So, let AT&T and the others keep pushing their inferior sytems, because sooner or later they will operate at a cost disadvantage.
I don't think that we disagree. In my original post (#406), the thrust of my query re. T and GSM, and of my reply to your earlier post, was when/will T/GSM adopt CDMA. In other words, I would like to think that you and I are correct is believing that, ultimately, over time, the carriers will act rationally and adopt an air interface technology that has superior capacity and quality as to voice and greater speed and capacity as to data transmission. This will inure to Q's advantage.
But with T adding capacity (the add'l city of Seattle size B/S confirmed in another post) and GSM opting for fixes that take them to some form of 3G, the day of reckoning is pushed back indefinitely. This is what makes it hard to build in to Q's earnings model that kind of fundamental potential increase in the royalty/earnings base. I thought that the quote of the MM from the Barron's piece this weekend had it right, as you did: in effect, how many more years can we get out of our legacy system? The longer this is pushed out, the more chance that Q's strategic positioning in terms of the CDMA universe (ASICs/patents/expiration/handsets/who knows what) may change, for better or for worse.
Jus my 2c. Best. Steven |
