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: Eric L who wrote (12961)	6/22/2001 10:13:38 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Eric L: As it turned out Dr J was absolutely on the mark in the actual interview he gave to the Financial Times, as has proven to be the case "in the event". The power of the press to report as it sees fit, including selective editing and distortion of wording and misrepresenting intent, is sometimes a sickening thing in this world of ours. I am so old I even remember when I thought the FT was doing its best to be straight in its reporting. (But sadly, those days are gone, worldwide - or maybe I'm just less naive.) The published version of that interview was a hatchet job - absolutely unprofessional - but "mainstream" for journalism these days. (I had hoped FT was not just another yellow sheet, after all it uses pink paper) Perhaps that had something to do with the publisher of the FT being on the Nokia board. Naw, couldn't be, except perhaps the newpaper knew only the Nokia party line, so Qualcomm had to be off base, and so that was how the story was "reported" [sic]. Best. Chaz

To: Eric L who wrote (12961)	6/22/2001 11:20:22 PM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Eric, If you want to play the role of thread policeman Getting touchy? I thought you like fellow service man. BTW, my badge number is 2, what is yours? As for your question my "far stretching" and being "over stretched" in the post you just responded to. Now let's review what did you say. To CDG's credit, "The Economics of Wireless Mobile Data". puff piece is not (so far as I can tell) available on the CDG site. The possible stretch is that CDG thinks the MobileData is inaccurate, oh in your word FUD, therefore not adding that to the CDG web site. May I count this as the first stretch. Of course that is JMHO. I will say this. I give Qualcomm credit, in publishing the whitepaper, for toning down some of the claims Previously you mentioned about the spectral efficiency FUD by Q. Now you use this to imply that Q back off from the spectral FUD just because of the lack of mentioning that efficiency in the mobile data paper. IMHO, Q had never stopped the your called FUD from their web site, from their de facto speaker CDG. Therefore there's no need for you to use that microscope to look into what Q didn't say in that paper. After all that paper is to show the money figure, which is THE DIRECT result of the spectral efficiency. May I count that as a stretch two, plus a little read between the lines? Of course that's JMHO. Are you sure it was written after "Q's MobileData paper"? I don't know which was written first. But that paper was definetely put onto CDG AFTER the March 16, the day Q announced the MobileData. Because I have been checking CDG regularly, and I know there is this paper coming and I think I saw it on June 5th and then I post it on RB ragingbull.lycos.com Also please check out this CDG link, which was last updated on 22nd, cdg.org for the 3G detailed info. And that Ovum paper is over there. Oh BTW, I never argued which one was written first. Just the time of appearence to the public on CDG. Ericy's paper about CDMA2000 overlay on TDMA was also written in March, but coming out recently in June too. So let me ask your a question Eric, you already gave credit to Q for tuning down in the MobileData paper. But you also gave CDG the credit for not putting MobileData on CDG site because they are not adding that piece of FUD there right? Are you trying to say you are giving CDG credit for not adding a tone down paper? See, you are stretching on both ends of the up and down, left and right, back and forth. You are stretching to a point that you don't even remember what you are stretching!!! Of course it may also mean you are just trying to be sarcastic. JMHO of course. You Know, Mighty. You have a tendency to appear out of nowhere, comment on my posts, and ask questions That's the advantage of making less assertions<ggg> Because I know if I open my mouth too often then somewhere I will get caught<vbg> Now, since you and me both lost the link to the presentation, and since you obviously take exception of what Dr.J said in Cannes, aka FUD. Could you please tell me why you think it is FUD, and if you disagree with the 2004 timeline. Then what is your timeline? 2003? 2002? Why you think you are right?