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: foundation who wrote (11790)	5/21/2001 9:58:05 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

<< "The problems will be worked out." Why? >> They were in IS-95A weren't they, Ben. Lets see, the standard was finalized in 1993. IS-95 launched in September 95 in Hong Kong. Pretty shaky start, wasn't it?. Ask participants from BAM how their March 96 launch went, and whether or not they felt that IS-95A was ready for prime time (and whether or not it was really commercialized before March of the following year). Now PrimeCo launched in October 96 and Sprint PCS a month later. Not bad. Not perfectly stable, but close and really off and running by the beginning of 1997 in the US and Korea. The rest is history. What are we looking at? Three plus, almost 4 years till IS-95A could really be called fully commercialized (with NO data services). Some operators like Comcast (one of the first, if not the first US commercial contract) gave up waiting. << Is this the same Release 99 that is still receiving corrections and modifications totaling in the dozens every month? Or do you prefer to place confidence in the quality and viability of the newly approved foundation specification - Release 4 ---- that it will resolve problems inherent with Release 99? Is this the same Release 4 that is already receiving corrections and modifications totaling in the dozens every month? >> Yes. This will go on, through the various revs, for a long long time, just as these types of changes went on through the various phases of GSM standards development, that has resulted in worldwide GSM proliferation. << "The problems will be worked out." Why? >> Because EVERY major telecommunications vendor in the world is participating in the development of the standard, and participating in its commercialization. The CDMA group was much smaller when IS-95A was being commercialized, but essentially the principle is the same. It really guaranteed the (eventual) commercial success of the technology, IMO. Despite the numerous delays, I walked away from a November 1994 lab demonstration of the technology at AT&T (now Lucent) in NJ, convinced of that. The process works. Of course, back then we had Frezza to ask questions like yours. Boo Birds aboundeth. I was not paying attention to wireless back in 1991 when GSM was breaking its pick trying to lunch but I'm sure the same questions were being asked by a myriad of people. I have not spent anywhere near as much time as you recently, following standards development in the 2 PPP's but I do read many of the meeting reports of both. I can't help but notice that the meeting attendee list at major 3GPP2 meetings are pretty sparse, compared to 3GPP. Since you are into "why" ... Why the lack of interest? Do you suppose it has anything to do with the perceived lack of market potential for cdma2000 beyond upgrades to the small current CDG user base? How does the order book look for cdma2000 in IMT-2000 core spectrum? Why? What is your take on the article about 1xRTT in the Korea eTimes last week? << If they fix problems presently in the spotlight, will they be the last problems of a debilitating nature? >> If they fix problems presently in the spotlight, will they be the last problems of a debilitating nature ...? Why? Do you think that 1xEV-DO (particularly when shared with will debug quicker?) Why? Do you think the MSM5105 will enable a satisfactory AOD/VOD experience? When? How do you think Qualcomm will fare developing chipsets to a standard (standards) for a technology they did not develop ... for virtually the first time? Why? Best, - Eric -

To: foundation who wrote (11790)	5/22/2001 10:18:42 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

"The problems will be worked out." ---------- Why? I don't follow the standards process as closely as you do. Your study and analysis is absolutely first rate in that respect. I suppose I'm more of a big picture kind of guy who has been more or less a sponge for the information that people like you and others like engineer, etc., are generous enough to make available to the technically illiterate. I don't mean to denigrate myself. My strengths are in analyzing the big picture, looking for trends, and doing the best I can to separate the useful information I see from that which is worthless and then apply the useful information to the investment context. I attempt, not always successfully, to be objective. I have learned a lot since I became an investor in the Q. My knowledge base at the time I made my first investment in the Q in mid-'99 (substantial by my standards) was minimal when compared to what I know now. I suppose the devil takes care of his own.-g- In any event, one of the things I have noticed is that the entire telecomm tech riddle is process, time and event driven. The event drivers are the discovery of new technology and its adoption by carriers. Here, Q has shined with CDMA and its adoption in many parts of the world. The process portion of the riddle is closely tied in to the temporal aspect. All the telecomm hamsters are running the fastest race they can in order to be first to market, get market share, etc. However, the process of enabling and commercializing the technology, whatever its flavor, takes time, testing, debugging, etc. The rushing hamsters often trip on their own feet. Every single telecomm player has gone through this drill and will continue to go through it. Though some deliveries are easier than others, and some are rude Caesarean emergencies, I haven't yet seen any easy births in telecomm. I will grant you that the Cabal has had more than its share of difficult deliveries (this is one of the reasons my portfolio is weighed quite heavily in Q's direction), but the facts seem to be that though the migration to WCDMA will be a tough one with lots of Code Blues on the way, it will happen. I don't like it any more than you do. It is clear that WCDMA and its ludicrous migration path are politically-created animals specifically designed to attempt to (unsuccessfully) cut Q at the knees. But that they are here to stay is, unfortunately, a reality that cannot be ignored. While there will undoubtedly be some 3G CDMA 2000 contracts in the US, Asia and Latin America, unless the WCDMA baby is stillborn, which is unlikely, CDMA 2000 is going to be a minority player. From an investment standpoint, WCDMA's probable win naturally makes no difference to me as the Q (and Spinco) will get paid one way or the other. The only problem I see is a delay in royalties if the delivery takes too long. I believe that the Q will ultimately be a big player in WCDMA, and possibly may profitably pluck the Cabal's WCDMA chestnuts out of the fire. Anyway, those are the reasons why I think the problems will be worked out. If I'm wrong, I make even more money. The Q clearly owns the telecomm sweet spot.