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: Rajala who wrote (15493)	9/25/1998 8:17:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To all: Nokia CEO outlined his view on the future of the mobile business and upgraded the previous estimates on mobile business growth. He based his upgrade on the fact that in the leading countries the previously estimated saturation points had already been passed. In Finland the 50% mark was exceeded last month. He estimated that there will be 1 bn mobile subscribers year 2005. Also he said that in 2000 half of mobile sales will be replacement sales. IMO if we suppose that CDMA1 - CDMA2000 camp will be able to hold to its market share of 22.2% year 2002 as estimated by EMC, that means that this business sector increases from current 11M subscribers to 222M in seven years. This is a twenty-fold increase. Furthermore, if we factor in the replacement sales, there will be sales of no less than 422M CDMA1/2000 phones during the next seven year period. Whichever way you think about it, this is a s-load of phones. Or am I missing something? - rajala

To: Rajala who wrote (15493)	9/25/1998 9:37:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala - From the mobile point of view it is pretty much as expensive to build a patchy coverage mobile network than a WLL network. I agree that, due to fact that most WLL systems are mobile-lite systems, the cost difference between the equipment for a WLL system and a mobile system isn't all that much. However, there are several other factors: 1) The link budgets for a WLL system are much more robust. The current generation of WLL doesn't, to my knowledge, take much advantage of that, but they undoubtedly will at some time. When they do it will be possible to get considerably more users per BS than on a mobile. (much the same reasoning as the 3g spec says that a fixed user should be able to transmit 2 Mbps, while the full mobile can only transmit ~300 kbps). 2) Installation/operation. The installation and tuning costs for a mobile system are substantially more than for a WLL system. This is related to the first item, and in fact as the WLL systems start taking full advantage of the immobility of their users, this difference will largely disappear - although some of it will remain such as the lack of the need to hook up all the roaming stuff. 3) Legislation. As I noted in an earlier post, many of the developing countries have over-legislated telecom industries. I know of several countries where the fixed and mobile operators each have a government given monopoly. The fixed provider cannot install a mobile system, but they can install a WLL system. Clark PS If I had to guess I would say that the cost/user for WLL is probably 1/2 that of full mobile for the same city. This is after accounting for the fewer number of basestations needed, the easier installation and the more heavily loadable system.