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: waitwatchwander who wrote (11001)	6/1/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Someone could, but . . . The air interface to the phone is completely different between GSM (TDMA) and CDMA (IS-95C), but aside from that, what makes it very difficult is not just the duplicated electronics and subsequent costs, but in my opinion, economics here on this continent that would essentially require the mobile unit to be a triple mode phone to effectively accommodate roaming - that pesky old analog system keeps rearing its ugly network when the deployment schedules for some newer technologies don't reach the coverage patterns that many customers require. For ultimate roaming capability, you'd need a quadruple-mode phone - and for the cost of that you might as well consider Globalstar or Iridium. p.s. Pardon my handle - Bullwinkle was already taken!

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (11001)	6/2/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

nf- Re: Why no dual mode GSM/IS-95 phone? If there is any technical basis for it (as opposed to pure politics of the competing camps), I would speculate that it is due to the fact that digital phone technology is significantly more complicated than analog. Thus a dual mode phone of GSM/IS-95 would be more expensive than other dual mode phones. (And no, there aren't many components that GSM and IS-95 have in common, at least so far as I am aware, with the current chipsets.) Clark