/604/604frezza.html.) Now that a few commercial CDMA
systems are on the air, I thought it would be timely to revisit these claims.
What I found was a Byzantine panorama of hype, obfuscation and denial
surrounding a once-promising technology-a technology that has fallen far short
of expectations, calling into question billions of dollars in investments by
network operators worldwide".
"Qualcomm burst on the scene in 1989, claiming that CDMA would offer at least 20
times, and perhaps 40 times, the capacity of analog cellular systems, compared
to a mere 3:1 improvement for rival Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA)
technology. In addition, superior voice quality, fewer dropped calls, easier
system engineering and lower infrastructure costs were to herald a new age of
wireless that would quickly render TDMA obsolete".
"From the beginning, critics warned that the compelling theoretical potential of
CDMA would never prove out in the field; dynamic power control in rapidly
fading environments would be its Achilles heel; interference would vastly limit
capacity; systems under heavy load would be unstable; and power balancing would
make infrastructure engineering a nightmare. These warnings were shouted down
by a brilliantly orchestrated PR campaign, assisted by what financial analyst
Charles Biderman calls the "CDMA Mafia"-a group of key industry figures and
Wall Street investment bankers who earned millions from Qualcomm stock
offerings".
He points out that "TDMA is in over 65 countries, with 18 million customers, growing fast.
He said technical problems associated with TDMA's first-generation D-AMPS systems have been
largely addressed, second-generation GSM systems have taken the world by storm
and third-generation PCS-1900 systems are now ramping into high volume. A vast
array of low-cost, high-quality phones are on the market and improvements in
capacity management techniques like Advanced Channel Allocation (ACA) are
slowly moving TDMA systems beyond their baseline capacity performance closer to
6:1 or even 7:1". So he confirms ongoing technical development, which analogue TDMA and CDMA will all continue.
He said that "comparative field tests with Hutchison's Hong Kong system indicate that its voice quality and
dropped call rates don't come close to competing TDMA systems there. To address
shortcomings in its product and attract enough subscribers to reach the 10,000
mark required to maintain license compliance, Hutchison was forced to offer an
unprecedented flat rate, unlimited calling plan".
THE ARTICLE CONTINUED FOR SEVERAL MORE PARAGRAPHS, WHICH ARE WORTH READING TO GET A BALANCED POINT OF VIEW FROM A NON-BELIEVER. The article continued to discuss AirTouch in Los Angeles,which it said would be unable to resolve various problems effectively. Eventually CDMA might be made to work okay, but it won't be worthwhile and will be too late according to the article.
"Bill Frezza is the president of Wireless Computing Associates. In the interest
of full disclosure, Wireless Computing provides three days per month of
consulting to Ericsson, a vendor of TDMA systems. Bill does not trade in
individual equities. The opinions expressed herein are his own. He can be
reached at frezza@interramp.com".
Well, that is a very scathing article ascribing malevolence, conspiracy and technical failure to Qualcomm et al, with their CDMA systems. Certainly the advantages Qualcomm originally claimed have been diluted, and there was evidently some wishful thinking on time to market. 18 million TDMA customers is hardly a big lead [there are 6 000 million people]. Analog has an even bigger lead. He claimed Hong Kong call quality and number of dropped calls is worse than TDMA! That is quite an indictment if true. It is therefore a puzzle as to why Hutchison who launched CDMA did so in competition with their existing GSM and analogue systems if GSM was so good. They will be wanting to ditch their CDMA if it is as bad as that with little prospect of getting it good. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
There seem to be valid points he makes, but overall it sounds like part of a Byzantine conspiracy to frighten off possible customers. As a shareholder, I cannot claim at all to have been deceived by Qualcomm. They have always made the risks well known, claims have been reasonably based and technical development and customer interest have been consistent with my expectations. Indeed exceeded them in that I thought TDMA [GSM] would have been way ahead by now, but they seem to have as many problems as CDMA. Maybe more given the lead they had. They have certainly been embarrassingly slow to market here and their promises of call quality etc haven't lived up to expectation. Customers have carried on buying analogue, although there are quality weaknesses there too. We had in this thread somebody saying much the same thing, suggesting shareholder suits and pushing the same line as this guy. Hmmm! Sounded almost like somebody from the same club as Frezza and Ramqvist. Some grist to our mill here. I wonder who did the comparative field tests in Hong Kong? How come he knows? How come shareholders of Qualcomm don't? If true that Hong Kong CDMA is much worse than TDMA then that is a real problem for market acceptance of CDMA. But his comments seemed much too much to favour TDMA despite its obvious development problems and delays to market with excited adjectives, whereas Qualcomm etc were criticized as though they were conspirators in fraud. There hardly seems a basis for that.
Please read the article [those interested] and tell me what you think. The 3 year delay to market for CDMA has been well priced into the market - Qcom is at the same level as 3 years ago. No basis for shareholder suits. Shows the need to keep wishful thinking on a short leash. Maurice |
