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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnG who wrote (9161)	2/9/2001 8:17:38 AM
From: JohnG	Respond to of 34857

Euro Socialists mentality fosters economic inefficiency per QCOM's Sulpezio. JohnG Tom Brush who wrote (93563) From: David E. Taylor Friday, Feb 9, 2001 7:09 AM Respond to of 93584 Tom: Sulpezio pushed the cost advantages of CDMA2000 several times. Some of the things I heard were: (1) While GPRS can offer some improvement for GSM, it can only get to 20-30 Kbps, plus it robs spectrum from voice. To get to 2 Mbps, GSM carriers need WCDMA, and it's three years away. (2) Why pay for expensive spectrum and then sit on it for three years? Have to go ask France Telecom and other Euro carriers that question. (3) WCDMA has different air interface to GSM, have to throw out the old and put "new iron" in. (4) To go to CDMA 1X, it's just a new channel card and some software. For WCDMA, you're talking new base stations at $50K to $70K a pop, and a "large number" of base stations per city. Comparison is like night/day. Sprint/Verizon in the US will have a big cost advantage in rolling out 3G. (5) CDMA2000 will improve revenue stream for carriers because WCDMA "wastes spectrum". Nothing that hasn't been aired here many times, but I agree that some public "beating the drum" by QCOM execs might encourage hard Q's to be asked of the Euro carriers and AT&T and get CDMA (even if its WCDMA) moving on a quicker roll out schedule. David T.