Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 177.78

-2.2%

Jan 9 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (7476)	2/19/2001 2:42:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) of 197157

<The Korea Post February 17, 2001 Prof. Chung Jae-young koreapost.com Following article on "The Korean economy and IMT -2000 synchronous technology" was contributed to The Korea Post by Prof. Chung Jae-young of Sung Kyun Kwan University in Seoul. He teaches business management. Excerpts from the article follow.--Ed. > EricL, excellent article by Professor Chung Jae-young. Very polite too. I prefer to simply call the GSM Guild pushing VW-40 what they are - a bunch of bandits! They have even tried to get away with Q! technology without paying, but the courts are consistenly telling them to not steal and to pay Q! as required by Q! Korea can see what the W-CDMA crowd is trying to do. I bet China sees it too. But of course they both wish to negotiate as good a deal with QUALCOMM as they can. China and Korea [and Japan] are all better off with cdma2000 because they can develop [Korea already has it and Japan has too with companies such as Kyocera] great skill in CDMA which will translate into cdma2000. NTT prefers W-CDMA for their narrow sectional interest. To choose between cdma2000 and W-CDMA we really only need to know that cdma2000 is synchronized and has turbo coding and can hum along in 1.25MHz or 5MHz at a nice slow chip rate, whereas W-CDMA is thrashing around unsynchronized, burning silicon at high chip rates and using a weird, convoluted, concatenated coding instead of the swanky and fast Turbo coding of cdma2000. But throw in that it is backward compatible. And it is ready now. And it has only 5% instead of 10% or 15% royalties attached. And there are hordes of licensees with a wide-open technology pathway to 2010. So, why would anyone choose W-CDMA? Other than, as Tero says of operators choosing Lucent and Nortel for W-CDMA "They do it for the money and to avoid risk". Of course, if it crashes, there is still risk in that there is opportunity cost in buying a dud network [even if they don't pay for it]. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next