SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 12:23:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
>> UF, do you get tired of your mailbox always flashing becaue people like me hit the POST MESSAGE button? Is it
better to just reply to the latest message?

Yes and yes <gg>. I usually pick out someone I who would be interested in the specific stock I'm addressing and direct the post to them. Otoh, since I read every single post on this thread anyway, it isn't a big problem.

uf



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 12:29:00 PM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
<< UF, do you get tired of your mailbox always flashing becaue people like me hit the POST MESSAGE button?>>

Hey, it gives him something to do...

<<Is it better to just reply to the latest message?>>

Depends whether you want accurate tips or a pi$$ing match... :0)

tekboy/Ares@ooops!wrongthread.com



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 12:34:00 PM
From: Rick  Respond to of 54805
 
Q on the fool:
boards.fool.com

"5) Which gets to Qualcomm. At the present time, I honestly cannot find a single other investment which has a higher probability of superior earnigns growth (one may certainly be out there...I just have not encountered it yet--I would love a list of any stocks that someone thinks may fit that profile...that is, not simply A CHANCE at superior earnings growth, but the HIGHEST PROBABILITY of superior growth). Currently wireless communications is second only to the internet in growth. And Qualcomm has a very excellent shot at becoming the dominant standard of the enabling technology for the entire industry (although GSM currently has a higher market share, have you heard of anyone in the past year setting up new towers with anything other than CDMA??). Qualcomm has proprietary rights to this enabling technology. And once all these CDMA towers and infrastructure are installed, and once all the supporting wireless vendors and the wireless value chain revolves around the CDMA standard, the cost of switching to a new technology would be enormous. Therefore, someone's simply coming up with an improved method of transmitting wireless messages will not be enough to overthrow CDMA (and therefore QCOM). It will not be until the (probably distant) future when there is an entire shift in the paradigm of mobile communications that Qualcomm's dominance, and therefore superior earnings growth will end."

- Fred



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 1:47:00 PM
From: Eric L  Respond to of 54805
 
buck,

Re: Wireless Data - Wireless Technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM) Qualcomm et al Part 1 of a 3 part article from upside.com linked by "buck".

<< Wireless Web Article >>

Excellent, unbiased, and timely link that accurately depicts the development of the 3 major wireless technologies, IMO. Thanks for posting it. It is good enough that I think it should be posted in its entirety here:

>>SO WHERE IS THE WIRELESS WEB?

February 11, 2000 - by Dee McVicker - Upside Magazine - Part 1 of 3

Wireless data is hot. You can't open a magazine without reading about microbrowsers on cell phones or turn on a television without seeing an advertisement for the Internet-in-your-pocket.

Japan is blasting away, with all jets driving, toward the new wireless Internet. As far back as October 19, 1998, NTT Mobile Communications Network Inc. (NTT DoCoMo, Tokyo), Japan's leading mobile operator, piloted a cellular network that joined together the cell phone and motion video.

Expected to launch commercially in March 2001, the network and others like it will give birth to a new wireless-communications era. For NTT DoCoMo's 3 million "i-mode" cell-phone subscribers (roughly 10 percent of the company's total customer base), for example, it will mean wireless high-speed Internet news, banking, video streaming, travel reservations, Web radio, and a slew of other services.

But here in the U.S., matters are not proceeding at the same headlong rate. Most wireless carriers are still smarting from their enormous (and painfully recent) investments in upgrading their network to support digital services (PCS). There is also some concern that the data market will bloom slowly -- a prediction that may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The long and short of it is that next-generation cellular data services will happen on this continent, but it will be at least a three-to-six-year engagement before they do.

Data That Grabs You

Few cellular operators can ignore the importance of data. In major cities, up to eight wireless-network operators now compete for business. Data transmission represents a new source of revenue extraction from their customer base. Even though data currently represents less than 2 percent of wireless traffic, according to Datacomm Research, a cursory look at the 40 percent growth of messaging in Europe during 1999 (to a whopping billion messages sent per month, according to The Yankee Group) indicates that wireless data services have profit potential.

Most observers expect that wireless data services will evolve in much the same way the landline Internet grew. E-mail and other text messaging services will come first. "I think in the North American market, what hasn't had any widespread adoption yet is messaging. Whether it's done through e-mail and browsers or through SMS, I think that is going to be an initial step that will get people used to wireless data devices," says Larry Paulson, president of Product Line Management for Nokia (NOK) CDMA handsets, Dallas, Texas.

