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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Leif V Singman who wrote (949)	9/2/1998 11:31:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 34857

You got lucky, Leif... I'm the only unbiased observer on CDMA issues on SI! The much-vaunted superior voice quality of CDMA is toast after GSM introduced the EFR technology. There are consumers who prefer GSM over CDMA and vice versa... no consensus that would give CDMA a marketing edge. At least in San Diego and New York (that WSJ article) informal tests have given GSM the best marks. Qualcomm is something to worry about. Luckily they have managed to alienate and be sued by Ericsson, Motorola and some Korean collaborators. Moreover, they have pissed off NTT-Docomo without getting sued. Yet. With a market cap of three billion bucks they are really pushing the envelope on how much enemies can a relatively small company get. The fall-out is only beginning. Apparently Motorola is retaliating by not supporting Qualcomm in its demands of getting to determine what are the specs of W-CDMA. So you have a 3 B$ company demanding the right to change the specs of W-CDMA standard, currently backed by Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, NTT-Docomo, Japanese corporations like Sony, Korean companies, Siemens, Alcatel, Philips, etc. Of course, since W-CDMA is an upgrade to GSM it is deeply bizarre that a company not involved in GSM in any way wants to call the shots on how GSM networks will be upgraded. Evidently Qualcomm is relying on nationalistic rhetoric and trying to whip up some conservative senators into Europe-bashing frenzy. They might succeed. But I'm not betting on it. The issue of how well CDMA is doing against GSM and TDMA is wide open. But it's good to remember that people gloating over CDMA network in Australia tend to forget that there already is a highly successful GSM operator there, adding subscribers at a dizzy rate. Mexico is getting CDMA... but the biggest operator in the country is investing massively in TDMA. Japan is getting CDMA... but the biggest operator in the country is heavily invested in PCD and intends to move into W-CDMA in the year 2000. China is supposed to get CDMA... but GSM already has 10 million subscribers and almost a million new Chinese customers sign up to GSM every month. Most of the new CDMA operators outside USA are second string wanna-be's. The powerful established operators who are backing competing standards in China, Mexico, Japan, Australia, etc. aren't about to give up. And they have economies of scale on their side. I think that the current economic turmoil is considerably weakening the position of CDMA. Witness the stillborn CDMA "challenge" in China. As a result, Hong Kong and Taiwan have no choice but to back up GSM if they want roaming. The Russian CDMA "challenge"... well, figure it out. Many of the companies investing heavily in CDMA, like Samsung and Motorola, are reeling and in no position to launch the kind of expensive, globally coordinated offensives that are Nokia's specialty in GSM and TDMA phones. The handset projects of Nextel and Lucent, two CDMA powers, are stillborn. Qualcomm is in no position to really contest handset markets like China and Australia - they have almost no global presence and Nokia is already deeply entrenched in Asian countries. If the CDMA camp can't come up with some kind of coherent answer to the current design and technology superiority of GSM handsets they are up the creek. The projections that promised 20-25% global market share to CDMA in 2004 were based on 5-8% growth rates in key markets like Korea and Japan. And they did not anticipate the GSM rout in China. You don't need an MBA to figure out what those projections are worth now. Tero

To: Leif V Singman who wrote (949)	9/2/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 34857

I would appreciate your views on the advantages of CDMA vs TDMA and WCDMA. Does CDMA produce superior sound? Is Qualcom something to worry about? How valid are their claims of patent infringement? Why not take a very biased organizations opinion on the patent issue - ETSI. They, who would obviously be biased the other way, acknowledge that Qualcomm's patents are essential to the current version of WCDMA. As for voice quality, it is a function of both the codec used and the system loading. Under ideal conditions I am sure that either system beats the other when the other is 'fully' loaded. (Strictly speaking a fully loaded TDMA system must drop a user - i.e. zero voice quality<g> - whereas a fully loaded CDMA system degrades the voice quality, so it isn't a real apples to apples comparison.) The real question, for which I have not seen really unbiased data, is who can support more users per $ infrastructure and MHz. Those who can will almost inevitably have better voice quality/availability and/or lower per minute charges. For my money I would bet on CDMA in this battle given that even the opposition - except for AT&T, I think - is endorsing a form of it for the next generation. But I'll admit that truly unbiased data is hard to come by. Clark Just some data to offset Tero's notoriously unbiased data.<g>