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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2626)	1/25/1999 3:50:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5390

Mika, you are quite right that the most efficient system available should be the 3G standard and that is part of Qualcomm's demand. Qualcomm will not accept a less efficient chip rate. Where you have gone wrong is to think that the lower chip rate is less efficient. This has all been explained carefully by experts such as W Houston. You either haven't read his posts and Qualcomm's statements, can find some errors or just don't believe them. Qualcomm has also insisted that demonstation using real systems be the basis for decision. Did you know that you can increase fuel efficiency by inflating your tyres to higher pressures? Who in their right mind would run tyres at less than the most efficient tyre pressure? Those who want ride comfort, tyre life, vehicle stability.... You see the point? This is a similar situation. Higher chip rates while simplemindedly more 'efficient' like higher tyre pressures are more 'efficient' don't work in practise because of other effects. Qualcomm has investigated this and selected the optimum chip rate. Ericy should perhaps adopt the expert's ideas on things they don't know much about. They should also work on upgrading their old concatenated convoluted logic system. They said they are working on that! If a higher chip rate was desirable, it wouldn't serve Qualcomm's interests to stick with the old one just to enable a cheaper upgrade path for the old cdmaOne systems. They would do best by having the new system as efficient as possible to keep subscriber costs as low as possible so the subscribers could spend more of their money on buying Q! based hardware than on spectrum. Q! gets none of the money going to spectrum purchase. And nobody gets anything out of inefficiency - it is just like heat out of the radiator - waste. The car makers don't make cars burn fuel inefficiently deliberately. They want them to run efficiently so people can spend more money on car and less on fuel. Since you 'have Ericy religion' I don't expect you to convert - reasons are singularly unattractive to those having religious experiences. Once again: Qualcomm is specifying the most efficient system. Demonstration of efficiency is required from VW40 enthusiasts. Why Ericy would debilitate their VW40 system towards Q! chip rate is baffling. They say they don't need Q! technology, so why on earth would they acknowledge ANY Q! demands let alone such a crucial one? Like ElMatador and Tero, I suppose you won't lower yourself to answer the points. But you might like to point out some of my personal deficiencies as proof. ElMatador demonstrated the paucity of the WLL opportunity by showing how my amygdala is connected to my thigh bone. Because of ElMatador's excellent analysis, we now know that the soil strength across Asia is not enough to support any structure taller than a rice paddy. We can conclude that all the GSM towers will fall over when a decent wind blows. But VW40 can support the world and Ericy invented it. Q! is irrelevant - don't demean King Ericy's amazing Techicolour Dreamcoat of fine silk and gold over which the crowd is ooohhhhing and ahhhinngg to suit some usurper from San Diego. Maurice

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (2626)	1/25/1999 7:24:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 5390

Mika - In rough terms the move from 4.096 down to 3.6864 is a reduction of 10% which equates to 10% reduction of capacity, e.g., a 10% reduction of turnover, which in turn means 10% less profits. Come on. You know this is like comparing box volume by measuring the width without the height and depth. You know that if the whole 'volume' (Erlangs/MHz) were compared Ericsson would lose, by their own specs. You know that Ericsson themselves were willing to change the rate to something only 4% away from Qualcomm's need - probably because it didn't easily fit in 5MHz (thought question: is 10%? extra cost, 15%? less battery time worth 10% extra capacity?). You have ample evidence that Ericsson spins better than James Carville - if today's press release isn't spin then nothing is. Is 4% faster chip rate worth the hold up? Answer, no way on the face of the planet, since the uncertainty on the capacity is much greater than this (+/-20%). So why is Ericsson doing this? They feel squeezed between a rock and a hard place, and any delay/confusion is good in that it allows time for them to extricate themselves. Clark