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: foundation who wrote (8394)	3/9/2001 8:31:21 PM
From: mightylakers	Respond to of 197215

Liked standing the letter That is Ericy<ggg>

To: foundation who wrote (8394)	3/10/2001 12:36:28 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197215

Ben, my effort to sucker Laodeng into yet another huge translation job failed. Trying to count on other such as the lazylaker is hopeless. Anyway, David T did a good job highlighting the essence of the article. Message 15478170 I just want to add a few comments: Sulpizio, at last qtr earnings release, responded to a question about China. He said something like he felt sorry for China, being bombarded from all sides as to which technology is best suited for China. Secondly, many opined that China was playing games since the historic signing with QCOM now over a year ago. Those of us with weak stomachs had a tough time with the China on again off again news that made QCOM swing like a see-saw. This article finally puts much of the speculation to rest. It appears that China Unicom has been far more objective and pragmatic in analyzing the options than its global counterparts, be it the Europeans, the US or the neighboring Koreans. I cannot find any flaws in Unicom's decision to use IS95a. It is the cheapest alternative to serve the overwhelming majority of the people. Now if you combined this article with the other long one that Laodeng just translated, one has to wonder about what that poster from yahoo, tryharder(?), "predicted" months ago, regarding China Mobile. If China applies the same analysis, and if Chinese domestic manufacturers are successful in capturing the lions share of the CDMA contracts, then why would China go WCDMA? What an exciting couple of weeks for QCOM. It is too bad that market condition was such a drag. Ramsey

To: foundation who wrote (8394)	3/11/2001 2:37:54 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Respond to of 197215

tech.china.com Ben, I have decided to translate parts of the above article with some comments. Mainly, it pertains to how much China has learned in the past year since the famous "signing". ".......... spectrum is non-renewable resource. Even though we can logically argue the we can explore infinitely high (MHz?) spectrum, common sense dictates that the higher the frequency, the higher the economic price, the greater the technical difficulty. In addition, there is reason to believe this is a non-linear growth. We should not be ignoring the efficient use of the current spectrums while chasing after the exploration and application of new spectrums." This is in direct contrast to the rest of the world. The Chinese government appears to be disinterested in raping the carriers and putting 3G bidders in financial bind. ".........for Voice only, using 800Mhz 2G is undoubtedly cheaper that 2GHz 3G. This is indisputable fact. We have no reason to believe while our first 80 million wireless subs (6% of pop) main usage is voice via 2G, the next 100 million or more subs would want to use data and internet as primary service. The demand for wireless data cannot be predicted by years ......." It appears the 3G world is finding this out rather painfully. "In preparation for WTO open market ...... if, after WTO, all wireless subs are concentrated within one or two GSM networks, then all our CDMA research and development would have lost the market stimulant and development delayed...... under these circumstances, once the WTO market is opened, foreign companies with significant resources would for certain use their advanced CDMA systems to open a massive CDMA network in China while the domestic CDMA system is still in its infancy ....... further more, we would expert the churning of our GSM accounts. For a few hundred yuan or less, the GSM subs could become CDMA subs of the foreign companies, especially the 500 yuan and above high usuage subs. Most significant is the technical superiority of CDMA. Therefore we expect churning would significantly impact the GSM business. If we develop the CDMA market now, we will not put GSM in China in this passive position ........" This I am unclear on. How could any foreign entity, be it CDMA or GSM, set up a massive wireless network if they do not have the spectrum? "..... US and Korea has already gone from IS95A to B to IS2000 ..... judging from the foundation of IS95, it appears they are 1-2 years away from 3G ...... and yet, we are thinking about how to skip from 2G to 3G while avoiding Qualcomm's IPRs. Clearly, this is NOT the correct strategy...." This is the biggest turnaround. It appears that China is not likely to play the TD-SCDMA nor the leap frog "why not wait and start at 2.5G or 3G?" games. Finally, a most important point for the CDMA camp, from the article as well as others: It is a forgone conclusion in China that CDMA is technically far superior than GSM. Ramsey