SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Kayaker who wrote (100319)6/13/2001 12:11:15 AM
From: mightylakers  Respond to of 152472
 
They would be more expensive than a "simple" WCDMA chipset,

But they have no choice. There's no simple WCDMA chip, not in any area outside of Japan.

The simplest chip you have is dual mode, sometime trimode, quad-mode etc etc.



To: Kayaker who wrote (100319)6/13/2001 9:21:52 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
Assuming that Verizon has a favorable roaming deal with Vodafone, its 45% owner (a safe assumption), whether Verizon has a WCDMA network is irrelevant because multi-mode chips will eventually allow roaming between a WCDMA and a CDMA2000 network.

I don't fully understand how one network charges another for a roaming customer. However, I do understand my bills whenever I roam, and it appears to me that the consumer is the one that pays the lion's share of the charges. Except for missed revenue, the amount of which seems not to justify a technology change in favor of an inferior standard, I don't see Vodafone's insistence on Verizon using WCDMA as being motivated by anything except a desire for volume discounts on equipment. I just can't think of another reason.

The importance of keeping the infra cost as low as possible has been recently highlighted by the fact that Vodafone, unlike some of its European competitors, is not going to be a part of any infra-sharing agreement intended to reduce costs. Take a look at this for confirmation:

silicon.com