Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DaveMG who wrote (35462)	7/17/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

3G Demand How many people want to hear? How many want to see? Well, 3G is just an extension of those faculties. We all want those faculties, [other than the occasional blind or deaf person who is happy with their identity and way of life and prefers not to gain sight - really, that's true, odd though it might seem to those who can see]. When we crane our neck for a better look, standing on tip-toes, it is because we are often dissatisified with how far we can see. We don't all carry telescopes or binoculars around so that we can see further, so there is a limit to how much inconvenience [irrespective of financial cost] we'll tolerate to extend our senses. We want maps in cars, we life TV news, we want to see our stock prices, we want to talk to people on the phone and send email. We want these things to be quick and good quality. 3G can do it all. So the question is how inconvenient is it and what will it cost. Well, it won't be very inconvenient - no more so than a map book, a wallet, a cellphone and we carry those things regularly. So from a convenience and functionality point of view, it seems an easy sell. So, how much is it? Full video will be 2Mbps compared with the 13kbps which cellphones use. The cost [not the prices charged] for cellphone calls is something less than 1c per minute in populated areas. The existing Sprint network charges 10c per minute for calls anywhere to anywhere in the USA and those networks run at only 20% capacity or thereabouts. So, if they ran at capacity, the charge out rate could be reduced to about 2c per minute. Meanwhile, costs are falling quickly. So, we have network costs of 13kbps minutes at around 1c per minute right now. Of course, we should be considering the actual data transferred rather than the per minute aspect because a 3G device doing nothing would not block the network at all. Craig of Airtouch said that they plan to move to data charges rather than minute charges and also to charge according to WHEN the data is wanted. Maybe voice will stay on a per minute basis. Anyway, 3G running flat out would mean 2,000,000 bps instead of just over 10,000 bps, so the cost would be 200 times as much at present prices. So it would be something like $2 a minute. That's enough to stop people watching 'Eyes Wide Shut' while they wait for a plane, but it isn't enough to stop them checking a map to find where they are trying to get to. Or to send email. Or to listen to a conference call with the image running at a low refresh rate. Or to send a photo of something somewhere. Or reading SI. Or showing a customer a sales graph, product specifications, or ordering some product via the WirelessKnowledge connection. Or moving some money from A to B. Keep in mind that that $2 per minute is just while the data is flowing at full speed. Unless watching video, the data happens in lumps. Well, it's called 'bursty' in the jargon. So the machine doesn't start ticking away at $2 a minute from when you boot up. It could have a little dollar sign in the corner of the screen so the current charges could be watched as they increase. This is NOT a technology looking for a market. Mqurice