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.
Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)5/27/2000 1:41:00 PM
From: CAtechTrader  Respond to of 5853
 
Well said George...reminds me of those who fear dental x-rays and then fly cross country in a plane, receiving multiples of radiation exposure during the flight than in the dentist's chair.



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)5/27/2000 2:49:00 PM
From: didjuneau  Respond to of 5853
 
The "AlGorithm"? Is that what we should be calling it? I guess it is just modesty that keeps him from correcting us every time we call it the "internet". <vbg>



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)5/29/2000 6:11:00 AM
From: nikko  Respond to of 5853
 
From Bloomberg
quote.bloomberg.com

China Reaffirms Plans to Use Qualcomm Technology (Update1)
By Peter Harmsen

Beijing, May 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Chinese government reaffirmed its commitment to building a wireless-phone network using the technology of San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc., developer of the world's fastest-growing mobile phone standard.

Qualcomm shares plunged 26 percent last week on concerns of possible sales setbacks in South Korea and China and on a report in the Asian Wall Street Journal that China United Telecommunications, the nation's second-largest phone company, changed its mind about using Qualcomm's code division multiple access (CDMA) technology.

The best way for the Chinese government to support China Unicom, as the No. 2 phone company is known, is to let it expand and run a network based on CDMA, Zhang Chunjiang, vice minister of the information industry, said in a report carried by Xinhua news agency.

``Unicom never said it won't use CDMA technology, and Zhang Chunjiang's comment shows the rumor that Unicom will stop developing CDMA isn't true,'' said Zhang Jiakun, a Unicom spokesman. ``Unicom will definitely continue to develop the CDMA network.''

Qualcomm's Beijing office also said it had received assurances from Unicom that it will go ahead with the establishment of the CDMA network.

The stakes are high for Qualcomm and other foreign companies seeking a slice of the Chinese mobile phone market. China had 43 million cellular phone users at the end of last year, a number that could rise to 70 million this year.

Qualcomm's technology is used by 57 million people worldwide.

Unicom agreed in February to license Qualcomm's CDMA technology. Then reports surfaced that the Chinese government was delaying the projects in what analysts said was a ploy to get U.S. support for China's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

The possible usefulness of the CDMA network as a lever to gain access to the Geneva-based body may have been exhausted with the passage last Wednesday of a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives granting China permanent access to the U.S. market. The legislation is now pending before the U.S. Senate.

Qualcomm said passage of the bill in the House, considered the major hurdle, removed a major obstacle to introduction of the company's technology in China.

``PNTR is particularly beneficial to Qualcomm, reducing the prior uncertainty of Chinese government support for a major increase in the use of code division multiple access technology by China Unicom and possibly others,'' Qualcomm Chief Executive Irwin Jacobs said in a statement late last week. ``China has a rapidly expanding need for voice communications and Internet access, both of which are well met by CDMA.''



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)5/31/2000 6:06:00 PM
From: Binx Bolling  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
test



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)6/2/2000 9:55:00 PM
From: Elllk  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
Reports emerged in the past few weeks revealing that in the late 1950's high level US military officials hatched and vigorously pushed a plan to explode an A-Bomb on the Moon. The reports struck me, and my guess is most of you, as quite bizarre. The apparent rational of the cumulative US military leadership at the time was that the free world had become uneasy about Soviet military capabilities after the successful launch of Sputnik. Something had to be done, military bigwigs felt, to dramatically demonstrate that US technology, especially rocket technology, was equal or superior to that of the USSR. A highly visible, dramatic A-Bomb blast was needed, the argument went, to calm potentially rampant fear of the Soviet Union. The effort to promote this plan went on behind the scenes for a good length of time, one to two years, at least.

Bizarre and insane, yes. But coming across the reports made me feel better about a proposal I sent a little over three years ago to Mark Gearan, then The Peace Corps Director. At the time the bridge to the new millennium and making Internet available to all, especially to school children through all grades, was being spoken of as a major objective. Computer technology and Internet development had reached a level which could allow a very different dramatic and positive demonstration of the power of a new, and basically, American technology in the service of peace. It was already theoretically possible for everyone on Earth to participate in a Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (CETI) Project. The US had previously sent CETI messages into space. Pioneer 10 and 11, launched in 1972 and 1973, each carried a version of the same simple plaque (necessarily limited by severe space and weight constraints). Though the plaques cleverly encrypted a great amount of information, they were merely attached to the vehicle mainframe and looked remarkably like caveman drawings. Voyager 1 and 2, launched in 1977, also each carried a version of the same message. Less constrained by space and weight limits, each Voyager carried a gold-coated phonograph record containing pictures, sounds, music, and greetings in 54 languages from Earth. In a few short years, however, weight and space constraints of previous CETI missions had been overcome from both sides. Rockets were more powerful and storage and communication equipment demanded less space and weight. A satellite could easily carry a simple Peace Message from each of the four billion people on Earth, lets say a one page, or less, Peace Message containing each person's hopes and fears about possible encounters with ETI's or posing questions to ETI's about the nature of their life and society. In practice, hundreds of millions could probably participate, the limitation being access to Internet. Such messages could be sent via Internet to a dedicated URL where a server would store the messages and allow them to be transferred to a satellite and launched into space. Such a project would, of course, be highly symbolic since the messages might take millions or billions of years to be received, or might never be received, but the effort, itself, would be the point. It would help bring focus to ultimate concerns, and certainly to concerns more propitious than those of the generals in the late 1950's who wanted to demonstrate the power of US technology in a quite different way.

