Mighty,
"Oh Mighty..... are you lurking about?"
Yes, he is Ben, but on the wrong thread.
Mighty is over here doing due diligence on the Nokia thread, to make sure noone besmirches the good name of Qualcomm.
Oh Mighty, ... Ben is looking for you, ... I assume he may be looking for a "technical interpretation" of ETRI and SK Telecom's contribution to 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 of "the inter-frequency hard handover related problem of IS-95 CDMA based 2nd generation system in Korea", that could potentially affect WCDMA services within a year after launch, (and the problem may be more severe than IS-95 based system "problem").
Message 15982043
<< Stop the far stretching and read between the line. >>
* Define and illustrate for me, if you would be so thoughtful, my "far stretching" and being "over stretched" in the post you just responded to.
If you want to play the role of thread policeman, even on this thread, there are some better targets for "far stretching" and being "over stretched", IMO ... but, of course, JMHO.
<< Here is another whitepaper, which is after that Q's MobileData paper. And curiously (or not so curiously) the comparison is there again. >>
cdg.org
Maybe "not so curiously", as it turns out, and thanks for reminding me of the Ovum paper.
* Are you sure it was written after "Q's MobileData paper"?
I think it was written before.
Qualcomm, so far as I can tell, is never mentioned in the Ovum paper, nor is any attribution made to why it was published. Please correct me if I am wrong.
* Am I correct?
I would, however, suspect that, the paper was commissioned by either Qualcomm, or CDG, or both, and payment for same came out of one or both of their budgets.
* Do you agree?
I further believe that it was written and at the height of what I consider to be the stepped up "Marketing" campaign for 1xEV that publicly commenced with back to back presentations made by father and son Doctor's Irving on November 15th, and November 16th, and climaxed with a fateful lunch attended by FT and Dr. Irwin Mark Jacobs, before Dr. Jacobs had departed Europe, after what I considered up until that time to be a most impressive performance by Qualcomm at Cannes.
* Do you have any knowledge (or guesses) as to when the Ovum paper was 1.) commissioned, 2.) originally published, 3.) who commissioned, 4.) who paid for, and 5.) whether it was a prop in the Qualcomm booth in Cannes?
Initially I thought, (before seeing the Ovum study for the first time a few weeks back) that The Qualcomm whitepaper "The Economics of Wireless Mobile Data" was the whitepaper Qualcomm referenced in Cannes, even though it didn't seem to fit the bill.
I now think that Ovum's "Alternative Migration Paths to Providing 3G Services" is the is the whitepaper that Qualcomm referred to at Cannes.
* Do you agree?
If I recall Clint McClellan, Qualcomm's Director of Strategic Marketing, was directly (or indirectly) quoted out of Cannes as saying that there was (already) a whitepaper, and my recall also is that he stated there that "if standardization commenced immediately the GSM 1xEV-DO standard for GSM/MAP could be completed by year end and deliver in 2003".
After you take care of Ben's needs maybe you could poke around and find the original (quite good) article I am referring to ... there are several similar but one had several comments by Clint McClellan, including references to the requisite standards initiative (that I recall, but can't locate)... but of course my recall could of course be faulty.
3GPP or 3GPP2 (3GPP2 I think) correspondence dated March (posted by Ben here or on MQ) indicated that this was under consideration ... that no decision had been reached ... and I think it said that whether or not it would be standardized depended on whether or not a real prospect emerged ... or something to that effect.
* Do you know if the standardization process has commenced?
I do have this comment on file attributed to McClellan:
This would allow GSM operators to target the fixed Internet market in areas where speeds are excessively slow, as well as the high-speed mobile Internet market. Trials are currently taking place in Korea, the United States and Japan. Voice could eventually be brought into the equation, added McClellan, by integrating the 1x air interface with the GSM-MAP core network by around 2003.
In reference to the "whitepaper" referenced at Cannes:
According to a Qualcomm white paper, a GSM operator can deploy 1xEV alongside its current network. To add 1xEV an operator would need to install a cdma2000 base station with a 1xEV channel-card, a packet data serving node and an IP router. The paper claims that W-CDMA could then be deployed in parallel or at a later date.
This above statement is very similar to something you posted to me recently, when I inquired as to whether or not 1xEV-DO for GSM/MAP had commenced standardization (which if I recall you did not respond to).
<< Don't be over stretched again, if Q includes everything in every paper, you gonna roll your eye, if not then that's a sign of them toning down. >>
I will be as "over stretched" as I care to be, depending on my mood.
I will also continue to due DD on both of my two wireless investments, and make value judgments about them, based on published statements of the executive management of both, statements they make in webcasts, and published material.
On occasion, I will express myself here (or elsewhere) and express my opinion, as many others also do on these wireless forums. Feel free to express yours. This thread is unmoderated.
As I stated before "I give Qualcomm credit, in publishing the whitepaper, for toning down some of the claims".
I'll add something to this. I was, in the November to end of February time frame, somewhat critical of the "Marketing" methodology of Qualcomm.
Not only was I critical of it, but I made adjustments in my portfolio as a result of it.
