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: Eric Martin who wrote (7819)	3/22/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Thanks, Eric. I think Dr. J has said on more than one occasion that HDR's 1.25MHz data-only channel was believed by Q to be more efficient, with higher throughput, than a mixed voice and data channel. Whether this is because of modulation schemes, sheer call volume or addressing different latency issues between voice and data (whether this is what you meant by reduced call "overhead"), I can't answer. I trust that the choice of the HDR scheme by QCOM was based on a reduction of call overhead that will in practice provide more total throughput of data than a mixed voice and data solution. My major concern is that voice over IP will end up being a more efficient solution for higher capacity mixed voice and data wireless networks. This could make HDR obsolete as a separate solution I seem to recall an announcement by MOT sometime last fall (not coincidentally, right around the time of the NYC analysts' conference in late Sept/early Oct at which Dr. J began to focus the investment community's attention on HDR and announced the November demonstration) that it would partner with (can't recall) either CSCO or LU in a new wireless approach that would increase speed and capacity. If that is the case, it is puzzling that CSCO has not been mentioned in either of the MOT releases. As stated, any of the infrastructure players' announcements have to be examined very, very carefully. Their agenda falls on a page different from that of Q--and hopefully that of the carriers. Totally aside from the issue of chip sales, royalties and revenues--and therefore stock price--it would be a real kick in our a** if it turned out that some other competitor, be it MOT, NOK or any other God forbid player, had CDMA expertise, whether or not combined with other wireless communications technology, that topped Q's. It's that article of faith--that Q is unsurpassed in its home field advantage, I think, that brings so many of us to this investment. Steve