Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 163.32

+2.3%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ruffian who wrote (19442)	12/9/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (1) of 152472

To Engineer. Or an engineer. Or anybody else who can answer me these questions three: 1. Is a chip rate of 3.8xxxMcps even marginally more compatible with cdma2000 than 4.0xxxMcps? 2. While the rate is important relative to existing infrastructure for Q, does the change in rate have any definable impact on transmission speeds, capacity, base station density, etc.? (Meaning what are the advantages or disadvantages for performance depending on the rate.) 3. Why choose 3.8xxx, other than to screw existing cdmaOne users? Is there something WRONG with 3.6xx? While we've discussed this ad nauseum already, I've got to add that I think it is laughable that ERICY, who of course doesn't need Q's IPR, and can implement VW40 any time they want to, and will rule the world by virtue of its dominance in GSM, suddenly and arbitrarily makes a major modification to their pristine standard. We've already heard the effect this has had on Mika's viewpoint, but there is one voice from which we have not heard. What say you Tero? mmeggs

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next