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: Boplicity who wrote (7042)	2/28/2000 12:52:00 PM
From: Jeff Vayda	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Gregory: Sure data and voice can be mixed on the same channel, it just reduces the efficiency (volume) of data that can be transferred. When you have to 'wait' or reserve capacity for the next voice component - which you dont know when or how long it will be - you must slow down the processing. Much better to ship the 'known' data outflow to a separate channel. I'm sure MOT can do some tricks to get the speed up, but lets see them produce in a real world loaded system. Jeff Vayda

To: Boplicity who wrote (7042)	2/28/2000 1:03:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Mixing voice and data. As I recall, Dr. Jacobs said there are capacity and speed advantages to offering voice and data on separate carriers due to timing constraints, ie., data can wait half a second while voice delayed that long will cause awkward conversations (both people starting to talk at the same time is problematic). I think Qualcomm is a successful company because they commercialize practical technologies. Some companies are always looking toward the future and never seem to be able to get anything practical out the door. Maybe MOT has figured out how to give data separate timing from voice? We will have to wait and see how practical the MOT solution is, will it require six times the processing power increasing the price above what carriers want to spend? Will it reduce voice quality causing awkward connections? Will it only increase capacity and data speed when the signal is strong and clear or does it offer equal benefit at the edges? Does it require twice the battery power? Would handsets need larger and more expensive filters? We will just have to wait and see. That being said, I think overall it is a good sign. I'm glad to see the other big players recognizing they want to be a part of the Qualcomm family of standards. I still want to see W-CDMA become nothing more than a niche product since this would reduce the necessity of Qualcomm needing to support two families and recent developments are causing me to think this is becoming more and more probable. If the MOT announcement is as good as it appears on the surface, this is a big blow to WCDMA proponents. Maybe this helps explain why Jacobs has had reservations about broadband wireless. He is a very wise and practical man. Bux

To: Boplicity who wrote (7042)	2/28/2000 4:27:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

One thing suspicious about MOT's announcement is the timing. It reminds me of the announcement MOT made last summer about a new chip; the announcement was timed just before some big QCOM meeting or event, I can't remember which. So this weekend and today QCOM is getting all sorts of good press and here comes MOT with its "new development." I will believe it when I see it in operation. Meanwhile, HDR works and will be ready to go beginning later this year.