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: kech who wrote (8987)	3/23/2001 3:47:59 PM
From: Carter Patterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

Tom: I wrote the following to the author... Nancy: I have to respectfully disagree with your article and its claims that 3G will not come to the US. In fact, the US will be way ahead of Europe, and only slightly behind Korea and Japan. Qualcomm's CDMA2000 1x and soon to be CDMA20001xEV will be deployed in the US by Sprint, Verizon, and Nextel in current spectrum. The Europeans want badly for WCDMA to be a standard to help delay CDMA2000 and thus help their own companies, mainly Nokia, catch up. The problem is that WCDMA cannot be deployed in current bandwidth. The Europeans service providers have spent a fortune on spectrum, and they won't even be able to use it until 2003. I hope when 3G is deployed, you will write a rebuttal column on American ingenuity. Carter

To: kech who wrote (8987)	3/23/2001 5:37:50 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

Thanks for the link to ZDNet. Gosh, could Nancy Gohring be the replacement for Ed Snyder? Snyder, by the way, appeared on CNBC earlier this afternoon, with more idiotic comments, this time directed to Motorola. First he trashes QCOM, then MOT. Let's see, is his company angling for a future Nokia underwriting? Art

To: kech who wrote (8987)	3/24/2001 9:07:05 AM
From: Getch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

My question has to do with the definition of 3G. We have seen a couple more recent stories that there would be no "true 3G" in the U.S. anytime in the near future. Of course, this is annoying given the recent solid announcements of progress on the 1X series from many sources. I seem to remember that the official definition of 3G involves the use of 5 MHz channels, in addition to the speed components. It is clear, to us anyway, that the ability to perform with less spectrum (1.25 Mhz) is at least as good (and gives the carriers much more flexibility) as using a full 5 Mhz channel. The 3X series proposed by Qualcomm does combine the spectrum into larger bands. If it is correct that the definition for 3G requires larger channels, then the statements we have seen about no "true" 3G any time soon would be technically correct. We can then plan on continued FUD in this regard from the W-CDMA crowd when working with less than informed journalists. P.S. My sister is a talented writer who recently left a job as a technical writer (not telecom). She constantly complained to me that she would be given one day to research and write about things in which she had little knowledge. She would try to contact 3-4 sources, learn as much as she could, and start writing. It would not be hard in telecom for the 3 sources to all be from the GSM camp, and you wind up with stories like these. Another way to look at is, how long did it take us to get up to speed on this technology? Imagine trying to do it in one day. I was reading here for almost a year before my first post.