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 165.07

-1.0%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: foundation who wrote (26007)	8/23/2002 4:26:58 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (4) of 196668

The next part of the spreadsheet should be filled in with the costs of GSM1X: No new towers (as opposed to three times more towers for WCDMA at 2.1 GHz); no new back-end (except perhaps to beef up back-end capacity); and no engineering and development costs. There are an awful lot of 3 times, 2 times, ... the number of towers for technology x vs technology y. But I have never seen very very little real deployment data - the only piece I remember is several years old and was about the number of CDMAOne basestations in some Florida metro area vs the number of TDMA (or GSM? I forget) in the same area. But I know of no technological reason why WCDMA will take three times as many towers as CDMA2000 in the same spectrum. I personally take this evaluation with a grain of salt until I see some data or some rationale. All JMO. Clark

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next