SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Gregg Powers who wrote (9314)3/19/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: stealthy  Respond to of 152472
 
To ALL : Some advantages of GSM SIM card approach

-------------------------------------

Wireless Phones Are Poised
To Start Roaming World-Wide

By ELIZABETH JENSEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A wireless phone that can be used almost anywhere in the world: That has
long been on the wish list of jet-setting business travelers who hate having to
juggle different handsets for different countries.

Now that wish is coming true -- sort of. In the next few months, several
companies, taking advantage of shrinking electronics, plan to introduce
phones that will work in the U.S. as well as in much of Europe, Asia, the
Middle East and Australia. That means U.S. travelers to Europe or Asia
won't have to rent a handset when stepping off the plane, and vice versa. All
those numbers stored electronically in the phone will travel with them as
well.

The new phones work on the digital GSM (Global System for Mobile
Communications) technology. The multiband phones are necessary because
not all GSM systems operate on the same radio frequency. European and
Asian GSM is available on the 900 megahertz and, in some places, the
1,800 megahertz frequencies, while in the U.S., GSM is found on the 1,900
megahertz frequency.

Today, frequent foreign travelers resort to a hodgepodge of solutions. Some
U.S. wireless carriers that use the GSM standard, such as Omnipoint
Corp., will rent subscribers handsets that work on the European
frequencies. But users must remove a tiny card known as the SIM card (for
Subscriber Identity Module) from their U.S. handset into the European one.

European and Asian airports also rent handsets to visitors from overseas
who remember to bring along their SIM card. Some companies have solved
the problem by buying phones for different continents for executives to take
with them on trips, but that means a new number to give out.

"I want to have one number and one phone," says Jeff Brugos, a San
Francisco-based partner in Price Waterhouse's management-consulting
practice, who spends half his time in Asia and Europe and is extremely
interested in having a phone that works world-wide.

The current system is "a royal inconvenience," says David C. Lee, a
managing director at Lazard Freres & Co., noting, "Not only do you have to
carry a different phone, you have to have directly signed up with a service
provider in Europe so you can use the phone." Mr. Lee says he usually
takes a colleague's phone when traveling, but often forgets.

For U.S.-based travelers, there is one hitch with the phones: Although GSM
is by far the dominant standard in Europe and is widely available in Asia, in
the U.S. it is just getting started. While the number of GSM users
world-wide more than doubled last year to a current 70.2 million, in the
U.S. there are about 1.5 million subscribers. Many U.S. GSM providers
have been offering service for just a year, and their networks aren't fully
built.

Some major U.S. cities don't have GSM service at all because the license
holder for those systems, Pocket Communications Inc., is in bankruptcy
proceedings. That means a GSM user could hop from Paris to New York
to Hong Kong with the same phone, but would be out of luck in Chicago,
New Orleans, or Dallas/Ft. Worth. Ditto for most of Latin America.

Moreover, the new phones won't help U.S. customers who subscribe to the
most-common cellular services, which use an older, analog technology, or
other newer digital systems such as some "PCS" networks. Unlike many
countries, the U.S. never set a wireless standard, though manufacturers are
trying to create phones that would bridge many or all of these systems.

Still, for many business travelers, the new GSM phones could be a vast
improvement. Two German handset producers, Robert Bosch Gmbh and
Siemens AG, have announced plans to introduce phones that work on the
900 and 1,900 frequencies. The Bosch phone, to be distributed in the U.S.
by Audiovox Corp., will be on the market in the second quarter, while the
Siemens phone is scheduled to arrive by summer.

Sweden's Telefon AB LM Ericsson has told carriers it will have a phone in a
900/1,900 version in the fourth quarter, and next year for all three GSM
frequencies. A spokesman says the technology needs refinement, but
eventually, "We feel it is going to be one of the biggest product hits among
high-end business users."

Not everyone agrees. Finland's Nokia Corp. says the market for such
phones is too small to merit attention. "When the market is big enough, we
will have a product," says Jyrki Salo, vice president, Americas, Nokia
Telecommunications.

Handset makers and carriers are still discussing prices, but the phones aren't
expected to cost consumers more than a few hundred dollars -- and maybe
substantially less.






To: Gregg Powers who wrote (9314)3/19/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Gregg,

since you probably carry the most weight here, as far as QCOM is concerned, how about asking QCOM to give us an update on the Mexico situation.

Ramsey



To: Gregg Powers who wrote (9314)3/20/1998 1:36:00 PM
From: Raymond  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Gregg!
I agree that QCOM has a good position on the IPR-issue.
You understand also that the reason for that the European companys didn't do IS-95 could be other reason than that it's so "hightech" so they are not competent enough to do it.I don't think the reason
for example for Motorola not to release any cellular IS-95 phone isn't
that they can't do it.The only thing it says is that they can't do it
with enough profit just now.The majority on this thread seems to think
that Qualcomm is the only company that has competence in this area.
I am sure that Ericsson,Siemens,Alcatel,Nokia the big companies not
delivering cellular IS-95 infrastructure could make a IS-95 system and a phone if they wanted to and invested enough in development.Now they are really so late so it's not so likely that they will do it.We will see
with W-CDMAone maybe there will be some new competitors there.
Back to the IPR-issue.Does anyone has any info about what happens with the negotiations between ETSI and QCOM if there
will be some agreement or not.Wasn't it this year also that
Ericsson and QCOM where supposed to go to court in Texas on
IPR-issues.Another question I read in the news that LMNQS(Also from
the news to long to write the names of the whole group) was
lobbying really hard in Japan to try to get the 3G standard to be more
compatible to IS-95 and also with some success.I am just waiting
for that AL and Bill and will go over there and help them.If you just
agree on this than you can export how many cars you want to us.
Does anyone know anything about this.This is of course very
important for LMNQS that the new system especially on Layer1
(CDMA-layer) is as similar as possible to IS-95.For QCOM the IPR:s
and for the rest the design of the Basestation HW.If they can
get the layer1 to be similar the may be able to use the same HW for
W-CDMA and W-CDMA-one/R







To: Gregg Powers who wrote (9314)3/21/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: bdog  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Gregg:

One of the not much discussed factors which has most affected all of us "buy and hold" longs is strictly psychological, i.e., perception. Namely, the street's perception of the mighty Q and its potential. If I understand you correctly, the market is valuing QCOM around about half what is appropriate given current growth, revenue, earnings generation, etc. While I'm doing better than Surfer Mike's $46 and change total gain, not by that much given that I'm so heavily concentrated and have been for almost two years. Sycophancy aside (sorry SM), your intelligence on the fundamentals has helped me "keep the faith" as of late but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about the market's "inefficiency" respecting the Q. You must have considered this if only in relation to issues of timing. Like the rest of us, your fund could have done better (in the wisdom of hindsight) if you had been magically able to factor in the street's perception and the consequent protracted undervaluation of QCOM. So why do you think the street isn't catching on? Is it the complexity of the technology and the amount of disinformation re. same? Is it so implausible that such a small company can take on and challenge the big guys? Is it just a case of waiting to see who wins? Do you think the Q's mgmt is doing all it should to counter all the bullshit? Do they care about the stock price? What do you think it will take for this stock to break out? Anyway, you get my drift. What do the rest of you think????