Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (32449)	6/16/1999 1:23:00 PM
From: califjk	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

QCOM will be at 149 15/16 a week from Friday....eom

To: engineer who wrote (32449)	6/16/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 152472

Good Yahoo Post> Zoog by: Explorer_at_large (36/M/Southwest) 22590 of 22590 I run a cable company located in the western United States and manage a portfolio of private investments. I hold several minority interests in cellular properties, several of which are IS-136 and several of which are CDMA (IS-95). As you probably well know, network capacity is a fungible concept, and constrained by both coverage requirements and capacity requirements. Still, on an apples-to-apples basis, with the network plan distilled down to single-cell performance, our network engineers have not exceeded two times AMPS with IS-136. While IS-136 voice quality improved with the new vocoder, to my ears, our CDMA systems sound better, approximating wireline. Our CDMA system performance has varied considerably by vendor. One system, based on MOT hardware, seems gated at 4x-5x AMPs, while our Lucent systems are performing much better, reaching 7x-10x AMPS (again based on single cell extrapolations). According to what I have been told, Lucent expects new infrastructure designs to take the CDMA networks well into the double-digits (11x-14x); I "from Missouri" on this point. If the business plan calls for rapidly loading the system, and anticipated significant wireless data revenue over time, CDMA is really the only alternative. TDMA is viable if you're expecting to be coverage constrained rather than capacity constrained. Still, as it has been explained to me, TDMA is poorly suited, from an architectural standpoint, to handle bursty, data-based traffic and, again, I am told not to expect EDGE rewrite the basic physics. People, in my opinion, are too emotional about GSM versus CDMA versus whatever. I expect Nokia and Ericsson will be able to sell TDMA hardware to legacy networks for many years to come. However, based on the numbers, and my understanding of them, I cannot understand why any operator would look to TDMA-based technologies for a de novo network. This suggests to me that Qualcomm owns the future, while Nokia is treading water in the past. EAL