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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bux who wrote (3733)	11/29/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

. . . CDMA's capacity advantage goes beyond this ratio when dealing with data since data is bursty in nature. This is particularly true for the kind of data I think you envision as being popular, little bits and pieces of data being sent and received, not a constant full-motion video/sound stream. So, if rudimentary data services become popular, CDMA has better than a 4:1 capacity advantage. Currently, every CDMA carrier offering data is doing so using circuit switched rather than packet switched techniques. All carriers would appear to have luke warm expectations for data, at least in the near term.

To: Bux who wrote (3733)	11/29/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Bux - to state (for example) that there is uncertainty about the ability of multiple CDMA carriers to implement functional data services is...perhaps a little paranoid. I don't think Dave said that. What he said was <<until CDMA carriers demonstrate that they really know how to do data, let alone high speed data, and that they can "do it better" which means making it easy and useful, I doubt if anyone will be quaking in their boots.>> FWIW, I agree with Dave. Until data is actually demonstrated in a full-up system, with lots of demand, I think it unlikely that TDMA carriers are going to switch. Even then, a switch isn't assured. (Has AT&T switched to CDMAOne now that the cost advantage is obvious to anyone who is paying attention? No. Too much momentum, and still a fair amount of FUD.) Would you, personally, switch to something like W-CDMA? Install GPRS? If not, why not? How many of those same reasons apply to HDR? I suspect most (e.g. is the actual capacity advantage there in the real world, are the ASICs available, do calls drop too much, is there demand,...). Now, I have faith that Qualcomm has a several year lead with HDR, and that Qualcomm succeeds at these kinds of innovation whereas others fail, but to a party with an installed base, with Nokia (the largest infrastructure supplier with no CDMA license, I believe) wispering in their ear, ... . Which brings us back to the advantages of CDMA going beyond a simple 4:1 capacity advantage (or whatever it may be). Matched against the equivalent TDMA technology, (GPRS and EDGE), it is probably only 2 ot 3 times greater spectrum efficiency. And a closing note. You and I agree on the obviousness of the need for AT&T to change, but where we differ is in our opinion of C. Mikey's ability to see the same. The world is replete with examples of companies that do non-economic things either through ignorance or for a misguided strategic purpose (in AT&T's case, wireless may be viewed as part of a bundle only). Remember the Q's somewhat belated admission that the handsets weren't making money compared to a model where they sold the ASICs and collected a royalty. Most companies are not that self-observant IMO. Clark PS I think that the very process of AT&T's issuing a wireless tracking stock makes it much more likely that AT&T will switch within the next 5 years since the economics will become much more obvious, not just to us (the average investor), but also to Armstrong. But, I still don't expect an announcement of a switch in the next one to two years.