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: John Hauser who wrote (66560)	2/12/2000 2:41:00 PM
From: engineer	Respond to of 152472

Was reading the stories on WI-Lan and MCOM and am trying to imagine what happens in a couple of years when everyone hits the 802.11 market wiht technology which is not coordinated wiht each other. Right now the densities are small enough such that nobody interferes with each other, but as the air waves get more congested, the true background noise should increase dramatically. Even with OFDMA and CDMA, these will be come signifigant self jammers to the band. Even wiht hopping and short sequence issues, they still will find the true guasian background noise will increase. As this band becomes more used for 900 Mhz things, the overall performance of hte systems will slowly decrease. Along wiht this, they really only have a very narrow band to operate in , less than 5 Mhz. So even if they can get coding gains of 2-3 bits per hertz (way out in the theoretical limit and taking much more DSP than they have today), they still cannot offer any more than a total of 10 Mbps for the entire channel. Now take off for hopping overhead, status bits, etc, and you can not get more than 5-8 Mbps. Take into account interferors and I would assume the rate goes way down from there. ps: Most mutual fund types like to know what color the box is and how nice the pictures are that are transmitted over the link more than they would know how the link actually works. A buy in by buy side investors is no indication of how a technology works. Just look at QCOM for the years 1995 until 1999. All that changed was that the distractors decided that they had to license it and everyone said "now it works". PPS: How many other of these WIN and MCOM companies are there out there competing for this same space?

To: John Hauser who wrote (66560)	2/12/2000 5:11:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re : the "great" Fidelity (and their buy and sell decisions on tech stocks) ... Back in 1997 and 1998, I heard from someone in a position to know what they are talking about (who will remain un-named here, however) -- that Fidelity bought QCOM in the $60 - $70 range, and then gave up and sold it around $50 at least four times. (This is all before the 8 for 1 splitting of QCOM). They (Fidelity) (of course) did not have a meaningful position when Qualcomm started going up dramatically. If Fidelity thinks MCOM is great, that is NOT anything I would take as a good endorsement. Jon.

To: John Hauser who wrote (66560)	2/12/2000 9:15:00 PM
From: Cooters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

John, Explain to me again why you post here? If you have been a student of QCOM, you understand mainstream confirmation, ala FIDO, was and mostly is absent. We get along fine in this environment. Where exactly do you expect MCOM to go from here? What service providers are testing MCOM technology for fixed or mobile data? How about progress in China? Any deals there? I looked into MCOM when Paul first invested there. I made the brilliant choice of MCOM over AOL. MCOM is a niche at best. The spectrum issue alone is a deal buster for expanding much beyond that. I honestly would like your response to the first question. No hard feelings. Coots