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: tero kuittinen who wrote (5405)	6/10/2000 12:26:00 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 34857

I knew that if I searched hard enough, that I would find something that you wrote that I agree with.... boards.fool.com "The Motley Fool, and specifically Sheriff TippyK, are taking their obsession with friendliness and civility to a level that means that anything wouldn't fit into a '50s sitcom has to go out the window." I think this is an excellent point. There's nothing wrong with opinionated posts, as long as they don't cross over to vile slander. I know there are a lot of smart people who cop this "Can't we all get along?" attitude, to which my gut response has always been "Hell, no." (I'm genuinely sorry, Mycroft... but I'm not buying into this recent conversion of yours... and I think that the Koreans may not stand where you think they do on the 3G issue.) Is there anything as boring as the boards that have turned into self-congratulation clubs? Most interesting people are often the ones you really have a beef with. Friends come and go - a decent enemy will last a lifetime. And they are hard to find - literally "decent" enemies; people you can disagree with and still look forward to arguing with. There's nothing wrong with that and there should be nothing personal in exchanging thinly veiled insults over things that matter - like outlooks for different companies. Adults can always separate that kind of repartee over abstract topics taking place in virtual space from actual, real-life disagreements over real issues. If there are kids here, it's about the time they pick up that distinction and maybe learn something. We can't and shouldn't wrap discussion boards into Barney the Purple Dinosaur cocoon of warm, fuzzy feelings. Getting a dog is a good idea if people need constant reaffirmation. Dealing with disagreements without papering them over is a pretty good knack to pick up at any age. It doesn't have to descend into Yahoo-style "die, bitch" dialogue - there should be some reasonable middle ground. Tero

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5405)	6/11/2000 1:01:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Tero, Below is a US point of view on Europe's wireless supremacy. Although the article is 5 months old it is "functionally current" which relates to the issue of a single standard v. open competition amongst wireless technologies, which we frequently discuss on this thread: >> Debunking The Myth Of Europe's Wireless Supremacy By Ira Brodsky Network World 01/17/00 nwfusion.com You hear them more and more: complaints that the U.S. trails Europe in wireless technology. Well, that may have been true three years ago. Now things are changing, and *Europe - thanks to the same protectionist policies that helped it grab the lead - is falling hopelessly behind. According to some pundits, Europe's wireless market is more advanced because European governments had the wisdom to choose and enforce a single digital wireless technology standard.* This view was echoed in a Time magazine article entitled "Why your cell phone stinks" (Aug. 23, 1999). The article suggested that competing technology standards in the U.S. have resulted in an expensive but pointless marketing war, spreading confusion among consumers. The undeniable success of Europe's Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) standard may indeed seem like a compelling argument for government-mandated standards. But GSM succeeded for three other reasons: It introduced much-needed competition among European mobile telephone operators; hastened the transition to digital technology; and enabled continentwide roaming. These benefits could have been achieved just as easily with competing technology standards. Resisting the temptation to impose a single standard, the U.S. now has three: GSM; Time Division Multiple Access, based on the same underlying technology as GSM; and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), a radically different technology invented by San Diego-based Qualcomm. The U.S. market was slow to adopt digital wireless technology because the free market only abandons old technology when new technology demonstrates significant price/performance improvements. Led by CDMA, digital wireless technologies are now delivering greater capacity, better audio quality, longer battery life and new data services - and the U.S. wireless market is converting to digital at breakneck speed. Artificially insulated from competition, Europe's GSM industry reacted predictably. When CDMA was being developed, they said it wouldn't work. When CDMA service was introduced, they said it was too little, too late. Now that CDMA has acquired 50 million users in record time, the GSM industry claims to have invented it, despite the fact that there are no CDMA mobile telephone networks operating in Europe. Meanwhile, CDMA is spreading like wildfire across North and South America and Asia. CDMA has proved superior for voice but has even greater advantages for data. While most GSM operators offer short messaging and circuit-switched data at 9.6K bit/sec, Sprint PCS has rolled out Wireless Web service (handsets with microbrowsers) and circuit-switched data at 14.4K bit/sec. Korea has launched 64K bit/sec CDMA data service, and Japan is doing the same. Even Europe's GSM industry agrees CDMA is the best way to achieve higher speeds. They should know: their networks are running out of capacity. Brodsky is president of Datacomm Research, a Chesterfield, Mo., consultancy. << - Eric -

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (5405)	6/12/2000 8:23:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Please explain why Unicom would adopt cdma2000 as an upgrade to GSM. QCOM flying in premarket on the following news> 07:18 ET QUALCOMM (QCOM) 79 1/16: China's 3rd-largest telecom provider, China Unicom, says it plans to adopt the third generation of Qualcomm's CDMA technology; China Unicom will begin testing the wireless platform next year.