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 (4493)	11/11/2000 9:37:26 PM
From: Pierre	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 196989

Increasingly we see reports about how the providers have over paid for spectrum. Add that to the cost of building out for that spectrum, and it appears some of these providers are going to be in bad shape financially. One report I read talked about a 10 year wait for profits to accrue. With that as back drop, does anyone have a feel for whether this turn of events is good or bad for the Q. I keep going back to one of IJ's earlier CCs where he stated that it wasn't the flavor, just so long as it rolled out. with the bloom off the rose for wireless (at least the frenzy seems to have died down) and some very real financing problems facing the various providers, will Q do better or worse than when all believed it was full steam ahead for 3G. I understand that from a proprietary stand point, this may signal a win for the Q's CDMA 2000. But from an overall sales perspective, what if GSM remains GSM because it is too expensive (or providers don't have the financing where with all) to convert. With the smallish market share for CDMA won't this delay the "killer apps" that must appear to justify a full blown 3G migration? I guess I remember too well the heady days when Q was priced for perfection. I know the fall from grace has been way over done, but how should Q* be priced if the migration to 3G gets delayed substantially? Pierre