Eventually, the goal is "third generation," or 3G, devices (digital cell phones were the second generation) that will deliver data rates of up to 2 Mbps. Just for comparison, current cellular-network transfer rates plod along at 9.6 Kbps or 14.4 Kbps, at best, which is OK for e-mail and some of the new Internet services being lauded by cell-phone carriers. Phone.com's (PHCM) Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) microbrowser is helping squeeze the Web into these pipes, but that's a stopgap measure.

In the long term, 3G will bring about full mobile multimedia -- video streaming and audio streaming, plus location-based services that will be able to notify a traveler there's a concert in which he'll be interested in the city he's visiting, for example.

Every Call Is a Winding Road

Any and all of these nifty data services will require investment in hardware and software upgrades. How much, when, and how fast will depend on the operator's existing transmission equipment. Network operations are currently divided into three technology families, code division multiple access (CDMA), time division multiple access (TDMA), and global system for mobile communication (GSM).

Each is facing a multigenerational path to higher data rates: a two-and-a-half generation (2.5G) modification followed by a third-generation (3G) modification. TDMA and GSM operators can take the 2.5G step with Ericsson's general packet radio service (GPRS), which will give them up to 115 Kbps, and then step up to 3G with enhanced data rates for global evolution (EDGE), which will bump them up to 384 Kbps and even, in some cases, 2 Mbps. CDMA operators can step into 2.5G with Qualcomm's cdma2000 1X, for up to 307 Kbps, and then step up to 3G with cdma2000 3X, which will give them up to 2 Mbps. 2-Mbps Wideband-CDMA (W-CDMA) is also a 3G option for GSM and CDMA operators.

Part of what is making it hard for U.S. wireless operators such as GTE Wireless (GTE) to immediately commit to 3G is their reluctance to give up a cash cow. "If we gave you 800-kilobit packet-data service as a user, we could fit 100 voice calls into that same bandwidth," explains Keith Radousky, vice president of engineering for BellSouth Cellular Corp. (BLS), Atlanta, Ga., which is also deploying 2.5G modifications as a soft step into 3G. Voice currently makes up the majority of operator income. "So there's a question of opportunity loss," he adds.

Japan's NTT DoCoMo doesn't have the same concern, one reason why it's not hesitating to jump into 3G. Japanese and European operators running out of bandwidth can license new spectrum for 3G; U.S. operators cannot.

The marriage between high-speed data and voice is a longer shot for U.S. network operators, because the operators already occupy the 2GHz band that other countries are now licensing for 3G. Moreover, U.S. PCS operators are running voice over this band -- very profitably, thank you -- so operators are already vested in existing infrastructure. <<

[Dee McVicker of Gilbert, Ariz. is a freelance writer specializing in broadcasting, information technology and telecommunications.] <<

<eom> see next post for part 2

- Eric -



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 1:51:00 PM
From: Eric L  Respond to of 54805
 
Re: Wireless Data - Wireless Technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM) Qualcomm et al Part 2 of a 3 part article from upside.com linked by "buck".

>> SO WHERE IS THE WIRELESS WEB?
February 11, 2000 - by Dee McVicker - Upside Magazine
Part 2 of 3: TAKING BABY STEPS

Some believe that the world of high-speed wireless data will come quickly and to a broad range of customers. Of the operators we spoke to, AT&T Wireless (T) is the farthest up on the high-speed staircase. AT&T runs a TDMA network, and it will start major deployment of EDGE in 2003, which will net it the transfer rates necessary for quality video and advanced high-speed data.

AT&T will test GPRS (TDMA's 2.5G step) internally in order to get its operations ready for EDGE. AT&T Wireless Services tracking stock, to be offered in May 2000, is expected to round up $10 billion in capital, which will no doubt help pay for that lead. The company disclosed plans to spend $3.5 to $4 billion this year to boost capacity and improve service quality.

AT&T Wireless has relatively aggressive plans. It's betting that although data services will appeal initially to power users, third-party companies that want to provide advanced services (stock quotes, retail services, and the like) to a broader range of consumers will help jump-start adoption.

"3G will be primarily a horizontal offering," predicts Rod Nelson, senior vice president and chief technology officer for AT&T Wireless. "The early adopters will be businesses that want to give their mobile workers access to their corporate data. Pure consumer offerings based on portals, music, audio, and video applications will emerge at nearly the same time."

But many carriers are skeptical. GTE Wireless's Randy Crouse, assistant vice president of Technology Planning and Implementation for the Irving, Texas-based operator, doesn't share AT&T's blue-sky vision. He says he's heard all the talk about "people running up and down the street with streaming video cameras at 2 megabits, but it's just not clear yet how that will shake out." Not surprisingly, GTE Wireless is taking the more conservative, 2.5G approach with its 6.9 million subscribers.