There has in my opinion, been a more appropriate, public projection by Qualcomm, with less obvious practice of FUD, and of the capabilities of their technology, ever since Qualcomm's valuation was rocked in direct response to the Dr. Jacobs comments that were "reported" by FT.
<< How about point out those inaccuracies one by one? >>
You Know, Mighty. You have a tendency to appear out of nowhere, comment on my posts, and ask questions.
Now while I always enjoy the exchange, when I respond back to your questions, and ask questions in return, you often ignore the questions.
Tell you what.
"How about" for starters I wait for a response from you to each of the questions I have marked with an asterisk (*).
Then, if you would be so kind, perhaps you could supply me with a link to Richard Sulpizio's BAS "Tech Week 2001" presentation, which is as good a place as any to start.
I have the "www.veracast.com/bas/techweek_2001/" one bookmarked, but it is expired.
I am under the impression it was also on the Qualcomm site under IR Presentations or Online Events but I can not find it. If it was there, and they removed, I consider that healthy. I was rather taken aback by it, as you might recall, and personally consider it to be the poorest public presentation I have ever heard, made by a Qualcomm executive, and I have listened to quite a few.
My initial reaction to it was ... I sure hope no Qualcomm carrier prospects are in the audience, or listen to it at a later date.
It was similar to the reaction I had when I read the FT article late on a Thursday evening. I could just picture ETSI members, or European carriers, some of whom potentially were prospects for 1xEV (according to Qualcomm), reading the Financial times on Friday morning. My next reaction was ... boy is our stock gonna get creamed tomorrow ... it sure did.
I made the comment on the MQ thread that I was "irate" when I saw the article ... and when queried, I went on to explain why:
Message 15423524
Others reacted to Dr. Jacobs paraphrased comments including Greg Jones of Briefing.com:
None of this is a certainty, and it could even be argued the Qualcomm's Jacobs was simply engaged in a "Marketing" ploy to promote his favored CDMA-2000 at the expense of W-CDMA. But when you're dealing with a highly valued stock such as QCOM (45 P/E on FY01 earnings), delivering on future promise is critical, and 3G is the future promise for QCOM right now.
Rex Crum wrote on February 27:
If the events of the past few trading days are any indication, Qualcomm's (QCOM) Irwin Jacobs may need to add "chief firefighter" to his chief executive officer title. In separate meetings today and Wednesday, Jacobs will likely be listening to shareholders' concerns, fielding analysts' questions and doing his best to put out any remaining fires at the company. The latest controversy grew out of comments Jacobs made last week that many took to mean that third-generation (3G) wireless technology will not be up and running as soon as expected. While Qualcomm took steps to allay concerns over the highly anticipated wireless standards late last week, analysts say that based on market conditions, the company does have a bit of a hole to dig out from.
... and others commented or reacted:
"Given the [economic] climate, it's hard to believe Qualcomm will have a significant positive statement from its meetings," said Keith Bachman, a financial analyst with ABN Amro. "Maybe they'll have some cool product announcements?"
On Feb. 22, Jacobs made a statement suggesting that it would likely be 2004 or 2005 before European mobile-phone operators would deploy "commercially viable" W-CDMA-based wireless services. The next day investment firm Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown lowered its rating on Qualcomm's stock to "buy" from "strong buy."
"There are mixed signals floating in the air pertaining to the timing of infrastructure upgrades," wrote Brian Modoff, the Deutsche Banc analyst who lowered Qualcomm's stock rating.
"Qualcomm is one of these feast-or-famine companies in the industry," said Bryan Prohm of Gartner Group Dataquest. "And I think they are burning bridges along the way in Europe, which is W-CDMA country, by putting up cdma 2000 1x as a white knight."
Now if the Ovum document was commissioned by Qualcomm (or CDG), as I am kind of assuming it was, it is an interesting piece of "Marketing".
I look forward to the commercial launches of 1xEV by the end of the year and most certainly hope that this time the "commercial launch" is really a "commercial launch", unlike last October's "commercial launch" of 1xRTT.
Evidently, according to the whitepaper, someone might be commercializing 1xMAP because it supposedly is due in 2002 ... "unconfirmed" ...
... and the whitepaper states that the commercial launch date of WCDMA is 2002 ... but at 64k bps peak, ... and at 144 kbps peak in 2003 ... and at 384 kbps ... and at 2000 peak in 2004 ... all "unconfirmed" of course, and in contradiction to DoCoMo statements.
... so this is "Marketing".
Nokia should have a field day with CDG in that kangaroo court we talked about.
As said in the article:
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
BTW: The PDF file for the Ovum document was created on March 2, 2001, which means the original document was created earlier. The PDF file for the Qualcomm whitepaper was created on March 16, 2001.
Meantime, I hope you are able to respond to Ben. Interesting issue that ETRI & SKT raised. I'd like to see their correspondence to 3GPP2 on the same issue as it relates to what is now occuring with IS-95C.
All part of bringing a new generation of technology to market, isn't it?.
Best,
- Eric - |
