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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: limtex who wrote (25499)	5/29/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

T: Relax please. Qualcomm is not facing "wipe out" in Korea - not by a long shot. Quite the reverse. Korea is where the first phase of CDMA 2000 (1XMC) will happen - it is already being set in the infrastructure there and handsets will follow. HDR is close on its heels. No country in the world is as positive for the Q as Korea. And Korea is the real world force for working out a practical countrywide CDMA launch in China. Again, the worst case is WCDMA. And all the Q has said is that it will receive less royalties than GSM. That is already a fact - no change called for. Yes the US Gov't should weight in. Are you sure that is not happening now and/or will not happen? The threat of that seemed to be a bit persuasive in Japan, no? Why not elsewhere? The only place where the US Gov't has been a powder puff has been re Europe and perhaps there are just too many Europhiles in the administration who admire the way the Europeans take care of the poor (by keeping the prices consumers pay uncompetitively high BTW - but who is sophisticated enough to see that - or care). In brief, think Europe will remain the weakest case, but there is a wide wide world out there full of opportunity for CDMA and Qualcomm. Best. Cha2

To: limtex who wrote (25499)	5/29/2000 11:49:00 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

limtex, << Why is GSM allowed in the US? Why? Where is the DoJ or the Trade or Commerce Dept >> Because, unlike the EU, that mandated a single standard for digital wireless mobile telephony (for very good reasons given the alphabet soup mess they were in), we opted for free enterprise and competition for wireless technologies. If we had followed the European model beck in 1994 when we we were preparing to auction 1900 MHz PCS spectrum (and preparing to convert 800 MHz spectrum to digital) and opted for a single standard it is HIGHLY likely that you and I would be talking on TDMA mobiles today. Remember, back in 94, CDMA was commercially unproven. IS-136 is essentially an At&T standard even though backed by 2 other powerful regionals (BS & SBC). As a result of our decisions we now have 2 well established national cdma networks in the US, cdma flourishing worldwide, and cdma poised to be the dominant air interface in the world by 2006, or 2007. I am somewhat of a cheerleader for Verizon (formerly BAM in my case) because I can roam nationally at modest cost. As a user I also benefit from the fact that I can use a US (GSM) subscription and phone number to roam in seamlessly in Europe On VoiceStream (formerly Omnipoint). Because my CDMA carrier is one of the largest and most powerful GSM carriers in the world, shortly (not short enough for my taste) I'll be able to ditch the second mobile subscription and IMSI. I like the way we did it. I'm a satisfied mobile user. Qualcomm has flourished. I own QCOM. :-) - Eric -