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: Maurice Winn who wrote (5422)	6/11/2000 6:22:00 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

Mq, << Only 4 years ago, there was still serious comment that CDMA would be a niche business or would simply fail >> Ah Frezza. ... on the other hand their were some who had vision back then (well before ETSI decided to standardize on CDMA as the 3G air interface based on a proposal submitted jointly by Ericcson and NTT DoCoMo). This article was written 4 years and 1 month ago: >> Beyond the Mudslinging Ira Brodsky May 13, 1996 PCS Edge (supplement to Telephony) The battle over who will rule the global wireless market is now in full swing. On the surface, it looks like a skirmish between competing technology acronyms. But take a closer look, and you'll see it's a clash between opposing ideologies. On one side stand the believers in government-mandated standards. Their technology development model, best represented today in the European community, sounds like something from Ross Perot: "We'll gather together the best minds, stick 'em in a room and keep the door locked until they come up with the answer." In the Nanny State, the population is insulated from difficult technology choices by panels of "experts." On the other side stand the followers of voluntary industry standards. The U.S. is this camp's leading champion; its development model is reminiscent of the Old West. Vendors simply stake their claims and start digging. There are few rules and even fewer sheriffs. But *in this realm, it's the cowboys with the best brains, not the biggest guns, who win.* If I had to choose with my eyes closed, I'd take the free market approach every time. The notion that a committee can come up with the best solution simply boggles the mind. Only an open market can offer a fighting chance to innovators with ideas just crazy enough to work. Today, the U.S. wireless industry confronts this same choice as we head toward the final showdown between time division multiple access (TDMA) technology--primarily, Europe's committee-produced GSM--and code division multiple access (CDMA) technology, invented by Qualcomm Corp. The TDMA camp brags its technology is "here today." Yes, Europe is well ahead of the U.S. in terms of digital cellular network deployments and subscribers. Commercial TDMA systems (D-AMPS) are operating in the U.S. cellular bands, and the first PCS networks are up and running with PCS 1900, a GSM derivative. GSM spent a decade in gestation and had its share of birthing pains, but it now works reasonably well and offers some nice features. The CDMA camp, in contrast, has set a more ambitious agenda. It promises much greater capacity, better voice quality and longer handset battery life. The first commercial CDMA service was launched in Hong Kong last October, followed by a more recent launch in Korea. Admittedly, CDMA development began in earnest six years ago, and still no fully commercial service exists in the U.S. But the CDMA effort began later. TDMA was no further along at the same point in its history, despite its more modest performance goals. Europe's leading vendors tout GSM's availability in dozens of countries. However, in many--if not most--of those countries, GSM is the only legally permitted digital solution. In addition, while CDMA networks are upgrades to existing, revenue-generating analog systems, GSM networks are being deployed in virgin spectrum. GSM may look like the safer choice, but CDMA has garnered roughly half of U.S. carrier commitments. The GSM camp accuses the CDMA side of dirty tricks--secretly backing a campaign alleging that GSM phones interfere with hearing aids, pacemakers and motorized wheelchairs. But it can hardly claim the moral high ground: Some TDMA proponents charge Qualcomm with nothing less than technology fraud. "Market Trim Tabs," an investment newsletter and GSM cheerleader, attributes CDMA's successes to what it shamelessly calls "the CDMA Mafia." I've followed the digital debate since Qualcomm introduced CDMA. I have gone back and forth with critics and proponents, examining every charge and countercharge. Although CDMA is a complex and ambitious technology, there don't appear to be any show-stoppers. Furthermore, the suggestion that Motorola, Lucent Technologies and Northern Telecom would pour billions of dollars into CDMA because they were swayed by a clever sales pitch is quite hard to swallow. Likewise, carriers don't spend billions of dollars on spectrum auctions and then choose a technology without performing due diligence. Free market believers know the free market is competent enough to detect and reject fraud well before it reaches such colossal proportions. My conclusion is that CDMA holds the key to wireless networks with wireline quality and capacity. TDMA, like other narrowband solutions, is a technological dead end. As one observer put it, CDMA may be late, but at least it's worth waiting for. More importantly, it's the one technology likely to cause our grandchildren to joke about the "old days"--when people still had phones on leashes. << - Eric -