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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (181262)	5/19/2005 10:05:43 AM
From: C_Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Why would less chips be sold? The way I see it, they provide the venue for a ubiquitous environment to which anything and everything communicates. Those devices would have Intc chips, so that's a win. First, I did not say that fewer chips would be sold. I was just questioning the potential of WiMax given all of the disruptive possibilities taking place in the telecom/wireless arena. Clearly chips will be needed in an "everything communicates" environment. Whether it is a Intel chip, a chip from PMC Sierra, Qualcomm or a TI chip does not really matter to me. Wired or wireless does not matter. What matters is that there are forces out here influencing the financial side of the entity purchasing the chips and that is going to have an impact on the chip producers. Skype has an influence on the revenues generated for VOIP, particularly consumer VOIP. BitTorrent influences the price many are willing to pay to download video, music or many other file types. The models I see providers working with assume they will get paid for providing broadband access (wired/wireless), along with an ability to tack on additional charges for voice, video, gaming, etc, etc... In this case I would describe the model this way: "We offer a variant of high speed, wireless access (WiMax) and have plans to charge for various services including VOIP and perhaps video on demand." Problem is, the additional charges in the business model are being challenged by those who are already providing adequate and, most importantly, free services. Maybe it's flawed but I like to think of it in terms of how the funds (monthly fees) from an end user are allocated for the service provided. I see in a later post you went over and read some of the Eurotelecoblog I mentioned. It's a good read and I believe the message regarding Skype and VOIP is this: "What's not clear is as the cost of calls comes down, and revenues/profits are siphoned off from the carriers, where does the money come from to fund this backbone business?" Your concern about Cisco is noted though I also believe this has implications for Intel and WiMax. Regards, Carl infras.com P.S. MSFT is starting their push into the VOIP business for the enterprise and carrier markets: news.yahoo.com