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: Ramsey Su who wrote (8711)	3/17/2001 5:55:27 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196554

"...time for some questions..." ---------- "..why is there any doubt as to which technology should be the 3G of choice?.." Because there are vested interests to the contrary that are not based on performance. "..Is that possibly why Q is bidding in two fronts for spectrum, with the consortium in Korea and as 3G Investments in Australia?.." I think the Korea 3G cdma2000 license is a hedged bet. Building a network from the ground up while competing with 3 established carriers with the same technology is not an attractive prospect. The license has value for Q only with substantial government subsidies - or after other carriers fully commit to wCDMA for 3G. Austrailia may make sense with your thesis. There are gsm/gprs networks in-country to provide a basis for comparison. And cdma carriers haven't perhaps been fully committal in actions or attitude to date - one (I believe) even having cross-technology interests... A blow the barn doors off showcase in Australia would be a fine idea. However, I'd prefer to see QCOM network financing targeted at 1xevdo in Europe... ben

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8711)	3/17/2001 7:39:30 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 196554

Off topic, seemingly stupid question -- but this is (unfortunately) the right place and time to ask it. Where did the term "white paper" originate ? I assume it was not agreed upon by a group of non-Caucasians ... When I hear "white paper," I always think : "Is this ' politically correct ' ?" How can it be called a white paper ? With apologies to Ramsey, Jon.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8711)	3/18/2001 10:03:10 AM
From: Webster	Respond to of 196554

Ramsey, not only does QCOM have significant cost and performance advantages with 3G, they also have time advantage as well the benefit of a disruptive competitive environment; which is turning wireless on its ear. It is the combination of all four of these advantages that will allow QCOM to be a dominant force in the wireless world. If QCOM only had a significant cost and performance advantage, the old guard could still place enough FUDD to sustain their flock of sheep (EU, AWE, and similar carriers) Their recommended technology path (GPRS,EDGE,W-CDMA) in their eyes is logical as well as the "natural" evolving path; resulting in a comfortable transition that is both good for them, their customers and good enough for the consumer. We all know their recommendations are extremely expensive (let alone inaccurate) for the carrier. But as I have stated in the past the old guard (NOK, MOT, ERICY) is interested in selling devices and infrastructure, and protecting their competitive turf; as opposed to running efficient networks. If all carriers have the same inefficient network, then there is really nothing for the carriers to worry about (in the minds of the old guard). The first significant crack in the old guard armor is time. Not only will w-cdma be delayed until 2004 to 2005 in large scale commercial roll out (millions of units in a specific market); small towns in the UK as stated by NOK in the past will most likely have high speed wireless internet services in the 2007 time frame. A good analogy of the time problem is the soon to be wedded couple; where the man tells his soon to be wife how good its going to be when she finally gets it. Time for the EU operators is already starting to be painful. Perhaps time will cause some alternatives to be created in the EU market. When both significant cost and performance advantage is available, then under a clear lens it would win over another comparison. The lenses of the GSM carriers have been clouded by their suppliers who are in trouble. What is interesting is the CDMA movement in India, Perhaps the first GSM market that has come to a collective consciousness of the significant cost/performance advantages of CDMA. I would doubt in the past year that any CEO of an EU carrier has asked for a cost comparison of the alternative 3G technologies (let alone time). This may be the next internal development step for the GSM based carriers. But of all the issues discussed I think the most significant advantage for QCOM is; they have already succeeded in disrupting the competitive environment and the balance of the wireless world. Regardless of what people say about QCOM's royalties, QCOM licenses are available to all companies interested in competing. This alone disrupted the entire wireless competitive environment. China and the rest of Asia will become the dominant world wide supplier of CDMA devices. They will have the very best ASICS (supplied by Spinco) and then use their low cost and built in available market to distribute CDMA phones and appliances. I think the recent talk about QCOM royalties and the statement that lower royalties would result in more volume is simply inaccurate. If QCOM reduced their royalties to zero, the only people who would enjoy this are the current dominant CDMA suppliers. The Old guard does not dominate CDMA, nor would they benefit from this. The old guard would not be any more pleased with all manufacturers paying zero royalties versus paying 5%. The old guard is interested in protecting their competitive turf. They would love to find a way to create the similar competitive barriers to entry that is in place with GSM; hence the EU version of w-cdma; Create a cartel and charge the rest of the world 15% to 18% to play. Zero royalties by QCOM does nothing to build this competitive barrier for the old guard. Even with the royalties, China sees the opportunity to be a dominant world wide force in the manufacturing of CDMA phones and appliances. What we are witnessing is perhaps an economic world war with 3G, where future economies are either being created, enhanced or destroyed. For EU carriers time is going to be their nemesis; for China, an opportunity to become a dominant world wide player (even with the royalties); for NOK, both time as well as performance and cost issues of w-cdma, plus new entrants are going to take its toll. (NOK will continue to increase their market share in GSM/TDMA which will hold their earnings projections for a few of more quarters), For AWE,their competition is going to offer new devices and services that only they can dream of. For docomo, a face saving way to get out of their dilemma is required. Companies have "rational-lized" their choices based on their own required competitive position. ..As for OmniTRACS and G. I think there is significant opportunity for both over the next 3 to 4 years. I think both OmniTRACS and G are suffering from some short term issues as a result of their past decisions. FWIW Thanks Web.