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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (44083)	1/7/2005 3:23:18 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 197415

Gee, Eric, if one didn't know better, those posted blasts from the past could lead one to infer that your corporate impartiality, purity of analysis and RF agnosticism are subject to (not so subtle) suasion. I am sure it is otherwise, however, as I have been (sometimes reluctant and uncomfortable) witness to your trenchant, and above all informed, commentary since late 1998. I know engineer sometimes does battle on his turf, and his is distinct from yours, so I convince and beguile myself that the differences are reconciliable. Then, Clark H, under new guise (like a modern day Clark Kent at San Diego) weighs in with his erudite, recondite calculations, leaving all but pcstel and W. Houston ("oh, where have you gone....?") in his exhaust, spewing all nature of physical, and even metaphysical, flotsam and jetsam. And, what inspired all this? Nothing but Mq's rousing curtain call for Surfer Mike, harkening (nay, tarkening) back to the lee of the early shadow cast by orthogonal frequency whatchamacallit. As Bruce would have hailed, Ho, on deck there, on the horizon, three points off the starboard bow, yonder Glory Days. In sum, Eric, keep doing what you do best, which is keeping us just a tad honest in the course of your professional expertise. Bending to the wind doesn't become you at all. But, thanks for the history, because I always was a bit fuzzy on the details of Mq's references to the Frezza forum. quid

To: Eric L who wrote (44083)	1/7/2005 5:40:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197415

Speaking of Bill Frezza, thanks for dragging the old dead horse out for another ritual flogging. As you point out, it's time for him to eat his article due to QUALCOMM, namely the illustrious Dr Irwin Jacobs, being correct way back in 1990 [and earlier when he had obviously done the calculations] when he discussed the possible capacity advantage of CDMA over analogue cellphone technology. Bear in mind that Dr J was making those capacity estimates at a time when the technology was barely in the cradle and predicting adult performance by looking in a bassinet is dodgy at best - many is the parent who's early dreams of their family name being raised to the heights have been dashed in failure or even infamy as their wayward offspring go off the rails. It's akin to Albert Einstein messing around with the gravitational constant when the world was Euclidean, Keplerian, Newtonian and concrete. He was giving a best estimate from the depths of the dark ages. Being picky that he hadn't immediately come up with the Star Trek hyperdrive, complete with quantum tunnelling, is unreasonable. In fact, said capacity estimates have turned out to be correct. Take that Frezza!! And that!!! And that!!! Allen Salmasi was also correct to bid $4 billion for C-block spectrum, contrary to naysayers at the time, who you might recall did NOT include your humble sage. So it has come to pass that the price was a bargain. Which means the financial backers blew it by not paying for the spectrum outright and having the full $16 bn rights to it, instead of being hacked around for a decade by the legal system and FCC, losing most of that value. But the bids were not too high. So take that Frezza! And that!! <Bidding up the price of PCS spectrum beyond all reasonable bounds--paying a whopping $4.7 billion for frequency rights that would allow it to deploy a nationwide footprint--NextWave boasted it would undercut all competition by selling only bulk airtime to resellers like MCI, thereby incurring no marketing, sales and customer support expenses. Salmasi certainly fulfilled his mission of keeping spectrum out of the hands of potential TDMA operators, but the hangover from this "irrational exuberance" is going to be a doozy. Nothing will turn PCS into a price-driven commodity faster than this "minutes of use" factory, assuming NextWave actually completes its financing and builds a network. I > I would love to see a price-driven commodity for minutes, and that would have been great for USA subscribers who have been laggards in the wireless world. That would have propelled CDMA to hyerspeed as capacity became the issue as service providers squeezed every last minute from the available spectrum. You fool Frezza!! Take that!! One of these days, we will see a price war [we are gradually seeing it, but it's very gradual]. Mqurice PS: I don't think the Einstein/Jacobs comparison is too far off the mark.