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: Keith Feral who wrote (6213)	2/4/2000 12:32:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 13582

from Bus.Wk. for subscribers before hits print: Web to Go--Sort of Today's Net phones are O.K. for e-mail, but surfing is a chore Surf on the go. That's the promise of the compact, wireless Web phones that started hitting the market in September. But that promise is far from being fulfilled. When you use these phones, be prepared for lost signals, frequent low-battery warnings, limited content, and a far-from-speedy pace of getting information. Still, wireless Web phones can be handy in a pinch when you have to have a stock quote after hours or need to receive an urgent e-mail while you're in transit. The phones and their services are improving monthly. Some models I tried actually logged on to the Internet more quickly than my desktop and worked well in limited applications. If you want Web cell-phone access, the cost may not be much more than regular wireless service. Sprint PCS (PCS), for instance, charges $9.99 on top of the cell-phone package for 50 minutes of Web time and an additional 30 cents a minute after that. It also sells a combined plan that can be used for regular cell-phone or Web access. That plan gives 300 minutes monthly for $59.99 or up to 1,200 minutes for $179.99. Sprint offers the handsets anywhere from around $100 to $800, depending on the phone. Other carriers in the fledgling field include Nextel (NXTL), Bell Atlantic (BEL), and AT&T (T). The primary drawback of Web phones is the limited amount of information they are able to get--and the limited number of sites they can log on to. Most small screens display only 4 to 11 lines of information, so it's time-consuming to see the data. Also, they can't show graphics. To package information fit for these screens, sites such as Yahoo.com, ABCNews.com, Bloomberg.com, and Ameritrade.com have gotten together with phone carriers to adopt a format called Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). The format requires sites to strip out graphics and shorten stories. So far, only a handful of such sites exist. Another problem with Web phones is that tapping in data on a keypad smaller than two square inches is a trial. A Web phone user has to press a number key with the desired letter on it until the letter appears onscreen. If you want to type an ''L,'' for example, you have to push the ''5'' key three times, then wait until the cursor moves one space to show that it's ready for the next letter. I dare you to type an e-mail that way. Software developers are working on a voice-recognition system that will do away with much of the tedious typing. Analysts and carriers say a rudimentary version may roll out in a year to 18 months. Among Web phones I tested, the silver, 5 1/2-inch-long Qualcomm Neopoint 1000 boasts a relatively large 11-line screen. It passed a critical test--the browser was so easy to use that I got online without reading the directions. But like many of the phones, it could be confoundedly contrary. After hours of being unable to sign on to the Web, I finally shut the Neopoint off, turned it back on again, and--voila!--Web access. I still don't know what the problem was. SLOW GOING. Even easier to use was Denso's Touchpoint dual band, which can pick up analog signals for cell-phone use in areas where digital coverage isn't good. Of the phones I tried, this one proved the most reliable for browsing as well as for calling. I could always make a call and didn't experience frozen screens or other frustrating glitches. LCWATSON

To: Keith Feral who wrote (6213)	2/4/2000 1:06:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

<We also think Nokia is very strong in terms of execution over its competitors. It also has a great ability to produce cash, which is a strategic advantage that will be very important in terms of their ability to buy themselves into new markets or out of mistakes made.> Hmmmmmmmm

