Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm looking to build a portfolio of broadband stocks. Here a few i think should be include.

To be listed a company must be growing 13-17% sequentially. They must be the leader in an emerging market.


Redback: The leader in the SMS market. They have 70-80% market share. With the aquistation of Siara they have the potential to go after a 20 billion dollar market by 2003. 424% YoY revenue growth

Realnetworks: The more people that have a fast connection the more they'll watch streaming media. I'd thinking Realnetworks will benefit nicely into my broadband portfolio. 110% YoY revenue growth

Copper Mountain: The leading supplier of DSL equipment to telecommunication companies and internet service providers. 360% YoY revenue growth

Excite@home: Has a monopoly on the cable internet access market. Expected to have 10 million users by the end of 2002. 827% YoY revenue growth



I know i've left out many other good broadband stocks, so if anyone has any ideas please post it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would love to hear what GGers think are the broadband players for wireless...I have been trying to get my brain wrapped around the wireless broadband market...but I am running into a brick wall it seems.

My main problems are this:

Is Qualcomm basically a wireless broadband player?

Do next-gen networks like JNPR, SCMR, and RBAK have a place in wireless broadband? (this is where my understanding of the tech behind wireless is screamingly evident!)

Does wireless broadband need all this fiber being laid? Or does it use satelites? (I need help..and links to good wireless info..bad!)

The reason I feel it is crucial to understand wireless broadband is this: If wireless broadband can be as fast and effective as DSL and Cable...why would anyone bother with all the wires, hassles, and inconvenience of being confined to a wall outlet?

Please flame me if appropriate and straighten this wireless broadband/Qualcomm stuff out for me if you are compelled to do so...I think I need it.

Perhaps one of you knowledgeable GGers could do a Dr.Seuss-type post for me that explains wireless broadband and the major players.

Something like:

XXX makes the phones
XYX is needed
XXY is also needed
YXX can be used for DSL, cable and wireless
YYX is for wireless only
I do, I do like green eggs and ham!


Dreamer (seeking guidance here from my fruitless research)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Are you deliberately ignoring the current gorillas? i.e. Cisco, Nortel Networks, Lucent even Microsoft perhaps.

While Excite@home is in a different market the others are all relatively small companies competing against the biggies. For example Copper Mountain is probably not the leading DSL supplier, Alcatel is. Redback had NO competition until Q4 1999 - it will be interesting to see if it can maintain it, now that Nortel is shipping Shasta and Cisco is promising to ship things. Real has definitely had some fun with Microsoft in the past.

But not to be negative. A great place to start research into the DSL part of broadband is http://www.dslprime.com/ . Also some other obvious broadband gorilla-wannabees are Juniper and Sycamore, Ciena. In ther service provider space AOL, WCG, Qwest, Level3, and Enron are also interesting plays in this area as is Worldcom.

DD

PS Long NT, CSCO, INTC, SUNW, JDSU and Cable&Wireless in this area
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Redback had NO competition until Q4 1999 - it will be interesting to see if it can maintain it, now that Nortel is shipping Shasta and Cisco is promising to ship things. Real has definitely had some fun with Microsoft in the past.

All companies have competition. You just buy the first mover or company with the leading/growing market share and hold it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Are you deliberately ignoring the current gorillas? i.e. Cisco, Nortel Networks, Lucent even Microsoft perhaps.

I thought NT and LU were in the royalty game, not the gorilla game.

Laura
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 60
Dreamer,

run, do not walk, to the Wireless World board here at TMF and get lots of your questions answered. Also Look at FrozenCanuck's Fiberhead Board and Trenchrats Broadband Bandwagon. But I've summarised a lot of what you want below (long...).

One of the problems with Fixed Wirelss Access (FWA) whihc has meant that it has tended to not take off well is that for high enough bandwidths (10s of Megabits) typically either distance limits step in, or atmospheric conditions break things or Line of Sight becomes critical or about 5001 other things stop this being quite as straightforward as we would like it to be. One of the big advantages about fibers is that they really can take gigabits if not terabits of information and ensure that they get delivered to the right place without any interference or data loss.

Here is a rough list of who does what where in the broadband arena - whether wireless or fixed access.

In the core of any BB network you have fiber and Optical equipment. Fiber is made by Lucent, Corning and ALcatel. Optical Componants are made by a bunch of small companies as well as SDL, JDS Uniphase, Lucent and Nortel Networks. These Optical componants are made into systems by Nortel Networks, Lucent, Cisco (just starting to get into this field), Tellabs, Ciena, Alcatel, some japanese companies and a host of startups such as Sycamore and Redback (also just starting). In order to put some information down the optical systems you need some data or voice equipment that you plug into them. The big Voice companies are Nortel and Lucent but this is not very exciting. The big data companies are Cisco, Juniper, Nortel and Lucent. There are of course a whole host of startups and indeed Juniper might be considered one of them.

Out at the edge of a wireless network you have much the same set of players (Cisco, Nortel, Lucent) as well as the scandinavian cell-phone duo of Nokia and Ericsson. Motorola is a player here to but seems to me to being killed by the rest.

Qualcomm makes some of the chips for cellular equipment. RF Micro Devices and Connexant make others. Texas Instruments and ARM show up all over the place round here as basic componants for lots of the cellulalr phone sin the world and other similar devices.