Part of the original suggestion was that the Peace Corps would find the Clinton Administration (already focusing on the Bridge to the New Millennium and universal Internet access, and with a Vice President who invented Internet) and NASA (having played a significant role in extending our view of the universe through cooperative efforts producing results such as the Hubble Telescope revelations) to be quite willing partners in such a Peace Project. The Project would also serve to demonstrate the dramatic development of computer and Internet technology on Earth in a very short period.

Voyager was a step up from Pioneer, but to move from those early efforts to having technology allowing hundreds of millions, or billions of individuals around the Earth to each post their own Peace Message to potential ETI's is something we would not have believed could be possible only 10 years ago.

It was also suggested that a New Years Eve 2000 launch might add impact, that being the accepted beginning of the New Millennium. But since 2001 is technically the beginning of the New Millennium, maybe there is still a dramatic moment in the offing, as well.

I never received a reply to the proposal and thought maybe it was deemed silly. Having been apprised of aspects of "high level thinking" in the late 1950's, I now think better of the CETI Peace Message Project and also think it has a much better chance of a good reception at grass roots levels.

If you like the idea, the main route is to pass this on to friends. But it also wouldn't hurt to lobby some of the powers that be with hope they might be responsive. This can be done, for starters, by E-mailing some or our key employees in the hope that The Peace Corps, The White House, and NASA will get it together and provide a URL to implement such a Peace Project and bring it to fruition. Three of the four E-mail contacts are at web sites, as follows:

Go to site:
peacecorps.gov
>>Click on category Peace Corps Press Office/Public Affairs
>>(Fill out E-mail form addressing it to Mark L. Schneider, Peace Corps Director)

Go to site:
whitehouse.gov
>>(Then click on each of the following and fill out E-mail form for):
The President
The Vice President
The First Lady
Mrs. Gore

Send E-mail to:
comments@hq.nasa.gov
>>(Address it to Dan Goldin, Director, NASA)

Go to site:
georgewbush.com
>>(Fill out E-mail form addressing it to George and Laura Bush [since either they or
>>Al and Tipper Gore will be the next occupants of the White House])

Caveat Emptor: Some of the E-mail form access procedures these days are laborious.



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)6/7/2000 3:31:00 AM
From: w molloy  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5853
 
Wireless Watch On Being Gildered

The financial community was misled when a pundit forgot the difference between an air interface and a standard

By Grahame Lynch

New-technology seer George Gilder is known for his endorsements of companies he believes are disrupting the telecom market for the better. It?s not often that he devotes his prose to outright denigration. So Wall Street Journal readers were surprised on May 1 when they found
that a main article by Gilder and a co-author trashed AT&T Wireless? use of Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) as its network platform.

Perhaps Gilder?s tendency to hyperbole means that when he releases the bile, it comes on really thick and heavy. He described AT&T Wireless as a "low-tech wasteland," adding
that TDMA was "essentially worthless." He added that TDMA?s evolutionary path to the 384 kbps EDGE standard was nothing more than a "bit of current vaporware" and that its data speed was "paltry" compared to the CDMA higher data rate standard which he claims can support speeds "six times as fast."

Gilder recommended that AT&T should trash its TDMA network in favor of CDMA and even inferred that failure to adopt his course of action could leave the entire US economy
behind the rest of the world. Whew!

Too Emotional Over CDMA

Gilder is not the first person to get emotional over CDMA or to infer that use of TDMA is tantamount to treason. But he needs to get his facts straight before taking on AT&T
Wireless.
Virtually all the promised data-centric abilities of cellular are, indeed, vaporware.

