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: tero kuittinen who wrote (14748)	9/9/1998 9:54:00 AM
From: brian h	Respond to of 152472

Tero, I think NOKA is exactly like My gothic writing. Good looking but no substance. This year Nokia has zoomed past Lucent to world's number 2 mobile infrastructure provider when all network orders are calculated - largely on back of GSM-1800 supremacy. Does the stock value reflect this? Take a look at Lucent's and Nokia's P/E ratios and tell me. Yes, I can tell you why. Because I got out of LU right at the time it started to really took off. It is not because it is doing any CDMA, GSM, or TDMA stuffs. That is only a part of it. That can only make them go up from $28 to $160. What really make them flying from $160 to $320 is Internet stuffs (Data stuffs), The stuffs that you are typing to talk to me at this time. It bought a company that specializes on data communication backbone that can compete with CSCO. Then it has a V.90 modem that can compete with US Robortics, It also has ADSL, ATM, fiber optics, WDM products in the line up for your NOKA to compete. Can NOKA even do an email product? Besides Can you really think NOKA can compete with Bell Labs in any way? All of you comments focused on GSM. Any thing new? Yes. NOKA is a full valued investment from an accountant point of view. Brian H.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (14748)	9/9/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

To Tero: As Clark Hare said <<<<<<<Tough t***y. Perhaps they should have thought of that before they decided to try to leave the originator of the technology out of the loop - to the extent of not even allowing them (the technology originator) to present at the ETSI 3g conference >>>>>> Why in your view was the Q not permitted to even make its case? Curious what you think. But we have made progress. At least you are now back on subject and not continuing your attacks on selected US politiicians - a few who you seem to disagree with either because they are from "the south" by which I assume you mean the US south not all of the US which is south of Finland - or their stands on issues which you don't like. But the actual situation is that there is broad support for a fair shake for US companies in wireless worldwide and therefore to prevent the unauthorized use of the specific CDMA Qualcomm IPR's by anyone (whether "standards body" or another company wherever it is based). This support is evident in the Executive Branch, Independent Regulatory Agencies and the Congress and in both political parties - left, center and right (to the extent any of those labels mean anything at all anymore), Await your view why ETSI would not even give the Q a chance to present its case during the standards setting decision making process. Cheers. Chaz

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (14748)	9/9/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, in New Zealand, we have no charge at all for off peak rates! That includes calls all over the country. But the same as in the UK, and perhaps Finland, these free or very cheap off peak rates reflect a lack of demand and an attempt to boost the money making daytime calls. The total package needs to be added up. Not just the handset or the free off peak minutes. Include the total costs, including infrastructure. CDMA wins and that's why 3G is going to be CDMA not lots of GSM glued together. You should be aware that GSM was selected in New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere nearly a decade ago because that was all there was to select. cdmaOne has only become an option in the past year or two. GSM has improved its efficiency, and while GSM-1800 might be very competitive, cdmaOne hasn't finished development yet. With prices coming down, people will flock to cellular instead of wireline, then it is really going to be fun. You said: "Here's the crux: there is no erosion in GSM sales growth in countries where the two coexist. Hong Kong is showing the lesson..." Hong Kong is not such a good example. They put in a crusty old Motorola system in 1995. The world has moved on. Check out the USA. I think that is one of the few places where there is real free market war between the competing standards. cdmaOne is doing very nicely there. With electronic, chip and other New Paradigm prices continuing to decrease quickly with funtionality increase, both GSM and cdmaOne are going to become much cheaper. If they can avoid the monster cell sites, which have engineering and other costs, then both could become very, very, cheap. But I believe those who say that the capacity of CDMA is inherently greater than TDMA systems. I think everyone says that, though there is dispute on the extent of the advantage. There are some other CDMA advantages too. So CDMA will increase the advantage as the technology matures. I wouldn't be a wireline shareholder for all the tea in China. Mqurice