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: Eric L who wrote (51240)	11/20/1999 10:10:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Good post EricL, thanks. Yes, I was sloppy. Of course GPRS will get plenty of takers - it seems relatively straightforward to make happen. However, the Bleeding EDGE is another story. While there are surely guarantees that indemnify operators who try it out, there is surely no guarantee that it will actually be developed and made available. I really just meant that in the long run, 10 years from now, all would be 3G CDMA. I doubt anyone is planning on operating an analogue network 10 years from now. TDMA will long since have been overlaid. GSM might have a few outposts of voice only and no WWeb access, but it will be everywhere else overlaid by 3G CDMA. Subscribers will not accept anything less. It will be a competitive market and that makes things happen quickly when capital cost is relatively low compared with the benefits. The benefit of WWeb is huge. It's hard to imagine anywhere in the OECD which will not have it after 5 years, let alone 10. Yes, maybe it's true that the Bleeding EDGE can be made to work, but to what purpose. By the time it is ready, service providers might as well just install HDR or cdma2000 or the cdma2000 Clone, whichever is ready first. Then they will be able to compete in the most universal standard [as far as total revenue is concerned]. Didn't 2G replace analogue really quickly in Europe or is Europe still full of analogue? Analogue is gone in Japan and Korea. It will be dead in a year in Australia. It is only slow in the USA and places where competition has not forced the issue. Telecom NZ has got by until now with their crusty analogue system, but now they are suddenly in big trouble as Vodafone cleans them out. The USA is a real hodge podge, but that is rapidly being resolved in favour of cdmaOne. GSM is making little headway. TDMA is in trouble too. Analogue will be ruined in 2000 in the USA, [the process is already well underway]. The concerns about the data market are silly - those commentators are thinking of how slow it's been but they think of the time when people had expensive and poor performance notebook computers tied to slow and hopeless GSM or other wireless systems with no Web. Now, only 5 years later, the Web is a monster. Data rates are zooming up as fast as costs are coming down. Notebook computers and even phones are useable and economical tools to handle the data wanted. The market and technologies are totally different from the wireless data failures of the earlier 1990s. This is going to be a jaw-dropping onslaught. The WWeb will happen much faster than the wired Web because people are tuned up and ready to go. They are used to the Web. The Web has grown hugely. Businesses and all sorts are pushing the envelope as fast as they can go in the Web. When WWeb hits the airwaves, it will move really fast. Maybe the GSM Goosesteppers will go with GPRS. < The GSM, Satellite, and 3G network operators that comprise the GSM Association just aren't interested outside of the air interface which they have planned to adopt for 3G, (and feel they don't need for 2G network reuse).> But they'll get a fright when data explodes and they are sitting on slow technology and the wrong air interface. They probably figure it will get them through 3 years and they can worry about it then, by which time the 3G picture will have cleared. That will be a big oops, in their life. Thanks for being more precise and outlining just who is doing what. It sure shows that there are going to be big blunders and fortunes to be made if timing and technology selection are wrong. Sticking with Q! Mq

To: Eric L who wrote (51240)	11/21/1999 2:33:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Eric, agree, shorterm ie. 18-24 months max. this is the period Gregg thoughtfully expressed as the "Face Saving" mode. gprs and edge are like pushing a square peg into a round hole, you can but. gsm is resorting to desperation, and time buying movements and the above recipe confirms its nervousness. Q will have to find other things to do in the meantime and that is what excites me about this company. of course, jmho, Ruff

To: Eric L who wrote (51240)	11/21/1999 8:59:00 AM
From: Randall Knight	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

"As disappointing as I find it as an individual who is >25% invested in Q, it appears to me that GPRSwill become the dominant worldwide 2G (2.5G) wireless technology, and 3G will not replace 2G any faster than than 2G has replaced analog wireless which means that Q revenue is as highly dependentupon 2G success for the medium to long term as it is for 3G." GPRS will become the dominant WORLDWIDE 2G standard? GPRS melts down above 9.6k and EDGE is vapor ware. T is in big trouble. So are the European companies who are buying into the NOKIA and ERICY b.s. They are surfing the wireless web at 64k TODAY in Korea. Tell me where in Europe they can do that or even WHEN they'll be able to do that. Let's add in HDR. The Q and MSFT are involved with the Korean HDR project to prove to the Europeans and perhaps China that CDMA is the here and now technology. It's called creating a de facto standard. Do you think Europeans are going to sit by and watch the rest of the world doing wireless web surfing at 128k for $30/month? In Europe it costs ten times that to surf the wireline web. This kind of EuroBull is what will keep the Q in the tornado for at least five more years. First, CDMA will gain total dominance in its current markets: North and South America, Korea, and Japan. Then China will start to swing to CDMA. Then HDR will become the standard for wireless data as it gains ground and new aps are discovered. Finally, Europe and the remaining TDMA, GSM carriers will either wilt or convert. During all of this, we on the thread will be sipping our Margaritas with knowing smiles on our faces, enjoying the feel of the cool water across our feet as we lounge next to the pool.

To: Eric L who wrote (51240)	11/21/1999 8:09:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

A Gregg Powers Post; by: MIKEMARGIN 11/21/1999 6:39 pm EST Msg: 61553 of 61575 "Do you understand that TDMA-based GSM (and IS-136) face an extraordinarily cumbersome and expense migration path to high speed data? Do you know that GPRS will require essentially a complete network overbuild in order to achieve 114kps? Do you understand that EDGE will subsequently require new handsets, on top of this new infrastructure, to push data rates only to 384kps+. Do you understand that Phase I of cdma2000 will yield 144kps data rates, double the voice capacity of existing IS-95 networks, and BE BACKWARD COMPATIBLE with existing handsets in the field? Do you understand the deployment advantages, and flexibility, of cdma2000's 1.25mhz design? Do you understand that operators with 5mhz of spectrum can mix and match voice channels and high speed data? Do you understand that Phase I can be deployed as a field upgrade without replacing existing infrastructure? Do you understand the tremendous economic advantage that this confers to IS-based, CDMA-centric, operators? The capital investment and performance deltas between TDMA and CDMA are shifting even more dramatically in the latter's favor. Meanwhile, Phase II of cdma2000 pretty much puts the nail in tdma's coffin longer-term. Gregg"

To: Eric L who wrote (51240)	11/23/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: jack bittner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

hello eric, an excellent, informed post. i don't get one sentence: <These carriers are protected by contractual commitments from the Big Three, Lucent, Nortel, to make these technologies work> 1) did you omit one when you wrote <the Big Three, Lucent, Nortel>, or are there 5: an unnamed Big Three + lu, nt? if it's a third, is that csco? 2) does being committed to make a technology work mean more than having a contract to build a system? if it's not something more, then of course they'll build the systems, but the questions will still remain: will the superior technology win out over the installed base, overcome inertia, make the prospective client give up an already enormous investment to stay current with the market's demand; will the market realize the technology is superior: if cdma is the only one that can effectively carry the internet to the hand-held device (are they?); how can Q lose?