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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcd who wrote (3163)	1/2/2000 5:57:00 PM
From: Labrador	Respond to of 34857

So are you going to tell us why (factually) you're committed to buy IDC? As I mentioned, I'd even listen to a well-written opinion by you. My views can be changed, and I don't want to miss an opportunity. Looking forward to the insight. Thanks in advance.

To: tcd who wrote (3163)	1/2/2000 8:07:00 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

tcd, when CNBC explained where the idea of I* being a "baby qualcomm" came from, they showed a PC with the message list on the IDC Yahoo chat board. No analyst coverage, no press releases. Just a chat board. I have a question or two... Why does Qualcomm have a royalty-free license to not only use the IPR in question but to license others and collect royalties? I* still has no CDMA mobility? No 3G license for this IPR from Qualcomm like Phillips and Ericsson has. CDMAOne went on to take the lions share of the digital upgrade market in this hemisphere. I cannot say Qualcomm walked away from that litigation on the short end. I certainly don't think I* succeeded in delaying or killing the onset of CDMAOne. I believe the TDMA standard I* had considerable IPR is in its twilight years. Please read Qualcomm's site on HDR. You will find that it is the same bandwidth and has the same handoff and pilot structure as IS95. 1XRTT, the other method due in a year, has the same structure as well. The simple reason why Qualcomm will be around for decades to come is the increasing coverage of CDMAOne across this hemisphere. It took us two decades to reach this point. 3G isn't going to arrive as quickly because there isn't a compelling business need to make the investment. I think you are premature in hyping a demand for 4G. The problem has to do with the overwhelming popularity of voice-only appliances, mini-browsers, and the expense of base station deployment. Cable modems and DSL have already set our expectations that unlimited use shouldn't cost us more than $50 a month. Do you have any idea what it takes to get 2mb/sec from one mobile to the internet? It takes a pair of 1.566mb/sec T1 lines that connect the base station transceiver to the regional switch. Five people surfing at 2.4mb/sec (HDR's speed) will require eight T1 lines. Don't take my word for it, ask your phone company. T1 lines cost several hundred dollars per month. T1 and E1 are the only transport mechanisms in the 1mbit+ range that can coexist with wired voice on Telco infastructure today. What other options are available? Microwave? It's line-of-sight at best. I know you don't want the signal to get screwed up by rain and trees. Fiber requires right-of-ways from the city to dig up streets and yards to run it where it isn't present now. Why do we want more than 384mb/sec? To download MSFT service packs into our cellphones? 4G for voice. Are you interested in carrying 24 conversations from your phone? Because that is what 1.566mb/sec can carry. Why? So we can call people in stereo? The flaw in your arguments is this, IMHO. BCDMA isn't a CTIA or ETSI approved standard. WCDMA has not been demonstrated with the five modes of its currently defined form that I am aware of. No one over the last two years of I* having an ASIC have agreed to deploy it and start it down its cost-reduction curve. The 128Kb/sec BCDMA promises is adequate for real-time downloading of music videos, provided the network behind it isn't the limiting factor. launch.com Create an ID, watch a music video at 128kb/sec. But, I'll bet you will be doing that on a laptop or a desktop. A laptop is something I don't intend to own because I can't expand and upgrade it. Nor, do I intend to spend the rest of my life with one tucked under my arm. It sure as hell isn't clipping onto my belt. Now, I* is faced with the 3G market being pushed towards 2010 with 2.5G showing tangible interest by the providers making the investment. What else is IMT2000 going to promise? Worldwide roaming? Hmm... Sprint works everywhere I have traveled. GSM worldphones have not become a visibly powerful market force when SBC, a major West coast provider, doesn't carry them. I* probably feels left behind. But, has anyone expressed interest in buying them out instead of enlisting engineering services?