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: Eric L who wrote (9349)	2/21/2001 1:50:37 PM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

They may if a cdma2000/GSM overlay is ever standardized Suggest you check out the IS-833, which is standardized by 3gpp2 with cooperation from 3gpp(gasp) like the unavailability of handsets for 1xRTT is it not? Suggest you go to this site gsmworldcongress.com and watch that interview with Dr.J and see what is in his hand by the end of the interview.

To: Eric L who wrote (9349)	2/21/2001 1:56:26 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Eric L: Hey. How about posting on the Q threads for CDMA discussions, since that is clearly irrelevant to Nokia. But, since we are here <G> As far as I know the word "stupid" is yours, no one else has used the term to my knowledge - has every sign of a straw man easy to knock down - and the Q's position is not. But that is neither here nor there. On the substance. All of us know Europe is a lost cause. But it is zero for CDMA now, so anything plus at all is a plus for Qualcomm. Even if Nokia is so "stupid" (hey, what a fun word) as to assume that Nokia will stiff Qualcomm on royalties, if and when any UMTS is "commercial", Nokia pays. Just will be how much. Best as always, and miss you where the action is - in CDMA land - or the land of the Q. Chaz PS Best to PUCK also.

To: Eric L who wrote (9349)	2/21/2001 3:01:35 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Could you explain why the auctions of 2GHz IMT-2000 spectrum in Europe would have been "reasonable" if cdmaOne had gained a foothold in Europe? I see that gdichaz and mighty have answered two of your questions. I'll give you the reasons behind my opinion that if CDMA has gained a foothold in Europe, the auctions would have not been quite so bizarre. If CDMAOne had gained a foothold in Europe, the transition to CDMA2000 would have been done initially in existing spectrum. The Korean example is suggestive of this process. Because CDMA2000 is spectrally efficient, I don't think that the demand for spectrum would have been quite as intense, thereby dropping bids. A lot more bang for the buck in existing spectrum equals less demand for the new stuff equals lower bids. If CDMAOne had gained a foothold in Europe, the spectral, transition and evolution cost advantage in favor of CDMA2000 would have been readily apparent to operators. I can't help but believe that these economic advantages would have carried the day. Never said the Euros are stupid. They are brilliant! How else could they have cut off a wonderful cost-efficient technology at the knees while developing what appears to be a more expensive one that is saddled with a risky transition path? The people who thought out such a strategy are quite intelligent.