To: Uncle Frank who wrote (48943 ) 11/15/2001 1:30:57 PM From: Eric L Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805 Frank, << I'm just trying to interpret it [the Gorilla Game] ... We've been doing that here for almost 3 years. >> Well, that is certainly the fun and the challenge of this thread. In the end, individually we determine for ourselves, what we invest in, and why. << the essential nature of qcom's ip is based on 1) their success bringing 3G to market (which I'll plead down to 2.5 G if you object) years ahead of anyone else ... >> Yuk. What is 2,5G v, 3G? The great debate. Countries look at that differently depending on whether or not they dedicated IMT-2000 spectrum to it (or plan to). Carriers look at it differently (depending on whether or not they have 3G spectrum). Vendors look at it differently. Research houses classify it differently (although most exclude GPRS, 1xRTT, and EDGE). You don't have to plead 1xRTT down for me. But .... So far as I am concerned, GPRS, EDGE, and 1xRTT, are not 3G. GPRS is clearly not. 1xRTT, and EDGE are a little muddy, and even 1xRTT combined with 1xEV-DO is a little muddy (although less so), and for that matter so is WCDMA until I see it delivering > 2 Mbps in a fixed environment (despite the fact that it is already standardized to theoretically deliver that rate). Out around 2004, 2005 we will see all-IP WCDMA with HSDPA, and all-IP 1xEV-DV. Nobody will argue that those are not 3G. For that reason ... << If a 3G tornado materializes, Q will be the Gorilla of 3G air interfaces, and most likely, the King of 3G chipsets. >> I'm not looking for a "3G" tornado. Right now, one could argue all day long, about what constitutes "3G", and there would be no resolution. I'm looking for a mobile wireless data tornado. In the interim, I'll continue to classify Qualcomm as the gorilla of cdmaOne/cdma2000. That way, I don't confuse myself. - Eric -