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: Dexter Lives On who wrote (114968)	3/3/2002 2:21:22 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>> I was told royalties were a function of handset prices. The cost of producing handsets (and consequently related royalties) are direct related to the price of the handset - everywhere I look they're giving them away, which from the SP's POV would suggest they're written off at cost. That's a compelling argument for a collapse in the average price of handsets and cdma royalties. I don't follow your logic, Rob. The carriers don't pay royalties to Q, the manufacturers do. The fact that carriers are subsidizing subscriber handset costs doesn't impact the royalties Q receives per unit, but it does stimulate subscriber growth. Keep in mind as well that Q supplies the vast majority of cdma chip sets, and those are very high profit items, regardless of assembly location. >> Can anyone tell me whether Qualcomm has licensed (or cross-licensed) TD-SCDMA from the Chinese government. I'm hearing whispers that it will be THE standard in China. Is that good news for QCOM? As part of the arrangement with China, the home-grown Chinese standard was recognized as being covered by Q's ipr. As Dr. J claimed for years, all variants (so far) of cdma generate royalties for Q. uf

To: Dexter Lives On who wrote (114968)	3/3/2002 2:24:32 PM
From: pheilman_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"The cost of producing handsets (and consequently related royalties) are direct related to the price of the handset - everywhere I look they're giving them away, which from the SP's POV would suggest they're written off at cost. That's a compelling argument for a collapse in the average price of handsets and cdma royalties." The royalty is based on the price the service provider pays, not the price the consumer pays. The service provider reduces the price to the consumer to start the monthly revenue stream. "Look for many announcements this year about broad commercial WLAN deployments." Huh? Who is going to fund such a deployment? The last expensive unlicensed scheme cooked through a few billion and is now off (Metricom/Ricochet). The installed base is so worthless the company that bought the remains of the company did not even take it. And money has become a bit tight. Wait a second: you saw this text in the Wi-Lan thread: "...Of course, one detrimental effect of pulse combining (i.e., utilizing multiple symbols per bit transmission) can be reduced data rate or throughput. For example, one UWB manufacturer has claimed a 20 megapulse per second transmission rate, yet only achieves a 78 kb/s throughput because of the need to combine several hundred pulses per bit to achieve the necessary output signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver." And that is before they have even deployed!!! And you take them seriously? It's snake oil! Their fancy new system can't even match Verizon's deployed throttled system. As long as TD-SCDMA requires power control scheme patented by Qualcomm, it matters little what new twists anyone puts on their implementation. And if you understood CDMA, you would understand how critical power control is. (Hint: near-far) Wow, Uncle Frank got there before me. You go UF!