The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company Message Board

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company

QCOM 175.07

+2.6%

Dec 3 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: idler who wrote (6933)	2/27/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) of 13582

WHAT Chinese CDMA technology? At calendar Q-1 1999, during submissions to ITU to be considered for inclusion as an eligible 3G standard, China indeed submitted its version of xCDMA. Otherwise, I agree with you that this fellow sounded off without much of a knowledge base and covered the waterfront: delay might be attributable to i) WTO leverage; ii) give MII and other ministries (read Red Army and Interior) time to come to grip with implications of telco deals; and iii) allow China to play off foreign entrants to gain better deal. The problem with "iii)" of course, as noted on this thread, is that Q's deal with Unicom gives China the potential to develop a home-grown CDMA-enabled industry, which has not been the case thus far with GSM. As for slacker's subsequent post re. Mark Roberts' comment that the Chinese could be foreclosing the window of opportunity for a reduced royalty rate allegedly offered by Q and included in the Unicom license (would have to be in the manufacturers' licenses too) if Unicom can not deploy 10m subs by year-end, a number of comments: 1) At least one published report on Thursday last week (maybe Bloomberg) positively indicated that Q has "refused to accede to a reduced royalty rate to the Chinese...." I cite this (sorry for the lack of source) not to posit it as true or more accurate than Roberts' statement, but only to show the fog that exists in the public reporting of the deal; 2) Didn't IJ, or someone from Q, during the analyst conference on the 17th, acknowledge that 10m subs by year-end was a highly unlikely result?; and 3) While I would like to believe that Q did in fact negotiate some drop-dead date for deployment of xxxx number of handsets for a reduced royalty rate to be effective (if indeed that is the case), this would show enormous leverage against Chinese interests and political powers--it could be, but it would sort of turn upside down China's typical deal-making and the delay might just betray that. More on China later. Steve

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next