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: DWB who wrote (73700)	6/12/2000 4:32:00 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 152472

DWB Good calculations. I think it is a good representation of some of the capital cost advantages of CDMA. You can see the same think if you compare depreciation per subscriber at AWE to that at Verizon or Sprint, at least roughly. The confusion is that a GSM base station costs less. The point is that you need a lot more of them to cover the same subscriber base.

To: DWB who wrote (73700)	6/12/2000 9:28:00 PM
From: ehopper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

You are missing the fact that the people of Turkey do not want to have to carry two phones, a CDMA phone for their country and a GSM/and eventually WCDMA phone for the rest of Europe. Typical American thinking, It's like expecting people in France to understand English if we speak it slowly and loudly. ed.

To: DWB who wrote (73700)	6/13/2000 6:21:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

DWB - I would have thought that the GSM would be lower, based on the huge user base advantage the GSM community has, much less the number of competitors etc... this would seem to be a slap in the face of all the "CDMAone is more expensive than GSM" talk.. ?? No one has ever convincingly said that CDMAOne was more expensive for a network, only more expensive for the equipment on a circuit by circuit basis. There is much more to network costs than equipment - land, taxes, engineering support (including network planning), ... . By being more spectrum efficient and avoiding frequency planning, there are many cost savings to more than offset the higher equipment costs. Clark

To: DWB who wrote (73700)	6/21/2000 10:47:00 PM
From: DWB	Respond to of 152472

A follow-up on the cost/subscriber for infrastructure installations... We had: $900 million/1.5 million users = $600/user GSM infra. spending in Turkey $400 million/1.1 million users = $363/user CDMAone infra. spending in Chile Now in this post (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=13923269), we see that in Taiwan, you get $322 million/1.6 million users = $202/user CDMA2000 infra. spending in Taiwan This tells me a couple things: 1) QCOM based CDMA infra. seems to be getting cheaper to deploy per user, or is that more efficient per user for the operator...? Not only that, but the operator gets better functionality in terms of data rates, voice capacity, etc. over even CDMAone... 2) Brazil is going to be licensing 2G GSM vendors in the 1800 frequency at the same time that existing Brazillian operators are putting in much more efficient CDMA2000 based systems, which should theoretically be much more profitable (reduced outlays, higher data rates, etc.) and kick some gluteus maximus... DWB Q2.5K/Y2K+5