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: Jim Lurgio who wrote (1459)	2/4/1999 10:11:00 AM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Siemens and Alcatel did not initially back W-CDMA, because they fought for their own, TDMA-based 3G solution. However, after the ETSI vote selected W-CDMA, both S and A announced in press releases that they respect the ETSI decision and will back a single European solution. I wouldn't expect them to sprinkle rose petals on W-CDMA, since it defeated the Siemens/Alcatel proposal for 3G... it's enough that they seem to tacitly support it. This B-CDMA seems to be the Korean revenge on Qualcomm. They can't wiggle out of the IS-95 IPR payments... but they can attempt a Hail Mary run to outflank Qualcomm with B-CDMA. I think it's really interesting that Nokia is now showing support. I don't see why there wouldn't be room for W-CDMA as the mobile solution and B-CDMA as the fixed solution. This way, if W-CDMA bogs down in a legal fight, the B-CDMA development can continue independently. There is so much maneuvering going on to short-circuit Qualcomm: Ericsson fights the Qcom claims on W-CDMA IPR, Koreans and now some European companies try to boost B-CDMA, some GSM operators are using GPRS to boost the ordinary GSM network data transmission rates above 100 kbps, some GSM operators are opting for HSCSD to deliver video streaming for their networks. GPRS and HSCSD seem to be "2,5G" solutions that attempt to realize most of the benefits of 3G without the exorbitant costs of building W-CDMA networks. It will be extremely interesting to see whether the "2,5G" benefits can be achieved by simply revamping the existing GSM networks. GSM could deliver WWW faster than current home modems by next winter if everything goes as planned. I like the new direction this thread is taking... it seems only appropriate that more room is used to discuss perhaps the most compelling novel phenomenon in the mobile telecom field. I'm leaving this comment open to interpretation. Tero

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (1459)	2/4/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Jim - It is also no secret that the B-CDMA consortium ( Interdigital/Samsung/Siemens and Alcatel ) have said fixed at first then neighborhood roaming and eventually full mobility. Great, but the point is that they have been saying that for years and are nowhere on it. Also note that I made my predictions about which patents IDC would not have before I read the 10K's - purely from my knowledge about what they have specialized in. I can't imagine all these companies paying Interdigital royalties to buy into a court case. Huh? I acknowledged that IDC has valid patents in cell CDMA that probably allow a licensee to work around some Qualcomm patents. Thus without a court case. But that does not mean that they have bypassed all Qualcomm's patents - especially those in the areas where IDC has not been concentrating (like mobility). Could B-CDMA , if it were mobile , be a work around the Q's IPR? The difference between mobile and fixed is a very very big one - in fact the biggest individual hurdle to mobile cell CDMA. Thus by postulating 'if it were mobile' you are postulating the very thing you are trying to conclude. (i.e. not sound logic) Clark