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: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19397)	12/9/1998 6:09:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Thanks for the Korean url Mika. The contract was quite specific on the difference between PCS and Cellular. I had wondered [months ago when this came up] whether it might be that 'cellular' and 'PCS' could be taken as meaning the same thing. Apparently not. According to the discussions at the time, there is no mistake and Korean companies signed up with their eyes open. They are now trying to get a better deal. 5% seems a bargain to me. They are selling a lot in the midst of a terrible recession so it can't be all bad. Where cdmaOne is competing with earlier-to-market GSM and TDMA it is doing very well, notwithstanding the latest claims that TDMA is cleaning up in the USA. So the Korean argument that royalties are hindering cdmaOne are unconvincing. Sure, the gesture of reducing the chip rate is symbolic, but we are dealing with real photons in a real world, so symbolic gestures are like saying 'good morning' to those one negotiates with; polite and desirable, but not actually part of the negotiation. The chip rate aspect is irrelevant for the TDMA upgrade, but there might be other aspects which can be harmonized to ease the way. It doesn't serve Q! interests to be wasteful of GSM resources - they want easy upgrades for GSM too. But they sure won't sacrifice cdmaOne customers for an artificial purpose of creating a level playing field. Which is what L M Ericsson was seeking. Well, still is if we believe the public comments. As pointed out already, L M Ericsson was just rehashing their old reduced chip rate offer, which still left cdmaOne in limbo. With no redeeming merit for TDMA installed base. Hoping I didn't miss your points. Since you are a telecoms marketing consultant, what do you think of Tero's suggestion that Nokia would produce a second rate cdmaOne handset deliberately to maintain their premium GSM image [or something - his reasoning baffled me]? Surely they'd want to maintain King of the Hill status and produce the best in each air interface type. And isn't it more in L M Ericsson's and Nokia's interests to resolve this 3G discussion than QUALCOMM's? To get the thing moving and avoid Q! and licensees getting a big head start. Especially Ericy, who have only GSM and legacy things to go on with. At least Nokia has cdmaOne, once they buy MSM3000. Mqurice

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19397)	12/9/1998 8:17:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hey Mika, "One good point I did read is that by knobbling the upgrade IS-95 we now have an level playing field (as you will now need additional hardware)...I hope, for Ericsson's sake, that is not what they are implying" Well I'll be damned. It seems you're catching on...Dave

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19397)	12/9/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika: You say---"The WCDMA proposal was based on the core GSM network (which as we all know is TDMA). This provides established GSM operators an upgrade path, protecting their investment (someting I hear a lot from the IS-95 camp)." I say--Exactly what is the upgrade path for the GSM operators? Will the current GSM equipment be compatible with W-CDMA? Will current handsets work in a W-CDMA system? How is the investment in GSM equipment protected? As I understand it, my cdmaONE phone will work just fine with cdma2000 or any likely converged standard. Just what investment is protected for the GSM camp? ERICY is scared to death that service providers will see the truth. Including minor variants in their 3G solution to "even the playing field" is ludicrous. If the 3G debate goes to cdma2000 or the likely converged standard, GSM is no longer an attractive system. Why bother? As a matter of fact, why bother now? The only reason to not use IS-95 is that the banter of ERICY says W-CDMA will "protect your GSM investment." Total horse doo doo(and I should know). Tell me how. Also tell me how this investment is protected in a converged standard world.

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19397)	12/9/1998 1:29:00 PM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Respond to of 152472

Nokia supports open discussions to further 3rd Generation standardization (December 9, 1998) - Nokia supports open discussions aimed at furthering 3rd Generation technologies and the relevant standards. Nokia also welcomes an approach to further harmonize those standards, without sacrificing the benefits 3rd Generation will bring to end-users. "We firmly believe the harmonization process should be taken as far as possible without conclusions that compromise the performance and quality of future networks," says Professor Yrjö Neuvo, Senior Vice President, Product Creation, Nokia Mobile Phones. "We believe the harmonization process will result in three major third generation standards - WCDMA, CDMA 2000 and UWC136 - bringing a smooth evolution from various existing standards as well as providing enough compatibility. This will ensure a favorable outcome for end-users, meeting expectations both in terms of service portability and handset costs," says Professor Neuvo. "Multiple modes in a single handset will then provide global service where required by users." Earlier this autumn, together with other leading companies in the industry, Nokia submitted a number of third generation harmonization proposals to standardization bodies. Importantly, one of these covers radio frequency parameters. These have been identified to have central importance in future dual mode developments without compromizing service quality or terminal cost. Nokia also views positively the efforts of the industry in the drive towards an open and pragmatic approach and looks forward to closely reviewing recent proposals for the adoption of the common chip rate of 3.84 Mcps for both WCDMA and CDMA 2000. Nokia believes these proposals provide an excellent basis for furthering discussions, with the final decision on harmonization resting with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other standardization organizations as planned and agreed earlier. Nokia is the world's leading mobile phone supplier and a leading supplier of mobile and fixed telecom networks including related customer services. Nokia also supplies solutions and products for fixed and wireless datacom, as well as multimedia terminals and computer monitors. In 1997, net sales totaled FIM 52.6 billion (USD 9.8 billion). Headquartered in Finland, Nokia is listed on five European Stock Exchanges and on the New York Stock Exchange (NOK.A), has sales in 130 countries and employs more than 42,000 people world-wide. Contact information: Lauri Kivinen, Senior Vice President, Nokia Corporate Communications Tel. (Int.) +358 9 1807 495 Fax (Int.) +358 9 174 358