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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (865)	7/14/2000 6:23:45 AM
From: Michael Allard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197637

Mika: You wrote "(forget about what is superior, in a lot of cases it doesn't matter)" I think investing in QCOM is at least a 25% - 50% bet that technology does matter in this case. I would agree that there are ample examples of markets where the best technology does not win out. However, there are far fewer examples of this when applied to maximizing the use of a scarce resource (such as spectrum). If this resource wasn't so scarce, other GSM flavors of 3G would have won the battle over CDMA. But we all know that spectrum fills quickly with subscribers (evidenced by AT&T's TDMA capacity issues, Nextels Capacity problems, and even China's prediction that they will not be able to add GSM subs past 2003). Given this fact, I believe that ultimately carriers will care about maximizing their allotment of spectrum. If it is proven that CDMA2000 proves to be technically superior to W-CDMA (and significantly so), I think network operators will change their mind. I may be forecasting the panacea here, but you have to admit that regardless of the royalty and IPR issues, IF CDMA2000 is proven to deliver voice and data at rates faster than W-WCDMA, and IF it proves to use spectrum more efficiently, and IF it can overlay on GSM systems, and IF it is available within 6 months, probably 1- 2 years before W-CDMA, then it has a pretty good chance of success. The nice thing about the risks inherent with the 4 IF's above is that even if they fail, and W-CDMA is widely deployed, QCOM becomes a phenomenal once in a lifetime investment at these levels. Good luck to all!

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (865)	7/14/2000 6:34:56 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197637

Mika: Re: "there are very few markets where GSM competes with cdmaOne (although a couple are potentially big markets)." Yes, Europe (where cdmaOne is excluded), Japan (where there is no GSM), North America (where GSM is not a practical force now and when data links to the internet become paramount will be passed as if standing still - when CDMA2000 1X hits early next year and HDR in the second half). So the "battlegrounds" are Asia and Latin America as a practical matter. On those, I would suggest cdmaOne is beginning to be introduced (very slowly but it is happening) where it counts most, In Asia, that includes Taiwan, Southeast Asia, Australia, and even potentially, China (the PLA's ex network). In Latin America, most importantly in Brazil and Mexico but gradually gaining traction in other countries as well. And where there is competition, the Achilles heel of GSM is data, no? Wearing your Asia hat, do you see the potential for a real GSM vs CDMA second (current) gen battle shaping up in current spectrum? Then, "As for HDR, if it gets standardised (in other words, sanctioned by regional standard bodies and the ITU) then it could have a chance anywhere including Europe. The bottom line is the most cost effective way for GSM operators to take advantage of high-speed CDMA is the route to WCDMA (aka UMTS)." If you see HDR as a possibility in Europe, doesn't that mean that it is an even more likely possibility in the entire remainder of GSMland (and of course it will be a mainstay for data in CDMAland). Therefore let's postulate HDR (or HDR with bells and whistles) 1xEV, in all of CDMAland and a significant portion of GSMland in 2001 accelerating in 2002 in current spectrum. Since this meets all the essential requirements of "3rd gen", why would anyone wish to go to "WCDMA" in new and very expensive spectrum at all - or at least within the next 3 to 5 years? Yes, those in CDMAland might because the upgrades are so straightforward and cost effective, but wouldn't HDR be preferable even in GSMland to switching (literally) to a "WCDMA" (if that were UMTS) which is not backwardly compatible to GSM? In other words, isn't the "choice" of UMTS irrational? Again, since you know Europe well, I am particularly impressed that in your judgement HDR has a real opportunity there. Would you be kind enough to tell us why you think that? (Is it that GPRS is just turning out to be too weak a reed on which to lean for rapid data?) Look forward to your "take". Best as always, Chaz