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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (2470)	8/28/2000 11:12:53 AM
From: foundation	Respond to of 196574

I am surprised that Q is not up 15-20% today. ---------- Engineer, Unless you read Semiconductor Business News or SI QCOM boards, you don't know the news. Nothing on the news services. INTC is doing a fine job of flying this under the radar. Second, you'd have to sufficiently understand the Story to grasp the significance of the news. I'll be thrilled if this news propels QCOM through 60 resistance and establishes 60 support. ---------- Spinco Q&A states date for distribution to be April - August 2001. qualcomm.com

To: engineer who wrote (2470)	8/28/2000 12:03:42 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196574

Engineer, I think that INTC made a strategic decision not to participate in the 2G CDMA as it is likely that growth rates will be small. Plus, Q has that corner of the market covered. I know that this does not jive with INTC's public pronouncements when it bought out DSP but, what the heck, everyone makes a mistake now and then, even INTC. I think it would be foolish to write off INTC as a future WCDMA competitor.

To: engineer who wrote (2470)	8/28/2000 2:06:06 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196574

eng- Stanton, CEO of Voicestream on CNBC this morning. They asked him about Internet, BB etc he says:- "about to introduce 56kbs/28kbps service. Thats what people have at home. This BB/Interent thing is going to be a matter of time." "One of our competitors takes longer to download the menu of a restaurant than it takes to drive there." He goes on about their wonderful GSM system which is good because it is digital. Say that they aim to lower cost to the consumer. I think many European customers would be very intreested to hear that. Does he know what CDMA is? Has he heard of 1X? Does he know something that the rest of us don't know? Anyone else see the interview. Best regards, L

To: engineer who wrote (2470)	8/29/2000 12:44:32 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196574

Gone for two weeks and it seems to take forever to catch up on all this reading. What did jumped out at me was the cost of these spectrums. Germany is getting $46.85 billion. That is $557 per pop. VOD paid the UK $34.4 billion last qtr. That is $586 per pop. Does anyone know how long these licenses are for and what is an appropriate amortization period for this cost? Assumptions are really quite meaningless at this time but if we just make a wild guess, say, we have 10% penetration of 3G DATA in five years, then each sub is TAXED AT $5,570 for Germany and $5,860 for UK for five years, or over $1000 per year for this very crucial period. I think the governments are becoming the major road block on the wireless information highway. Ramsey

To: engineer who wrote (2470)	8/31/2000 11:50:26 AM
From: RalphCramden	Respond to of 196574

TV stations SHOULDN'T pay the going $'s per Hz. They have "purchased" their spectrum years ago. Yes, they may have gotten it for a better price then people who are buying it now, but the people who bought land in LA 50 years ago got a better price than the current buyers: that is not a good reason to suggest confiscation. Peter Huber's "Law & Disorder in Cyberspace..." amazon.com contends that FCC regulation of spectrum is nowhere near as useful as many people think. His analogy to FCC regulation is a land-regulating agency that says "on this plot we will license you to build only a gas station. On this plot we will license you to build only a 7-11. On this plot..." Doesn't it make more economic sense to have more general limitations on use of land or spectrum, and then let the markets/owners trade the stuff around and march up the ladder of more and more productive uses of the resources? TV stations essentially have long-term "property rights" to the spectrum they use. There licenses have always been presumed renewable unless they screw up. Their licenses have always been transferable with the stations within certain restrictions not so dissimilar to restrictions in selling other sorts of property. You might think that since they only have "licenses" to the spectrum, that it is still "right" for the government to sell it out from under them. I suggest instead that as far as spectrum licenses, the US is in about the same boat the Soviet Union was in with businesses. Yes, their legal system did not allow those businesses to be owned, but that "feature" of their system screwed their economy to the wall (or to the floor, really). They had to identify "natural" owners of the businesses and hand them over in order to transition their laws to some which might produce a better economic result. Yes, I am saying the US has been just a little bit too pink with its Socialist approach to spectrum ownership. Huber's contention is that the TV stations should be allowed to do with their spectrum what they want. His contention is that broadcast TV is a non-economic use for this spectrum, and the only reason it is still done is that the FCC license DICTATES this is the only legal use of this spectrum. So the "fix" is NOT to confiscate the spectrum the TV stations have had for decades. Rather the fix is to deregulate the spectrum they have. ****** Meanwhile, more directly responsive to your concern about the news in biz.yahoo.com This news is of a San Diego TV station putting up a web presence. Given your negative reaction to the news, I initially assumed they must have been allowed to use their spectrum to provide internet. But that is not even it, you want them to pay more for spectrum they essentially already own, just because they put up a web site (accessible over wires and cables) to augment the value of their broadcast franchise? Yikes! What is your problem with that? ********** To the moon, Ralph Disclaimer: I got up at 5 AM.