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: slacker711 who wrote (109340)	12/7/2001 12:51:14 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

What do you think the percentage of people would have been that said they NEEDED cell-phone service ten years ago? about the same as the percentage of people who said they NEEDED to spend $4 on a cup of coffee at Starbucks every day -g-. i agree with your implied point about the relationship betweeen pricing and market penetration. the most obvious fit is for wireless operators to use a dual-mode between 3G and 802.11. that could well be. or they could just sell 802.11 packages for people with laptops. i still think the heavy duty broadband (motion video) will be handled primarily in stationary locales where 802.11 makes sense. it could go well with the 2.5G options for all the snappy little things like checking your bank acct or browsing for restaurants through a cellular handset. otherwise, the carriers wouldn't be budgeting so much for 2.5G... viz, (meant to post here): notice AWE's infra budget: $2.5 billion for GPRS "A few hundred million" for EDGE $1 billion for 3G (presumably WCDMA) look where they're spending the most money. and follow the money. 2.5G is where it's at imo.