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: Eric L who wrote (4761)	11/19/2000 6:39:33 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196952

Oh? Source? ---------- You have agreed in past that NTT's wCDMA will debut in May (well, you think it will debut - I'm far less sure) at max 64kbs - 64kbs is embarassingly below 3G specifications. Do you suggest differently this evening?

To: Eric L who wrote (4761)	11/19/2000 7:18:26 PM
From: grinder965	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196952

Eric L., When I read your postings and can understand them, you take every opportunity to accentuate the negative as it relates to QCOM in spite of the continued progress and lead that they are making against competing platforms and standards. The investment community is just now starting to grasp how pervasive and important CDMA (in all its forms) will be during the next 5 years or so . You see the gsm cabal is in deep kimshee. Either they get with the program and start to fulfill the wcdma promises they made to the operators who are paying megabucks for spectrum (when they can get it) or the Q's preferred migration path starts eating away at their empire. The beauty is either way the Q wins! The stage has been set! You may see it take some unusual individual twists and turns but an outcome that is most favorable to the Q is now virtually inevitable. I know you profess to be long the Q but I, for one, don't believe it. We may see alittle pullback this week....would be a good time for shorts to cover <LOL>

To: Eric L who wrote (4761)	11/20/2000 11:23:57 AM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196952

I think the continous confusion about your rhetoric against QCOM revolves around your continuous negation of 1X HDR as a CDMA standard that meets and exceeds the standards set forth for 3G by the ITU. QCOM has clearly demonstrated the 2.4 MBPS data speeds of it's HDR technology. QCOM's 1X and HDR standards been accepted by the standards bodies - that is a statement of fact. Your suggestion that QCOM's HDR will not live up to expectations seems a bit absurd, given your complete lack of experience to make such an expert judgement. Please correct me if I am wrong and you have a PhD in engineering and you can independently arrive at such a conclusion. The only argument that I have seen against HDR stems from you, Eric J, Mika, and Tero. Not one of you has been able to make an intelligent case against HDR. You all chant this negative spin against HDR claiming that it cannot live up to the 2.4 MBPS data speeds that have been routinely reported by many companies within the CDMA community. What makes you smarter than the esteemed engineers who have already commericialized this technology? Why have so many companies signed up to license this technology? What merits do you possess to lead anyone on this thread to accept your empty arguments and rhetoric? Personally, I think you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate. After arguing against QCOM for many weeks, the reappearance of Tero on Puck's thread seemed to regenerate your resolve for arguing in favor of QCOM. It appears to me that your main purpose is to exercise your wit on these threads, not to maintain any consistent line of reasoning.