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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (99710)	5/22/2001 11:49:59 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Engineer: Even if we assume that the cost of operating a Wireless LAN is 10 times what PCSTEL, some industrial and commercial settings can see ROI on wireless LANs. For example in warehouse management, wireless LANs can increase productivity. Norand, Telxon, Symbol have been serving industrial markets for a while. I have been watching the Wireless LAN space since 1993, but I sense that there is suddenly a greater awareness of its possibilities since last year. Cisco buying Aeronet from Telxon seemed like a good leading indicator. (The remainder Telxon merged with Symbol) But it is cutthroat business. Norand and Telxon always struggled with gross margins. Symbol did a little better but they rely a lot on scanner sales. Intersil does not have very high margins either. Proxim is smaller and riskier play. Was watching Charlie Rose interviewing Michael Dell (among others) the other day. Dell was asked what he saw as the Next Big Thing. Dell said Wireless. He did not specify which wireless, but I am guessing he was thinking of Wireless LANs, which will be built around Dell Home server, similar to the configuration that PCSTEL may have. In anycase, Dell may benefit by selling some more PCs, some servers and wireless LAN cards to home users. But the wireless LAN equipment is going to be like modems and ethernet cards - low margin business. Do you see any winners? Arun

To: engineer who wrote (99710)	5/23/2001 12:19:11 AM
From: mightylakers	Respond to of 152472

those lowly IT guys that came right over to fix it were on payroll for free? Or just to have a couple 11 yrs old to fix it<ggg> Or maybe pcs thinks that since he's giving out the connection for free so no customer support is needed. Just like those Microsoft's free packages. Zero documentation, zero support. so how much revenue do you generate from this simple installation? pcs thinks that an owner can price that into what he sells. But he forgets about those who are not using that services, what about those guys, he thinks they will be happy to pay that extra dollars instead of going to cheaper stores. If I'm the owner of the cheaper store next door, I can actually use a jammer running at the same frequency and turned his nice 11 Mbps into 0 bps. How about that<ggg> Oh, but lets not put in security This is the best part I like about pcs's dream, he thinks security is just about getting into cooperate's own networks. That having a stand alone system will solve the problem. Then he doesn't know how much those hackers will love him, that they finally have not only a free networks to play with, but also a place to hide their identity, a place for malicious users to mess the networks itself, stand alone or not. Think about this, I log in as Anonymous user from his nice home WLAN, and sent some e-bombs to the whitehouse server. Guess what, FBI will go knock pcs's door, not mine. What a deal. Yes not only pcs believes in the "free" internet access, but also the state less, no control and no management. I can't even imagine the chaos it will bring to the internet community. Oh, and one last thing, he forget that his tiny little $1300 investment can only cover an area about size of a baseball field. When he is boasting about 11-22Mbps, he forgets to mention that the speed will drop off sharply with every step he takes toward the edge of the coverage. Oh, I forgot, he's using the DSL, so that just gives him only 1 Mbps overall(if he's lucky). And somehow he thinks people will fall in love with this?

To: engineer who wrote (99710)	5/23/2001 12:20:52 AM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Engineer's points are valid, especially that these Wi LAN systems will end up being more expensive than just the upfront hardware/installation costs. But I don't think the point of 802.11 networks at starbuck's and at say, Delta Admiral's club, would be to generate revenue on a subscriber basis. Once these Wi LANs exist, they would probably serve as free, fast access points to the public internet (but certainly not corporate LANS), and be value-added services that drive traffic to those particular destinations. I see enough people bringing their laptops to starbucks; imagine if they also had free, fast internet connections available. Whether the additional customers offset the low (but not free) cost of maintaining the Wi LAN and paying for broadband ISP remains to be seen. But it couldn't cost more than $1000/mo... airports spend that on taking out their trash alone (another non-revenue generating activity, in and of itself <g>). I know that I certainly would be more likely to fly Delta if i knew that I'd have free internet access at my stop-overs. Of course, it's no longer a compelling reason to choose Delta if i already have HDR on my phone with an unlimited service plan. Cellular data access will certainly be more flexible than Wi LAN (mobile vs. portable), but it will also certainly be more expensive. For some, Wi LAN access in some locations will be good enough. Those people, who might have otherwise elected to purchase a CDMA2000 phone, represent lost royalties for QCOM. One could make the analogy that there would be more cellphone users today if there were no pay phones in public places. Now imagine if there were free pay phones; how many fewer cell phones would there be? I don't think that PCStel is suggesting that the proliferation of Wi LANs will destroy the raisen d'tre for 3G; I do think it will have some affect on its market penetration, and unfortunately for carriers, a diminishing effect on 3G usage as well (irrelevant of course to QCOM).

