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.

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

To: DaveMG who wrote (28379)	7/19/2000 11:30:11 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 54805

Hi Dave, << Perhaps the price of membership was deemed to high, ie the patent pool? >> I don't know that "the patent pool" was a price of membership. I do think Dr. Jacobs has good tactical reasons for not yet joining 3GPP, but I don't exactly what they are. I yield to his judgment. << Isn't everyone disadvantaged, no one is in complete proprietary control, ie open standard.? Is QCOM as disadvantaged as some would have us believe? Probably not, at least if you believe IJ. >> Others are disadvantaged less because they are a direct participant in the process, have long experience with the process, and can react or anticipate better as a result. QCOM is used to being in total control of the process and thinks technology first, standardization second. Clarke Hare had some really good classic comments and observations on the resulting design process several months back on the S&P 500 thread. << Are the Koreans for example hesitating to adopt CDMA2000 3XMC because it's not yet standardized? That's not the impression I get. It seems to be much more a question of market/political issues than technical ones >> Standards, market availability, and politics are all playing together on this (IMO). Standards are just a piece but not an insignificant one. Perhaps it is wise to separate SK Telecom from Korea a bit in considering this. They are the NTT DoCoMo WCDMA partner who has the most hands on experience with UMTS UTRA DS (WCDMA), the most global carrier aspirations and as a consequence should be very capable of evaluating DS v. MC on its technical merits. Telecom carriers DON'T (or seldom) make decisions on equipment before standardization, and there is no standard for 5MHz operation for IMT-2000 spectrum. Although Korea mandated CDMA before commercialization, it did not do so before IS-95 standardization. Standardization is certainly a part of this. It shortly will be decision time for Korean carriers and Qualcomm is selling out of an empty store for IMT-2000 spectrum. They salvaged DDI IDO, but you can't get away with that all the time. China is playing a role in this. Korea and China collaborating. China is pure GSM today (some cdma tomorrow). Roaming is important. China as a potential market is important for Korea. Meantime I'm not counting Korea totally in the WCDMA camp. I think (hope) at least one carrier consortium will go cdma2000. << And are not the two camps really in very different positions? One standard is evolutionary (CDMA2000) and the other WCDMA not >> They are to a degree. Enter the router based IP network, the DS-41 bridge, the NNI, hooks and extensions, software defined radio (well thats a ways away), and evolution matters somewhat less than it used to. As for UTRA DS (WCDMA), while not totally evolutionary it builds heavily on the network links from the evolved GSM MAP core. - Eric -