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: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (113572)	2/17/2002 8:53:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<G* was wiped out by the proliferation of wireless networks, PERIOD. If G* was launched 10 years earlier, it may have had a heyday for a while but sure enough would be going bankrupt now. Terrestrial wireless networks are not threatened by anything similar.> Not so fast their Caxton! Not true! Globalstar was destroyed by greedy service providers and greedy Globalstar LP combined charging US$150 an hour for a phone call and a fortune [US$1500] for a phone [initially] as well as high monthly charges and a high sign-up fee. The cost of creating those phone calls was about $3 an hour. Greedy!! 50x markup was way over the top. 10 years earlier, there was no CDMA. The timing was perfect, the greed was absurd. There are vast swathes of earth where there is no terrestrial coverage and untold hordes of people live in and traverse those areas and can afford and want reasonably priced phone calls. Roaming charges have been huge. Globalstar could, still, undercut many roaming services and provide complete coverage instead of very, very patchy, indifferent and non-existent coverage. Terrestrial services are threatened by Globalstar at the periphery - terrestrial services in the outback, hinterlands, unbusy roads, little one-horse towns and most places are uneconomic. Globalstar can more cheaply provide coverage in those areas. There is a huge market for Globalstar. If the new owners [me] price the service right, we will see the service develop as it should have done three years ago. But I will NOT be surprised if the same high-priced minutes are offered and we have a replay of slow marketing and slow subscriber growth. They say they'll offer aggressive pricing, but Olof, who grew up in the era of monopoly telecommunications and Inmarsat is sure to have a weird 20th century telecoms idea of what "Aggressive pricing" means. Mqurice

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (113572)	2/17/2002 10:59:10 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Caxton: Cell phones and driving are a big problem, and law will require hands free headsets in the near future. So I guess that since your phone will be sitting in a hands free kit anyway (by law). Then using Globalstar to provide highway, to dirt road roaming for a carrier that wants the roaming coverage area (like LWIN) without building out all that expensive infrastructure and it's associated monthly OpEx for those driving through Death Valley, or up I-5 thru Northern California? After all, they can probably build the antennas into windshields. And something to think about.. How small could you build a G* phone using RadioOne technology? After all, part of the G* phone design challange was the large difference between the forward and reverse link frequencies. Unlike PCS phones whose link frequencies are only about 80 Mhz apart. Globalstar's link frequencies were 100's of Mhz apart! If you get rid of all of the cross-talk sensitive IF components with RadioOne. I think you could make a pretty small phone! Imagine the compeditive pressure if VZ or PCS could offer a dual band phone that is small and compact, and could roam anywhere outside of their coverage area for let's say 15 cents a minute? PCSTEL

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (113572)	2/18/2002 1:58:19 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Caxton" The problem is when will cdma start growing faster than other businesses...... The timing and size of the migration are the keys. Wireless is not dead; in fact it is obvious that it will be the dominant way people communicate by voice. No. Qualcomm should position itself for growth that takes away the variable regarding the timing and size of the migration. Good God! RadioOne should reduce the BOM of a phone more than a freakin' 5% royalty. Screw the royalty. You have a couple dozen Korean, Japenese, Chinese Manufactures that are building both CDMA and GSM phones. The are going to build RadioOne CDMA phones. Just supply them with a pin compatable set of GSM/GPRS only chips that will work with their CDMA generic phone design. They design one generic phone housing. At the end of the production line. They decide to populate it as either a GSM phone, or a CDMA phone. They plug in the chip desired! The Economics of Scale are obvious. You sell the GSM chip for $10 more than the CDMA chip. You get your royalty in margins in the Asic division. You could probably command a large penetration of GSM/GPRS wins from Qualcomm's current CDMA handset manufactures. Start shipping out 30 million GSM/GPRS chips a quarter. Qualcomm needs to stop waiting for the CDMA Rainbow to come to them, and leverage their engineering excellence in taking market share in other market segments! Look at TXN.. They don't care. They just want to make money! PCSTEL