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: pass pass who wrote (104139)	9/8/2001 1:36:39 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Re : "Sprint PCS service poor / there are class action lawsuits being prepared" -- I have used Sprint PCS for over three years now, and think it is wonderful. It is clear (regarding wireless system performance) that -- it depends which part of the country one is using the service. Re : lawsuits -- I suspect that there are "class action lawsuits being prepared" regarding almost everything one can imagine. So what ? I feel sorry for the lawyers who do this for a living, and then have to look at themselves in a mirror. Jon.

To: pass pass who wrote (104139)	9/8/2001 1:53:05 PM
From: mightylakers	Respond to of 152472

I personally used Sprint (CDMA), Verizon (CDMA) and ATT (IS136), had indirect exposure to Cingular (GSM). ATT is the best in terms of quality vs fee. Well, one important factor deciding the quality of service is the installation base. Sprint built everything from ground up, along with the fact that it also had to spend money to buy PCS band(800Mhz was free to the existing holders) made it a little tough to expand their service. I'm using sprint and have called them several times complaining about their spotty coverage. But I do understand that it needs time to have those towers available, and to get towers approved takes far more time than to have them installed and running. So if you really want to compare the technology, you need to put them onto the similar ground. Here is a pretty throughout study of the service quality between different technology/carriers. mobilecomputing.com It doesn't surprise me to see CDMA came out as a winner. And it will get better and better.

To: pass pass who wrote (104139)	9/8/2001 2:49:48 PM
From: Mark Fleming	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Having one company controlling the majority of IP of a technology will inevitably drive the network cost high. Oh really? Roughly 5% royalty to use QCOM IP vs. up to 30% "hidden" royalties to the various Euros for GSM. Do your homework. You're not on the Yahoo board.

To: pass pass who wrote (104139)	9/8/2001 6:10:45 PM
From: pheilman_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Certainly I cannot state that CDMA is the end of wireless PHY. Let me state my underlying opinion, every type of communication except wireless is trivial. And the cost for moving any bit, other than wireless, will shrink to zero. I invest accordingly. As a newly minted fiber optics engineer I am in awe of the capacities. (maybe I don't seek jobs accordingly :-) ) There will be little left of the core of the network for the rest of the network companies to earn money from after the optical purity sweeps them away. But, it will still be hard to send those bits out to the cell phone. RF communication has to deal with the harsh reality of a changing, noisy channel. CDMA makes reasonable assumptions about this channel. OFDM, I suspect, will be sorely tested by the dynamics of a real channel. Again, it was a wonderful solution for packing bits down a band-limited phone line, where it is a lot more meaningful to characterize that fixed channel and use that knowledge to set the bit rates for various carriers. How does this take into account the car moving past buildings or hills while the user is not talking? What will be the probe signal? How will the channel characterization be shared between the mobile and the base station? In this area, silicon valley, Verizon is the best in terms of service. Based on their purchase of GTE's extensive number of base stations. By service, I mean the ability to make a phone call without interruption. I am dismayed about how lousy their other services are. (roaming, net access, ... ) But on the fundamentals, there is no comparison. What measure are you using to extol ATT's service? Do they have nice envelopes for their bills? As far as a single company controlling IP driving network costs high, I sincerely hope so. I strive to invest in companies that control important technologies. Sprint doesn't control any IP. They just execute well. Nolan Bushnell taught me something years ago. He pointed out that no-one worked on cars anymore. By that he meant young men did not modify the engines or the mufflers or the paint. Instead they worked, at the time, on their computers and discussed megabytes of RAM and megahertz. I believe that even that has passed. The only thing I hear discussed is access to the net. And if HDR works and is installed by say, Nextwave, QUALCOMM will ride another big wave.

To: pass pass who wrote (104139)	9/8/2001 9:42:46 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

puss, puss: you're a bloomin idiot. postulating that one company owning the IP increases costs is just plain silly. as previously pointed out the royalty costs on cdma are a fraction of what they are for GSM. Second, WCDMA doesn't work because the companies have tried to create a standard so that many companies own the IPR for their individual advantages. Third, ATT is cheap because it's an antiquated system and to compete it has to charge less. Third, I have been on VZ and Sprint and the service on Sprint is quite good. I rarely have a dropped call and only encounter static when the other party is on ATT or an analog provider.