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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: foundation who wrote (95851)	3/18/2001 11:33:26 AM
From: P2V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Well Benjamin, fine job - stating your views ! I do not see it as another Qualcomm vs Europe battle. EOM Mardy.

To: foundation who wrote (95851)	3/18/2001 12:22:00 PM
From: Dexter Lives On	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

You say you're laughing and yet you sound angry... I'd think a QCOM investor (which I'm guessing you are) would understand why a company like Wi-LAN would want to befriend the Euro interests that "manage" the standards process in telecom. How long did QCOM have to work on its tech. and wait until the markets recognized the strengths of CDMA? You seem to think that Flarion is the innovator here? Wrong! Wi-LAN has been leading OFDM development for years (Flarion is a 1 year old spin-off trying to capitalize on the latest developments - not that there's anything wrong with that...) and as OFDM starts to be recognized as a suitable next gen. datacom technology, Wi-LAN is trying to remove the delays of acceptance on the standards front through the OFDM Forum. There is a difference between the OFDM Forum and BWIF: BWIF is dictating V-OFDM as the only possible choice while the OFDM Forum remains open to changes in several aspects of the proposed standards but wants multiple antennae to be optional, which Cisco will not accept as V-OFDM inherently requires antenna diversity. BTW your statement on OFDM mobility is incorrect. wi-lan.com wi-lan.com You might want to spend some time looking at QCOM-backed Ignition Corp. There are rumors that they are involved with a project called Air2LAN, which Wi-LAN is supplying base stations (radios) for its deployment. ignitioncorp.com air2lan.com My guess would be that Qualcomm is keeping a close eye on all potential 4g technologies; further they have a good understanding of what it takes to gain market, as well as standards acceptance. Rob late edit: correlate Mike Wehrs here ignitioncorp.com and here ofdm-forum.com

To: foundation who wrote (95851)	3/18/2001 6:13:11 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 152472

Hi, Benjamin - If I may, I'd like to throw another two cents worth into the discussion. I think your characterisation of the battle is correct, as far as it goes. These standards battles are ultimately about market share and profits. Your question was: "Do you understand the cost of admission?' Respectfully, I would suggest that despite the efforts of the spin doctors, the cost of admission would be about the same, in any case: it's not a question of cost methinks, it's a question of who's paying who. We've seen this whole scenario play out in the CDMA vs. TDMA dispute. While it's evident that you feel strongly about the issue, I tend to look at it dispassionately: it's a necessary step in the evolution of product to the marketplace, and yes, it's imperfect, and yes, it doesn't always result in the commercial triumph of the superior product. It is, like all political processes, flawed. The fight is about profits: it will be resolved by the preponderance of product in the market, in the courts, and in the standards bodies. WRT the question of data throughput rates and Flarion vs. Wi-LAN, I beg to differ with you on the question of mobility. Wi-LAN's tests were done with a moving vehicle, transmitting MPEG2 video streams. It was a demo, only. I do not suggest that it is the beginning of a mobile network. However, that's not the point, here. The principal advantage of Flarion's technology seems to be that it will offer mobile connectivity at a price point lower than competitors, and with more ease of installation. It appears that infrastructure changes will be cheaper than initial costs using other forms of coded OFDM. That may well prove to be sufficent advantage in the marketplace, initially. Whether that advantage can be preserved into the future, as economies of scale drop other coded OFDM equipment prices is another question. Anyway, it's a big RF world out there, and eventually what will happen is simple: some will collect royalties, and others will pay them. Despite the emergence of another competitive holy war, despite all the bafflegab, that's how it will end. Regards, Jim