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 (3172)	1/3/2000 1:00:00 AM
From: Quincy	Respond to of 34857

"tired of hearing about QCOM's patents? Those patents only cover narrowband CDMA. Guess what? Nokia is partners with IDC, the owner of wideband CDMA:" Besides making unproven statements about anyone's IPR, what is your agenda? You want someone take notice of Nokia's involvement with I. Unfortunately, no one has come forward with more details. Nokia has indicated they intend to give I about $40 million over the next few years. Is that enough to justify a 1200% rise in I's stock? With 48 million+ shares outstanding and a history of quarterly revenues of 10 to 20 million and nothing erasing my fears of more negative quarter-quarter growth? I have explained that the assertion that (Q's patents for narrowband are limited) is poor reason to assume everything will go I's way. I have brought to light the fact that two critical 3G license agreements with Qualcomm have not been announced by either company for WCDMA. Then, I hoped to shed light on why you are the only person mentioning 4G wireless anywhere near this board. You now know how base station transceivers are linked together and are now armed with the T1 cost question to ask your local phone company. I helped you develop your own feel for what kind of bandwidth constitutes "too much" and its expense. I didn't venture a guess as to a possibility providers will be reluctant to give that many channels over to data when their D, E, F block licenses are only 15mhz wide. I don't know. That might not be holding 3G up. I do have an agenda. As one who held stock in TLTN and IOM while chat boards pumped it into the sky when reality brought it into the teens and below, I want you to understand what you are bringing attention to. I fear I have not succeeded. I don't need Dave's knowledge of patents. Dave has a self-motivation to get up in the morning. But, isn't it obvious invalidating patents on trivial parameters not specified in the patent will unravel the entire IPR system as we know it? I don't care if you agree. Now that you understand my stance on patents vs. bandwidth, why did IDC drag Qualcomm in court in the first place??? You wanted to know what the future holds for I* and 3G. I explained my fears in ways I hoped were obvious. I really believe 2.5G is going to be the next big thing with 3G fading further into the future. How far? Pretty far, IMHO. I have tried to explain to you the realities of the incredible expense of deploying 3G and higher data rates. The fact is, a study a couple of years ago for market demand of 3G found that fewer than 17% of us wireless users had any desire for wireless data. That will change. Fast enough for many billions of dollars to be spent over the next five years on 3G deployment? I don't have faith. Now you know why. I* has made claims to the economy of their system. But, that doesn't make up for the fact that infastructure costs won't change no matter who's standard you deploy if you have to start over from scratch. Let me remind you, laws of physics govern the coverage of a spectrum license. If your voice is in 800mhz and you try to deploy 3G data at 2.3ghz, you will need more base stations closer together. Lots of them. I am confident providers are testing solutions that give them the ability to satisfy our data needs AND allow them to dump money into finishing their coverage. It avoids the paradox of trying to deploy expensive features no one wants to pay for and limiting it to high-density areas. 1XRTT, HDR, EDGE and GPRS have garnered the spotlight over the last couple of months. Not just from the manufacturers, but from the providers as well. How does that benefit I*? I don't know much about audio bandwidth? Could be. What I do know that Qualcomm has developed an impressive in-house DSP expertise that makes variable-rate vocoders a battery-conserving reality in the palm of my hand. Q's QDSP core built into MSM3100 is able to support speaker-independent voice recognition, variable rate vocoders, echo cancellation, with one of the most efficient register and code structures in the DSP industry. Not everyone has a "golden ear". You have to ask yourself if you are willing to pay a significant premium just to get a higher voice quality. I personally don't care about sound quality as long as the call isn't dropped, costs me about $0.10 a minute, and I can reasonably recognize the callers voice. I don't think I am alone here. My friends don't understand why I dropped five figures on my stereo system. So, it is safe to assume I am not deaf. I am confident you will be hard pressed to find 10% of the cellular users out there who are dissatisfied with the quality enough to justify any further expense.