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: Eric L who wrote (8843)	3/20/2001 10:20:31 PM
From: Keith Feral	Respond to of 196816

Eric: I wanted make some comments about your observations about QCOM on the NOK thread in response to Carranza. I thought it might be better to make them on this thread. Here goes: Ouch: In all fairness, I hope for the immediate success of WCDMA. The tweaking of the timelines for WCDMA has been met with unbelievable skepticism and FUD by both sides that are hoping to capitalize on the evolution of GSM to WCDMA. QCOM is breaking balls to get the word out that GPRS lacks the capcity improvements offered by 1x as an overlay to WCDMA - not to mention software support. NOK is hell bent on discrediting QCOM's IPR for WCDMA despite the 50 licensing agreements they have signed for CDMA2000 and WCDMA with every company in North America and Asia. I have never witnessed so much antagonism between 2 companies that have so much to gain. Obviously, the glitch is profit margins. I have no problem with GSM companies charging a 5% royalty for 3G equipment on top of QCOM's royalties. I just don't think they have done anything to deserve it. Everyone is so focused on QCOM's IPR stance, but the question that begs to be asked is, "What is the remaining half life for GSM patents?" I think that the projections for WCDMA are pretty obvious. Initial trials in 2001 (2 months from now in Japan), more trials in Europe next year, commercial launches in all key markets in 2003 and MASS DEPLOYMENT by 2004. Those were Jacob's words, not the hack job done by the FT. You and I may disagree about the importance of 3G IMT 2000 standards. If you have 3G type services in a 1.25 MHZ spectrum, I would consider that 3G. Obviously, Europe thinks they are ahead with respect to 3G spectrum management since the governments have successfully sold the spectrum to market giants like VOD looking for another 20 years of uninhibited competition. However, their successful spectrum management is not consistent with the development of products ready for this auspicious bandwidth. It seems to me that the US policy with respect to efficient use of the bandwidth first and a subsequent expansion of bandwidth later is a more prudent policy. Maybe I'm speaking out of my arse, but QCOM has delivered on 1X in Korea this year. They are rolling out the service as we speak. Freetel announced their intention to expand their services to 1XEV next year. KDDI is also rolling out 1X services this year. They also announced their intention to roll out 1XEV next year. VZ announced their intention to rollout 3G services in 3 phases over the next 3 years. PCS announced a similar plan to rollout 3G services within the next 2 years. All this is taking place within the existing spectrum with plenty of software to provide new commercial services. As KDDI and Freetel maximize their services within the existing spectrum by the end of next year, they will be in a great position to expand their spectrum to accomodate the growing demands for voice capacity and data services. PCS and VZ will be in the same spot by the end of 2003. China Unicom will be doing the same. It's ironic that the carriers with all the extra bandwidth right now have nothing to show for their lead time to market. Actually, it's not too surprising as the first attempt to define a new standard is not all that great, especially when it is a revolutionary product, i. e. not compatible. QCOM's evolutionary path to 3G was prioritized for cdmaOne carriers. Now QCOM is getting to work to provide the same software support, increased capacity, and interoperability for GSM carriers. NOK has been working on WCDMA plans for years with nothing to show at this point. I would not be so arrogant to suggest that QCOM is bailing out the WCDMA cabal, but it is difficult to find a better term. They have absolutely pushed the limits of interoperability for every subsection of the GSM/GPRS/WCDMA market. I was amazed at the MSM6XXX chip series that provides a realistic timetable for commercial deployment of 3G services within existing and future spectrum. The hierarchical pathway allows both small and large operators to maximize data speeds, voice capacity, and software support. Their ability to deliver higher levels of technology at each step of the GSM evolution to 3G will give both small and large operators the ability to expand their services while maintaining compatibility with existing networks.