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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (47577)	10/7/2001 6:33:21 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Slacker, re: Qualcomm Infrastructure Royalties << This is one area of growth that I have never been comfortable quantifying. >> None of us are. I recall Greg and Clark commenting on this in "Coming of Range" yesteryear, but no authoritative conclusions were ever reached. Of course Maurice has his own theories. <g> << Do they only collect a royalty on the base station? the channel card? or the entire network? >> That is a BIG question. I can not see how they would collect anything on the core network, only the RAN and then the question becomes what components of the RAN. We may never know, but its a $64 million dollar (unanswered) question because infra revenue will be huge compared to CDMA infra expenditures in the past. << It seems to me that next year should see significant amounts of infrastructure being implemented (if not going live). >> Yes it should, but less than we might have anticipated as little as 6 months ago, and that has less to do with when technology is ready, than it does with cap ex reductions. << Unfortunately, one thing that I believe has probably gone by the wayside....Nokia's prediction that 100,000 W-CDMA base stations would be deployed this year and 300,000 next year. >> Somehow missed that one. Sounds high Some water has obviously passed under the dam since Nokia gave their (admittedly GSM-Centric) view of the accessible market for infrastructure by technology in May: Year 2000 Year 2003 GSM 57% GSM-EDGE 43% CDMA 20% CDMA 12% TDMA 17% TDMA 5% PDC 6% WCDMA 40% << I still have the slides from the presentation but can't find the audio on their site. I wish I could relisten and make sure I am understanding that slide correctly. >> What is the title of the slide presentation (or file name or date). I must have it on disk and I'd like to look at it. I'm looking for some recent numbers/forecasts from Gartner on projected infra spending near and future term but here is some summary data from Yankee Group but I need to verify this against last years actuals from Global Mobile that I have buried somewhere. Yankees numbers look a little low to me. Regardless, its a Trillion $$$ market this decade. * The lion's share of expenditure (2001 to 2006) will be for GSM, GPRS, and WCDMA infrastructure. * US$99.4 billion in 2001 * US$120.2 billion in 2004 * US$114.6 billion in 2006 >> Yankee Says Infrastructure Spending To Hit Us$120 Billion In 2004 Cellular news 28-Sep-2001 According to a recently published Yankee Group Report, global capital expenditure (capex) for wireless mobile network infrastructure will increase from US$99.4 billion in 2001 to a maximum of US$120.2 billion in 2004 before declining to US$114.6 billion in 2006. The lion's share of expenditure will be for GSM, GPRS, and WCDMA infrastructure. Furthermore, it is expected that the proportion of capex associated with infrastructure electronics will increase from approximately 53% of the total capex in 2001 to as much as 63% of the capex in 2005, as operators overlay 2.5G and 3G infrastructure on their existing networks. This comprehensive analysis is derived from a sophisticated model developed by the Yankee Group's Wireless/Mobile Technologies research and consulting practice, using regional market information for North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. "There has been a great deal of speculation surrounding the cost of 2.5G and 3G network implementations. It is evident that it is going to be expensive, particularly for operators that are transitioning between generic technologies," said Phil Marshall, an analyst at the Yankee Group. "However, with the imminent obsolescence of 2G technologies and the promise of next-generation services, operators cannot avoid these costs without the risk of losing market share." This expenditure cannot come soon enough for the infrastructure vendors that are relying on the 2.5G and 3G technologies that they have aggressively promoted. << Best, - Eric -