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 (11692)	6/22/1998 6:37:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Caxton, I know you don't have to answer to this one but may be Gregg P or the techwebmaster surfer Mike can jump in. How much is this 3G system going to cost the bells globally? All the arguments to date assumed that it is forgone conclusion that everyone will switch. I personally find it hard to believe that I will ever use a cell phone to be downloading huge files. Who knows, by 2002 or whenever this 3G comes on line, I may be cable, fibre optic, ADSL or whatever downloading at 800G per second. My limited tech knowledge tells me that wireless would never be faster than land lines. Has anyone performed a cost/benefit analysis for 3G? There have been hundreds of posts discussing 3G that may be all for not. Ramsey

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (11692)	6/22/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Respond to of 152472

Caxton: Yours was an interesting and important post, particularly since MobileOne is first and foremost a GSM operator. Why do you suppose the company deployed a CDMA network AFTER it already had an operational GSM system? And, why do you suppose the company is now investigating a CDMA air interface overlay for its GSM networks? Sometimes as the debate rages back and forth between CDMA bulls and bears, we tend to forget that CDMA exists because it is technologically superior to TDMA-based alternatives. Since spectrum is a finite and expensive resource, operators are economically incented to migrate to the technology that allows for the greatest number of subscribers per unit of spectrum per dollar of invested capital. Moreover, Montefiore seems fairly sanguine regarding the power and attractiveness of CDMA handsets. As an operator he is clearly privy to everybody's product pipeline...I wonder what he has seen that we don't know about yet? Tero argues that Qualcomm's royalties are excessive and that other telecom companies are loathe to support CDMA because they would prefer not to subsidize a competitor. Tero is correct, that all else being equal, Qualcomm's licensees would rather NOT pay for a license and be committed to royalties. Yet, despite this predilection, almost sixty licensees did sign up for Qualcomm's IPR. Why? Was this a mass act of self-immolation or did these companies perceive that (a) the technological value-added was profound, (b) the licenses' costs were materially less than the alternative R&D expenditures that would be necessary to attempt circumvention and (c) there is an important time-to-market advantage gained by committing to IS-95. Ericsson's move to CDMA offers absolute confirmation that direct sequence spread spectrum (CDMA) is a superior air interface. Ericsson's attempt to promulgate a new standard (W-CDMA) is an attempt to recover ground lost to the company's arrogant and complacent commitment to TDMA-based technology. These intuitions are evident to those considering this issue from an unbiased perspective. Tero claims to be looking "long-term", yet he ignores the profundity of Ericsson's strategy change. He dismisses, without supporting evidence, the IPR fortress around GSM yet claims that QC's CDMA royalties are too high. Well, if CDMA did not offer performance advantages over TDMA, and other companies could readily develop the technological without infringing on QC's IPR, then there might be some substance to his position. Funny. Think how frustrating this must be to Ericsson. Had that damn little San Diego start-up failed, Ericsson could have mined its TDMA-based GSM franchise for the foreseeable future. Instead, Ericsson is using every trick in its sleeve to slow down the upstart and level the playing field. Handwringing and name-calling is no substitute for a true technological advantage. Best Regards, Gregg