Out at the edge of a non-wireless network you have Cable Modems and CM head ends made by Arris/Nortel, Motorola, 3com, Terayon and a whole host of others (I know I've forgotten some biggies) or DSL equipment made by Alcatel, Copper Mountain, Paradyne, Cisco, Nortel, etc etc (again I know I've forgotten some biggies).

In order to control your end users to make sure they pay for their access and that it is secure etc. You need a subscriber management system, which is made at present by only Nortel and Redback.

You may also need to have some web servers (probably SUN serevrs) with lots of access to disks (EMC) possibly in combination with Network Appliance stuff. You may wish to cache your web traffic in which case you use Akamai and Cacheflow boxes and balance access to your servers using equipment from (Nortel, Cisco, Foundry, Alteon, F5..) and your server farm may be running on LAN equipment made by Cisco, Nortel, 3com or possibly Cabletron or Extreme. You may want firewalls (Checkpoint, as well as Cisco, Nortel etc.). Componant manufacturers for some of this lot are Intel, Broadcom, TI, Connexant and Lucent.

The people to whom a lot of this manufacturing is outsourced are Solecton, Jabil and some others.

All this stuff is put into networks by all the big telcos and cable companies that you know and love as well as Qwest, Global Crossing, Level 3, Metro Fiber Networks, Rhythms, Covad and Northpoint in the US. In Europe Cable is mostly UPC. DSL isn't yet and other people doing interesting things are NTL COLT and Energis in the UK, Utfors and B2 in sweden and Vivendi in France. Big and interesting cellular providers are Vodaphone, NTT Docomo, Sonera and Sprint PCS.

That should keep you researching for some time.

Happy Easter

DD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DirtyDingus,

Great post!!!

Thanks for all the info...you are right, that will keep me busy for awhile!

I found it curious that QCOM seems to be such a small part of the mix...I will have to research QCOM some more to try and learn why money should be thrown their way in such large quantities.

Thanks again for breaking it down for me and others on the board.

I have now graduated from "Green Eggs and Ham"

to

"Oh, the Places You'll Go!"

Dreamer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-1727785.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.1004-200-1727785?st.ne.fd.gif.e

Depending on how you slice analyst market data, Copper Mountain is leading in providing equipment for business DSL lines, while French giant Alcatel maintains a lead in providing technology for consumer lines. Both sell gear called "DSLAMs."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


I found it curious that QCOM seems to be such a small part of the mix...I will have to research QCOM some
more to try and learn why money should be thrown their way in such large quantities.


Qcom is small because it provides the chips that are used for the CDMA cell-phone stabndard and has some strong CDMA related patents. If you are like me (a long time NOK holder) you have looked at the rise and rise of QCOM with amazement and disbelief because to most of us it just doesn't make sense. yes CDMA is good and yes it looks like in a few years the majority of cell-phines will use a CDMA based standard as may PDAs, wireless laptops and the like. BUT its not going to happen yet and in the mean time GSM has the lions share of the market worldwide and isn't doing too badly in the USA (home of CDMA) as well.

In otherwords people who have bought QCOM have (IMO) bought a long term future and hence a stock which (if you buy it now) is priced with little upside potential. This is not to say that QCOM is a bad company - it isn't but that its shareprice got ahead of itself last year.

DD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In otherwords people who have bought QCOM have (IMO) bought a long term future and hence a stock which (if you buy it now) is priced with little upside potential. This is not to say that QCOM is a bad company - it isn't but that its shareprice got ahead of itself last year.
DirtyDingus

You seem to be knowledgable, could you comment on the following article by George Gilder? It is one of the reasons I am long on Qualcomm.

The whole article can be found at www.gildertech.com
Qualcomm Over the Rainbow
An historic issue: GG had been predicting the triumph of Qualcomm and CDMA for almost a decade and made it one of the GTR's first Telecosm companies. In March of 1999, with the capitulation of the GSM forces in Europe, CDMA's world wide victory became assured. This April 1999 issue celebrating that triumph also launched Qualcomm's share price on the dramatic run that made it the stock of the year

Im posing the same question to JaneAusten.
HoF...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If I had bought Qcom last year - which I didn't, I bought Ericsson instead - I would hold it. Its rise last year was justified given that the cross-licensing agreement cleared up the future a bit. However, I think Gilder sometimes gets a little over keen on his proteges.

I don't think JaneAusten and I are in fundamental disagreement over QCOM. The questions are whetehr W-CDMA does better than CDMA2000 (I think it will), and to what extent do Nokia nd Ericsson have to pay Qcom for royalties if they use W-CDMA? Since last year a lot of the possible upside for Qcom has been put into the shareprice so the question to my mind is (how) can Qcom continue its positive momentum? I don't thin kit will drop precipitously any more but I doubt it will also double this year either.

The "capitulation of GSM" has been somewhat exaggerated, what with WAP and GPRS there is still plenty of life in GSM and the wilder predictions about the advent of worldwide CDMA look somewhat optimistic. It won't be this year or next year. It may be 2002 but if so I'll bet it won't be anywhere close to a tsunami even then.

DD
Print the post Back To Top