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: 100cfm who wrote (9051)	4/22/2000 8:46:00 AM
From: Randall Knight	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

If all parties still pay Q why would they want to go with the slower more expensive option. Makes no sense, there must be a reason they see that makes wcdma more advantageous to them. The reason is propaganda and pressure by big-name companies like Nokia who benefit more if DS-CMDA is adopted. Apparently, Nokia feels that they would be due royalties for DS-CDMA. Remember that the final decision will rest with the carriers. They are the ones who will actually be shelling out the money and we're talking multi-billions here.

To: 100cfm who wrote (9051)	4/22/2000 11:52:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

As Randall said, squabbling over the spoils is the reason for the disputes. Any technical merit for DS-CDMA [to use the latest jargon instead of W-CDMA] seems tenuous at best and at worst it is not as good as MC-CDMA. So it is then a matter of critical mass, territoriality, political support, chance of overturning patents, conning GSM people into waiting, playing 'chicken' with Q! and supporters, stuff like that. It will quickly become a network-effect argument and unit cost argument and application/technology support argument. Things like that. There is a tendency to use arguments like 'look how many support DS' as though this is a voting issue instead of a technical, economic and competitive argument. Interested parties voting for something doesn't make it better than a competitor's option. I haven't yet seen anything to tell me that the 1XRTT, HDR, MC2000 upgrade route isn't the most cost-effective. The timing of DS2000 compared with MC is important. NTT is calling their 2001 'W-CDMA' as though it is 3G. It is not! Real, 2mbps 3G won't be in the DS realm for half a decade or so and the top ASIC supplier will probably be QUALCOMM when it does appear. Ericy will be helping Q! on the parts where [WMolloy says] Q! is weak. Same as Q! helped Nokia on cdmaOne. I don't believe any service providers will be able to hang around waiting having bid nearly $40bn for UK 3G spectrum. GPRS will be everywhere in the GSM world. EDGE will not be good. HDR will be everywhere in the CDMA world. Then it will be a race for true 3G in about 2 or 3 years [with DS being about 2 years behind MC]. I suppose the W-CDMA which will be built [if it is] in UK will be a foundation which will convert to MC-CDMA if the 3G DS-CDMA option turns out to be a mirage. I suppose Vodafone will right now know that they are in an either/or situation in the UK. There is no way they would have bid so much if they didn't know what they can do over the next 3 years and what options they would have after that. All guesswork, Mqurice