"Two-and-a-half generation is going to provide the proving ground. If there's more take-up of 2.5G, if they deliver the kind of usage and subscriber growth that people are hoping for, it will help make the business case for 3G. But there are a lot of steps along the way before we get serious about 3G," points out Mark Lowenstein, senior vice president of Global Wireless Practice with The Yankee Group, Boston, Mass.

To these uncertainties add the hidden costs of converting even to 2.5G. Operators have to turn their voice business model into a data business model, with all the billing and logistical nightmares that follow -- the business equivalent of a Buddhist converting to Catholicism.

"All the back-end support, all the financial reporting, all the marketing, all the distribution, billing -- all those things are voice-centric," comments BellSouth Cellular's Keith Radousky. What operators are doing now is starting to move "from voice to data. It really is the first step to becoming a data company."

Silver Lining

Happily for access providers, moving to a data-oriented infrastructure offers them benefits, too. For example, 2.5G will bring operating efficiencies to operators so they can offer more access time to data subscribers. That's going to be a big step in the matrimony of the Internet and cell phones, because it gets operators past that hurdle they're now facing with high-overhead, session-based access.

The operator with the most to gain from 2.5G is Sprint PCS (PCS), a company investing mightily in making its name synonymous with the term wireless Web. John Yuzdepski, vice president of Product Management and Development for Sprint PCS, Kansas City, Mo., says upgrading to 2.5G will essentially bridge the gap between what was good for voice -- that is, session-based traffic -- and what is more ideal for IP.

He explains, "When you pick up the handset and dial a number, you open a circuit between yourself and me. We're using up the same amount of bandwidth whether we're talking right now or not."

That may be OK for checking e-mail twice a day but becomes a problem when cell-phone users start cruising the Web as they do at home on landlines. Hence, Sprint PCS's 2.5G upgrade to cdma2000 1X.

"It allows us to create more capacity. It allows us to move to new billing paradigms. It allows us to move to more of a store-and-forward system, as well as optimizing the network. So the really big impact is on the network side, and on the user experience," says Yuzdepski.

More important, cdma2000 1X will also give Sprint PCS double the voice capacity -- the next best thing to new spectrum.

So, despite the current hype surrounding Internet-anything, cellular carriers' move to high-speed data services will more likely be a slow march than a quick sprint.

"I think we're going to go in small steps," says Radousky. "We have a very specific plan for our delivery of data services, and it doesn't involve the industry coming out with this huge 384-type service right out of the chute."

[Dee McVicker of Gilbert, Ariz. is a freelance writer specializing in broadcasting, information technology and telecommunications.] <<

<eom> see next post for part 3

- Eric -



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 1:53:00 PM
From: Eric L  Respond to of 54805
 
Re: Wireless Data - Wireless Technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM) Qualcomm et al Part 3 of a 3 part article from upside.com linked by "buck".

So Where is the Wireless Web?
February 11, 2000 - by Dee McVicker - Upside Magazine
Part 3: BATTLE OF THE STANDARDS

Battle of the Standards

Battles over technology standards are commonplace, but it's not every catfight that manages to get the governments of several countries involved.

Ericsson (ERICY) and Qualcomm (QCOM) develop the majority of transmission technology for network operators' base stations as well as the technology for their respective cell phones to pick up transmissions from those base stations.

San Diego, Calif.-based Qualcomm, with 1999 revenues of $3.9 billion, is the digital-cellular-network phenom whose CDMA technology all but owns the digital market in the U.S.

Stockholm, Sweden-based Ericsson, with reported 1999 revenues of $22 billion, connects over 40 percent of the world's mobile callers, as the maker of TDMA, GSM, and CDMA base stations and cell phones.

The trouble started during the debate of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on its International Mobile Telecommunications 2000 (IMT-2000) initiative, intended to bring about third-generation (3G) cellular audio, video, and high-speed Internet applications.

Ericsson and Qualcomm proposed different CDMA variants. Qualcomm's proposal was a better alternative for the majority of U.S. CDMA operators migrating to high-speed data, and Ericsson's proposal was a better alternative for its customer base in Japan and Europe, which accounts for more than half of Ericsson's revenue.

The quarrel became so heated that it prompted governments to get involved in what was quickly escalating into trade tensions between Europe and the United States. At the heart of the debate were CDMA intellectual-property rights.

A December 1998 letter signed by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Federal Communications Commission Chairman William E. Kennard urged the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, not to impose unnecessary 3G obstacles or "barriers to trade."

