To: John Biddle who wrote (190 ) 7/6/2000 5:57:11 AM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197451 John, good points. Just one area I disagree.. <First, the governments have the enabling piece, the spectrum. 3G can be done without Q, (not well, but done) but not without spectrum. And many (Europeans and otherwise) still believe that they won't suffer any downside from GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA. > WCDMA can't be done without Q! technology and royalty payments. The two scene stealers are the governments with their monopoly and artificial shortages on spectrum, the other is Q! technology. GPRS and EDGE don't need Q! so some semblance of WWeb can be offered but a meagre meal it will be. Since Q! gets the first bite, Q! can charge a high rate, which would leave little for the government bludgers or greedy service providers. <Also, Q has had to fight tooth and nail to stay in the game, and cannot now just change the rates now. They are having trouble keeping people interested at 5%, because they're the underdog, and telco people who bet billion$ are not fond of betting on underdogs. > Q! could perhaps withdraw from the W-CDMA standard and offer technology to W-CDMA manufacturers at individually negotiated rates. I dare say some legal eagles would need to check that as there might be some contract formed by submitting Q! technology for standardisation [free, fair, non-discriminatory blah, blah, blah]. It is not true that people are not interested and losing interest at 5% royalty [or whatever it is - we don't have factual information, just guesses]. Their interest is in pressuring Q! to reduce that rate. Q! has no incentive to do so and nowadays lots of incentive to increase it a longgggg way since CDMA is proven, demand is huge and an early introduction of CDMA in 3G is certain. 3G is turning into a pressure cooker. That's good for Q! as it means things will happen in a big hurry! Mqurice