EDGE isn?t scheduled to be released until 2001; according to the CDMA Development Group, the CDMA 1X upgrade supporting speeds of 144 kbps (half that of EDGE) won?t be
out until the end of this year. The fastest CDMA speeds to date range up to 64 kbps, mainly in Japan. They have competition from first-generation PHS services which have been offering these sorts of speeds for two years now. The first W-CDMA platforms (an evolutionary path for TDMA and
GSM networks) may support speeds in excess of 384 kbps, but they won?t be available until next year at the earliest. Right now in Japan, the bulk of wireless Internet use, from a real market of over 5 million people, takes place on the PDC platform, which supports speeds of just 9.6 kbps. Speed, like size, isn?t everything.

Gilder?s contends that TDMA has a capacity disadvantage against CDMA. This is true if you take the air interface in isolation. But the sheer dominance of TDMA-interface operators across the world (GSM uses TDM access) is placing vendors under pressure to develop a range of optimization solutions, such as half-duplex algorithms, micro- and picocells, and frequency-reuse ratios that have trended down from seven cells to four.

Providing high data rates and considerably higher capacity on any standard requires more base stations. It is not a cheap or easy process. With TDMA-based operators globally accounting for over eight times the subscriber numbers of CDMA-based operators, there?s bound to
be successful technical and business models that provide cheaper alternatives to complete network trashing.

Gilder forgets that there is a big difference between an air interface and a standard. CDMA is a superior air interface to TDMA, but cdmaOne is not a superior standard to GSM. This is why the TDMA fraternity is frantically attempting to converge its back-end systems with GSM,
which has the lead when it comes to roaming tables and databases, messaging protocols, billing procedures and subscriber identity modules. These standards enable GSM operators to earn lots of margin-heavy extra cash.

It?s no coincidence that CDMA pitches itself as the discount service alternative to GSM in markets where the two co-exist. It?s also no coincidence that the cdmaOne alliance is working hard to develop interoperability with GSM standards, given that cdmaOne operators are largely denied access to the $12 billion international roaming market as a result of their original failure to create an effective numbering plan.

Day-Traders Were Ill-Informed

AT&T Wireless would be mad to trash its TDMA network. It increased revenues by 40% last year and is on track for another 30% this year. Most PCS competitors are still loss-makers.

A packet-based protocol, CDPD, exists for TDMA and can be implemented on-demand. There's no reason to regard further data upgrades such as EDGE as any more lacking in
credibility than other proposed 2.5G or 3G models. What's more, the successes of NTT iMode in Japan and
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) in Europe show that ISDN or DSL-style data rates aren't a pre-condition for the future success of wireless Internet services.

Gilder's views wouldn?t matter so much if they were confined to his 20,000-subscriber newsletter. But he chose to air them on the leading page of the largest circulating
newspaper in the US. Internet message boards frequented by day-traders lit up within hours with passionate,
yet ill-informed, responses. The misinformation was blinding. Gilder should exercise his cursor ?
if you pardon the homonym ? in a more balanced way.



To: George Gilder who wrote (4454)6/9/2000 9:23:00 AM
From: Klingerg  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
GG...Re:WAVX; HAPPY SLOGIVERSARY TO ALL !!!!

Today is an important day in the annals of Wave fact and folklore. It is the one year anniversary of the prophetic ... and now proven accurate ... comment of George Gilder in the following historic exchange:
********************************************************

To: George Gilder who wrote (1644)
From: catherineiw
Tuesday, June 8, 1999 2:17 PM ET
Reply # 1648 of 3008

George, it's been a while since you had any comment on WAVX's progress...now that they have been relisted and deployment is underway, MyPublish is up, etc.....do you have any comments?

To: catherineiw who wrote (1648)
From: George Gilder
Wednesday, Jun 9 1999 5:37PM ET
Respond to Post # 1653 of 3008

My comment is that this is going to be a long slog and as a member of the board I am prohibited from commenting on details.
********************************************************

At the time of the comment it seemed outlandishly and impossibly conservative.

Looking back from today it has been proven to be 100% accurate.

The connotation of a "slog" implies slow, but steady forward progress ... the type that is hard to measure on a short term, minute-to-minute or day-to-day basis, but which if observed over time, ought to show significant progress. It certainly has been both.

Those who have endured and stayed the course or even just observed for the "Year of the Slog" must admit that although progress all during the year appeared to be slow, we are certainly well beyond where we were on the date of George's prophetic pronouncement.

Those who listened were given the basis to find the strength to survive and to help each other to do so.

The slog is still on, but the goal is certainly closer, better defined and well within sight.

Thank you George.

Thank you Catherine.

Steve

ragingbull.com
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Any further comment GG on this anniversary?

Later....Klingerg

PS..Will you be at WAVX Shareholder Meeting on the 26th?