To: engineer who wrote (99710)	5/23/2001 1:25:34 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Engineer: All I can say is that you have not heard a thing I have been saying.. I am not saying there is a "business case" for 802.11 mobile/fixed data.. But rather, There are few business cases where data has made a go of it!! And I fear the same for Mobile Wireless Data.. Look at the list of ISP's, CLEC's et al that have proven there is NOT a Business Case for Data. PSIX, COVD, and the list goes on and on!! What I am trying to say is that Data has been commoditized to the point that it is considered almost a FREE commodity.. That is why you can't make a business case out of 802.11, or Bluetooth, or even 1X. (at least 802.11 and Bluetooth's spectrum didn't cost a dime). At least with mobile voice, there is still an underlying value of the commodity.. If I chose not to carry a cell phone.. It cost me 35 cents to make a call on a public pay phone when away from my home.. No Starbucks, or Shopping Mall is going to let me bring my 900 Mhz Cordless phone and make phone calls in their store "on their dime".. Why?? Because it cost them a dime, "or at least a few cents".. For someone to make a voice call using their line.. The voice component has an underlying value as a commodity.. DATA DOES NOT.. That's why I went on about my .35 cent a minute voice call to Argentina.. Yet, I can send the contents of the Library of Congress to Argentina for ALMOST FREE.. Almost FREE.. That is the Commodity Value of DATA!! Starbucks can pay a "all you can eat fee for DSL, and let their customers run wild with DATA in their stores.. 1 customer or 100.. It costs them the same. And Wireless Operators and their Vendors, (like Qualcomm) need a very high commodity value on Mobile Wireless Data, in order to justify the price of Spectrum, and the Infrastructure necessary to provide these services.. Yet, the 802.11 gang and corporations like SBUX, Delta Airlines, and others will only trivilize the commodity value of mobile wireless data! Why do you think Qualcomm went to all the trouble to publish the "white paper" "Economics of Wireless Mobile Data?" Becuase there is currently a very low Economic Value Model to support it!! Especially in the Pay By the Minute, not by the Byte Mode.. It's like Globalstar.. You said 8 years ago.. $3 a minute to call from anywhere in the world.. Yes, there is value in this commodity.. But, then came terrestrial wireless.. "Hey look, it's only 10 cents a minute, inclusive of LD charges".. The commodity value of "mobile voice" became lowered so much that the mere concept of a $3 mobile phone call was ludicrous.. No matter how convenient it was!! The same holds true for UT's.. $1,500 for a mobile phone??? Are you nuts?? It's all about the perceived value of the commodity!! My point is... that the commodity value of DATA is almost ZERO! And that the encroachment of FREE Mobile 802.11 Connections will only act to further lower the perception of the commodity value of Mobile Wireless Data.. That is why is see it as such a threat to companies like Qualcomm. You can't sell expensive Infrastructure, and UT's, if the value of the commodity will not support it.. That's what happened to all the ISP's, and CLEC's.. The commodity value did not support the expenses of building the infrastructure required!! Word gets out that company LANS are wide open on your network and people come to the airport just to rip off corporate clients. You still don't get it!! There is no Corporate LAN to safe guard.. Does Sprint PCS put their "Corporate LAN" on their nation-wide wireless network.. Then why would Delta Airlines? It's a DSL modem from an ISP to a couple of 802.11 transmitters.... You are trying extra hard to prove your point.. But, it is failing.. 10K a year for maintenance?? For a one time investment of 5K.. You could install a Quintuple redundant system using WLAN. Again.. You are really trying way too hard to prove your point..... And it shows!! PCSTEL