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 (38443)	8/22/1999 3:37:00 AM
From: qdog	Respond to of 152472

The problem with your analysis is, it's based on one article. Aug 9th edition has even more digitheads yapping on the subject (about 5 or 6 articles. Broadband Wireless: Not More the Same. Sprint's broadband Strategy: We Got Games. The Trade of All Jacks. All are articles in that issue. Digitheads know computing, but know absolutely nothing about transmission. They somehow miss the connection between 1.9 GHz, which use to be a point to point frequency about 5 years ago and 2.5 GHz. For that matter, anything above 11 GHz starts to have a degrading effect. 11 GHz is approximately in wavelength the same as a rain drop. So, although these articles articulate that there are other strategies in play, how they will be deployed and used is still very debatable. 2.5 GHz can be as mobile as 1.9 GHz, provided that you cellularize it. Now, there is nothing that says that the license holders broach the FCC with a proposal and a request for fast track ruling. Frankly, with three deathstars up already for TV and a fourth approved (MCIWorldcom's license sold to News Corp), MMDS is kind of useless to use for TV. Cable already has competition from these death stars. The next move is then towards data and ensuring competition with the high delivery systems from xDSL, cable and the data deathstars such as Teledesic, Skybridge, etc. MEtricom is attempting to use the unlicensed 2.4 GHz for their purposes (whoich uses light post for base stations), but there is already manufactured wireless phones in that range, using spread spectrum as well. Just bought a two line Siemens, that will allow up to 8 separate wireless devices off the same base station. Range is around 4000', penetrates the house quite well and works like a champ walking around. 2.5 GHz can be done the same way. However, you can bet there would be one BIG scream from the present day cellular and PCS operators if Sprint, AT&T and MCI worldCom (other than AT&T Cellular and Sprint PCS) petition the FCC to cellularize the MMDS spectrum. So that is where the sectorizing the frequency is going to come to play. It will: 1. Drive down the equipment cost, even though you are deploying more base stationns. 2. Make deployment easy for non technical types. Let say you are a construction project (take your pick; highway, building, sub-division). Your choice is a per minute charge via PCS or cellular with it's limited bandwidth or an easily deployed MMDS system that is flexible in what it can deliver at a fixed cost per month. Most accountants will tell you that the fixed cost is far and a way, more attractive than a flucuation monthly cost. Easy to budget vs hard to budget. With this system, you can also design a wireless phone that isn't mobile, but more like the wireless phones in the home or a wireless PBX system in business. The notion that MMDS can't be a "semi" mobile system is a falsehood. It can. It has appeal to a wide range of use. IT may not be designed to drive down the road and surf the Web, but I'm more likely to run some dipstick fumbling around with a PDA or PC while driving on the Houston's freeways, off the road for being unattentive to driving their vehicle at 65 MPH in a safe manner. I might get really irrate if I hear keys clicking while trying to watch a movie in a theather or listening to a symphony orchestra. Worse yet, when I conduct meetings, cellphones and pagers are not allowed. I'll club someone that brings in a PDA or computer to watch their stocks. I'll destroy their computer or PDA for disrupting my meeting and their failure to be attentive. In conclusion to this rant, the wireless revolution that began back in the 1920's will continue to morph and progress. There are varying schools of thought that transforms into a new business and new demand by the consumers. Differing competing entities have their spin on the other guy's technology. Some of you witness that with CDMA vs. GSM wars of a few years ago. For the moment, CDMA is the king of the hill. With video being a big user of bandwidth, 56 Kbps is nothing as is 2 Mbps. Digital TV over DBS is 3 to 6 Mbps at MPEG-2. How successful do you think a PCS system that is licensed a total of 30 MHz in a cellular system going to be at video on demand at 2 Mbps, in a semi-fixed application (yes according to the 3G standard, 2 Mbps is not mobile, but fixed)? The same war of words are being repeated with MMDS and LMDS proponents and opponents. Hell, I'm sure Frezza has some misguided thought on the matter.