To: Keith Feral who wrote (6213)	2/4/2000 12:25:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Keith, << None of the reports that I have read by Microvision or others >> Have you read the Microvision report? I have not. I have only read the summary that I clipped, edited. linked, and posted. I might add that this report (and Microvision) are new to me. Have you read any of the others I referenced in their entirety? The rationale for determining how the numbers are arrived at and generally go into a number of factors that the casual observer might overlook(regulatory issues, spectrum allocation, licensing, infrastructure contracts, build outs in progress, standards, interoperability and roaming issues, et al). << None of the reports .... that I have read by Microvision or others has contemplated the convergence of UMTS with 3G standards ... >> Yes they have. The Microvision report lumps 3G into one category. The Strategis report breaks down considerably finer. << convergence of UMTS with 3G standard that will mandate a CDMA air interface >> The 3G standards (ITU) did not mandate a CDMA air interface. In early 1997 The GSM MoU created 3GIG so it's standards body ETSI could continue its work on finalizing the GSM Phase 2+ standard. They had already chosen CDMA (UTRA) as the air interface they would utilize to develop their evolved third generation specification and the initial draft specification although rudimentary was published in spring of 97. 3GIG evolved to 3GPP. The UWCC Consortium allied with the GSM Association. They subsequently published their proposal to ITU for UTMS with UTRA. << If you do not think that a UMTS based system with a CDMA air interface is a CDMA customer, then what would you call them >> UMTS. << Only the baseband network will be GSM >> That simply is not an accurate statement .... and this is where many issues lie. << QCOM will still be selling chips for 1X or 3X. They will also be generating royalties >> That covers the CDMA side. They will also receive royalties for implementations of UTRA. This is Q positive and why I'm long Q as my largest core holding. I am quit positive in my outlook that IPR issues will be resolved to Q's satisfaction. Do you have any indication that 1X or 3X will be deployed in Europe? << I don't care much for the reports issued by any of the groups that you have mentioned >> The downside for the intermediate haul is that on the 2.5G side Q gets no royalties on any component of an implementation of GPRS & EDGE. Whether or not you "care much for the reports" they are worth a read in this regard. In Europe the very accurate statement that "GSM is the dominant wireless standard in the world" is being modified to "GPRS will be the dominant wireless standard in the world". This may be hyperbole but it has appeared in print, and I have heard it frequently. I recently attended a seminar in Europe where one of the presenters representing one of the largest carriers in the world shared his firms plans for network evolution, subscriber forecasts, and wireless data evolution (they have been doing wireless data since 1992 and were a key participant in the Mobile Data Initiative from its inception. They forecast tripling their huge subscriber base by 2004. They also forecast that 65% of their subscriber base will be using GPRS by 2004. This despite the fact that they are still struggling with the issue of how to make data pay and they are one of the most experienced in the world with wireless data services. They will probably not implement UTMS on any commercial scale till late 1994 earliest. Their analysis of the market today has nothing to do with the inevitable direction of CDMA >> Dr. J will have to just do more convincing. <g> << Strategis was employed by ATT to conduct a feasibility study of CDMA. They were not being paid to seek out the truth, they were merely paid to observe the market place as it exists today >> Strategis was hired by 'T' to determine something that noone has ever put hard verifiable numbers to: What are the relative costs associated to the buildout and maintenance of a CDMA Network v. Edge / UTMS. Are you implying that they will fabricate numbers? << it is an inevitable outcome that UMTS based services in Europe will comply with 3G standards based on a CDMA air interface >> That is correct. The GSM UMTS standards for UTMS with UTRA will continue to be evolved through 3GPP and will ultimately be maintained by ETSI (or in the case of other continents by ARIB et al). << LU, NT, ERICY, and VOD are all supporting the transition to a wideband wireless network in Europe that will be compatible with CDMA based networks in the United States >> ... and Nokia, and several other carriers. It is a long road. Work on the GSM / TDMA interoperability and roaming side is of course much further along. 3gPP@ has a few challenges as it relates to harmonization and they appear to be working feverishly to resolve them. A key issue is that there currently exists no method for a CDMA handset to authenticate to a GSM network and there are some issues relating to the AMPs evolved numbering plan used by CDMA in the United States. I have some long and boring posts on another thread on this issue and I won't waste more bandwidth on this thread discussing them. If you care to read them the primary link is here and related links can be accessed by following backward or forward: Message 12734357 I also posted a CDMA specific update on that topic on this thread: Message 12738197 In relation to this, this news just came across my desk from the out of the GSM World Congress: gsmnewsreel.com >> THE GREAT CDMA NO-SHOW Big news resulted in no news this week for the CDMA Development Group (CDG). Perry LaForge, executive director of the CDG, canceled plans to meet with reporters and GSM representatives in Cannes in order to focus his lobbying efforts on Asia; where cdmaOne backer Qualcomm scored a coup in licensing its intellectual property to China Unicom, China's second-largest state-owned telecoms company. LaForge had been expected to brief reporters on a variety of issues; including the CDG's frustration at being denied membership in 3GPP and the CDG's initiaitiaves regarding CDMA-GSM roaming. However, he decided to remain in the United States in case he needed to fly to China to further the cause of cdmaOne in Asia. The group's strength in Asia Pacific has not gained it significant inroads in Europe's GSM community, however. And the CDG is irritated that 3GPP; the 3rd Generation Partnership Project which is creating specifications for the evolution of MAP-based architectures, has denied the CDG entry as a Market Representation Partner because it apparently feels the CDG's views are not applicable to the project at hand. As for the roaming issue, the CDG had hoped to send Terry Yen, director of Asia Pacific Projects, to a recent meeting of the GSM Global Roaming Forum and to the GSM World Congress where he could evangelise the concept of CDMA-GSM SIM card roaming. However, a family emergency kept Yen from attending. Speaking via phone from the Philippines, Yen noted that the first cdmaOne handsets equipped with SIM card slots should be out later this year, potentially enabling cdmaOne subscribers to put their SIM cards into GSM phones for international roaming, provided, of course, that applicable operator roaming agreements are put into place. Nonetheless, Yen notes, "Our priority in roaming is first and foremost CDMA to CDMA." A dual-band cdmaOne phone from Sanyo-enabling 800 MHz roaming across frequencies in Japan, Hong Kong and Korea-is due out in eight weeks. Longer term, Yen says the CDG hopes to work with its GSM counterparts on creating a forum to enable interoperability between third-generation technologies WCDMA and cdma2000. << My apologies for the length of this response to you. Best Regards, - EriQ -