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: Raymond who wrote (8539)	2/15/1998 1:27:00 PM
From: qdog	Respond to of 152472

The short answer, is to protect deployed assets. A tremendous amount of capital has been invested into GSM and other TDMA systems. Fine for voice, but when you are talking higher B/W for data, CDMA is the better choice. No Ericsson doesn't have to buy into the companies, just the government officials, which they have been accused of in the past, whether true or not. The accusation has been level in various countries. They have, however, engaged in financing the deals. As to providing quotes, In this thread there may exist links to just that. In the older thread their definitely was. I'm not going to surf it to prove it. Do that on your own. As to QCOM and MOT disadvantage, well we will see. Yes NT, LU and Ericsson enjoy a more total all in one advantage. QCOM's partner in switch is Alcatel now. The French are formidable in third world countries. The competition will be intense for markets, which is good. Ensures innovation and lower pricing. How companies response and accept that challenge is up to those companies. I begrudgingly concede that Ericsson has a wonderful marketing approach. I've used Ericsson equipment in various jobs over the years. I don't consider them to be the foremost innovators. I reserve that for LU and NT, with Alcatel third with acquisition of Rockwell assets. Rockwell was a premier company in telecommunications. Even Ericsson has bot it's innovation from GE.

To: Raymond who wrote (8539)	2/15/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Raymond: I am specifically in possession of an Ericsson "white paper" published circa the end of 1994/beginning of 1995 which suggested that CDMA systems would collapse under load (and was broadly disseminated throughout Wall Street). This paper, among many other actions and commentary, provide the basis for QC's "unfair competition" lawsuit against Ericsson (which alleges, amongst other things, that Ericsson engaged in a systematic pattern of disparagement in order to stymie, or a least slow, the adoption of IS-95. Bill Frezza, formerly Ericsson's director of Marketing and Business Development, used his Internet Forum as a bully-pulpit to prophesize about CDMA-mafias, frauds and the "unmitigated disaster" that would befall adoptees such as Airtouch, Sprint and PrimeCo. Call me cynical, but if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, chances are--it's a duck. The debate between hybrid TDMA and W-CMDA is very interesting. Believing, as I do, that TDMA is an inferior foundation architecture, I am not disappointed with the move towards CDMA (IS-95 or W-CDMA). Setting a CDMA air-interface on top of a TDMA/GSM infrastructure does protect the operators' legacy investment, but is probably sub-optimal vis-a-vis a greenfield CDMA deployment. So a major trade-off must be contemplated between orphaning the existing TDMA-based installed base versus jumping directly to CDMA. I am certain that Ericsson would love to steal the initiative with regard to W-CDMA and then mint money rebuilding its customers' networks. This investment issue remains: Can Ericsson do W-CDMA without QC intellectual property? If it cannot, as maintained by QC, and seemingly supported by ETSI, then Ericsson will need some form of royalty-bearing license agreement from QC. Which, to a large extent, insulates QC from harm economically and ensures its participation in spread spectrum deployments (either IS-95 and its derivatives or W-CDMA). My question for you is simple: Other than higher data rates, what practical advantage does W-CDMA have over IS-95? I see several material disadvantages, including comparatively reduced cell diameters (and, as a result, greater capital costs required to overcome coverage limitations). It strikes me that, for most operators, network optimization should favor voice over data, with the latter being routed through excess wireline capacity as voice minutes migrate to wireless. GJP