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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cfoe who wrote (3952)	12/6/1999 1:29:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 13582

Look for a Cisco/Qualcomm HDR deal next year, with possibly a third company in the middle as Q's vendor. It is just good sense for Cisco.

To: cfoe who wrote (3952)	12/6/1999 2:02:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Cfoent, I think your observations about HDR are very promising and observant. It seems the Nortel pessimism stems from a lack of vision and a pre-occupation with current wireless users (primarily voice). Maybe the big market will be new applications which I haven't seen mentioned in the media. 2.4Mb/sec.! That's more than enough for a video news reporter to transmit live news footage without all the expensive vans, full of electronics, technicians and sat. dishes! It could revolutionize TV news. (Maurice, I realize it wouldn't be truly "live" with the up to 500ms. delay and all but don't you think it would suffice?) Without those vans, there could be a lot more reporters. There could even be freelance reporters with the inexpensive video equipment always with them. Other uses would be real-time monitors for water-level gauges, redundant data transmission schemes for critical information on wired networks, emergency services, and on and on. I'm quite sure carriers won't need it to stay competitive (as long as they have 1XRTT) but in every populated area there is some need for wireless high-speed data and nothing is more efficient than HDR for this. I think 1XRTT will end up with better coverage but HDR will rule in more urban settings. Just a few thoughts. Bux

To: cfoe who wrote (3952)	12/6/1999 3:03:00 AM
From: Lance Bredvold	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

<<As for Cisco, it bought into V-OFDM quite a while before QCOM's HDR announcement. Now HDR shows up as competition. I wouldn't expect Cisco to roll over.>> I must be losing it and I have read all the announcements you guys are talking about. Your conclusions floor me, but I may be wrong. First, the above quote indicates a peculiar concept of timing I think, since I am reasonably sure I saw HDR and 1XRTT in Qualcomm slides at the Feb. 98 annual meeting (though they did not mean much to me at the time). At the Feb 99 meeting, Dr. Jacobs was concentrating on HDR's importance when I had expected the talk to be more about 3G. And I really thought VOFDM/WOFDM was about fixed wireless (with maybe a passing reference to the possibility of using parts of it for mobile--certainly nothing I considered serious). I don't know what was being tried in Minneapolis with USWest (perhaps that was fixed--Jacobs has been interested in WLL as long as I've been around, and USW has been the first to trial a lot of things) but the rollout in Salt Lake City with USWest is on the route to HDR. Qualcomm is about mobile wireless. The comments of the guy from Nortel threw me too. Not much of what he said made sense in terms which I've come to believe are probable. I sure hope some of this FUD settles down soon so I can understand what's going on. Engineer, Clark, somebody, HELP. Lance

To: cfoe who wrote (3952)	12/6/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Comments made by you and webster IMO have a lot of merit. I like HDR's chances because it offers a service (high speed internet) that is very much in demand at a very very cheap price. That is a dynamite combination. Corporate utterings by CSCO and Nortel are typically self serving. If they wont sell it someone else will.