Finally, the ITU stepped in and announced that it would disqualify all CDMA proposals from its IMT-2000 initiative if the two companies didn't hold their fire.

Eventually, Qualcomm and Ericsson resolved their differences, coincidentally right around the time one of the strangest unions in recent history took place. Ericsson purchased Qualcomm's terrestrial-infrastructure business in May 1999.

Not long after, in November 1999, the ITU recommended transmission specifications for all countries and CDMA, TDMA, and FDMA technologies on the evolutionary path toward 3G, including two "harmonized" CDMA standards from Qualcomm and Ericsson.

The set of IMT-2000 specifications will fit the 3G wireless migration path of the Americas as well as the new-spectrum licenses of Asia and Europe, although it hardly fits anyone's definition of one single global standard.

Smart Phones

For every step up the high-speed migration path, phone manufacturers Nokia, Motorola (MOT), and Ericsson plan to come out with progressively more feature-rich phones, starting in early 2001.

Subscribers will need to upgrade or replace phones to get more-advanced features. But according to Nokia which makes TDMA and CDMA phones for the worldwide market, the current life expectancy of a mobile phone is just two years -- upgrades which have about the same life span as the carriers' upgrade steps to 3G.

There could be a premium market for multimode phones as well, because the ITU's global standards are not globally compatible with each other after all. U.S. cell-phone users traveling abroad will need either a multimode phone or some sort of adapter for their phones to work with some other countries' cellular networks.

Smart Chips

The complexity of these phones will require smarter and better chips, and lots of them. In December of 1999, Qualcomm agreed to sell its handset business to Kyocera, so it wouldn't have to "wrap the plastic" around what it expects will generate enough volume to keep its profits on the rise: chipsets.

Qualcomm is working on next-generation chipsets that will have global positioning for push-type, location-specific messaging and voice-recognition capability for hands-free user interaction. It unveiled a 3G handset prototype in October that offered voice command for all major functions plus a video display for when 3G comes about.

Motorola is also working toward smarter phones. "As you've seen from the PC world, mobile chipset technology will be very fast," says Dr. Valy Lev, corporate vice president and director of 3G, Advanced Technology and Software Operations for Motorola's Personal Communications Sector, Libertyville, Ill.

The math for these companies is simple: Carriers will continue to subsidize phone sales. Datacomm Research, a research firm in Chesterfield, Mo., predicts that 330 million smart phones will be sold per year by 2003.

There's also room for PDAs, specifically Palm Pilots, of which there are now 5 million worldwide. Before it announced its spin-off from 3Com Corp. (COMS), Palm announced a partnership with Sony (SNE) to develop audiovisual applications based on its platform.

It also began licensing its Palm OS to cell-phone manufacturers Qualcomm, Motorola, and Nokia as well as Handspring, a handheld-device manufacturer. Datacom Research predicts that 36 million PDAs will be sold in 2003.

[Dee McVicker of Gilbert, Ariz. is a freelance writer specializing in broadcasting, information technology and telecommunications.] <<

- Eric -



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 2:28:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805
 
Etiquette Question

do you get tired of your mailbox always flashing becaue people like me hit the POST MESSAGE button? Is it better to just reply to the latest message?

Speaking for me, if given a choice I'd prefer that people not send public messages to my private inbox. I see all the messages so sending something to the inbox doesn't increase the chance of me seeing it. Instead, it means I have to go back and delete it after I've already read the public message.

That's why I don't send public messages to other people's private inbox.

--Mike Buckley



To: buck who wrote (17840)2/13/2000 3:22:00 PM
From: buck  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 54805
 
Another, somewhat OT post; this time about subscriptions:

As I run down my to-do list to become a serious game hunter, I find that I need to subscribe to a lot of stuff: WSJ, Red Herring, Computerworld, IBD, blah blah blah... I've already got the Forbes and Fortune guns in the Suburban.

Would any of you grizzled veterans, with many safaris under your belts and skins hanging on the wall, care to enlighten an enthusiastic and eager novice on their subscription portfolio?

Also, if you could tell me, how do you manage to scan? I have practically quit reading anything but business magazines like Forbes and Fortune, since I (having been taught well by my mama) read absolutely everything put in front of me. That means every article, every sidebar, every commentary piece...it's a good four hours without interruption to get through Fortune for me.

My humble thanks for your help.

buck, who still likes to hunker down with a well-written 700-page novel as often as possible

PS who also thinks most tech writers could use a good whooping from their grade-school English teachers