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: Techteam who wrote (16144)	10/7/1998 10:20:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

ALL "3G Standards Identical"; From the October 5, 1998 issue of Wireless Week 3G Standards 'Identical' CDG Letter Urges Global Roaming By Caron Carlson WASHINGTON--The third-generation wireless conundrum last week focused on the degree of similarity between the two code division multiple access proposals. The cdma2000 proponents from the Interim Standard-95 cdmaOne camp urged U.S. officials to view the two standards as "virtually identical." Wideband CDMA proponents, which are predominantly in the global system for mobile communications-based community, urged otherwise. The CDMA Development Group, the primary advocate for cdma2000, scheduled meetings last week with key government offices to elaborate on a Sept. 23 letter sent to top officials. Endorsed by some of the group's largest carriers, including Bell Atlantic Mobile Inc., Sprint PCS and GTE Wireless, the letter called on the government to express its support for converging the CDMA proposals. CDG is not asking the government to favor one standard over another but instead to express the requirement that 3G technology provides global roaming capability, said Perry LaForge, CDG executive director. In CDG's view, global roaming requires the harmonization of W-CDMA and cdma2000 because the two technologies will otherwise remain incompatible, leaving subscribers of the two dominant systems unable to communicate. China, Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea all submitted CDMA-based proposals to the International Telecommunication Union during the summer. Although W-CDMA and cdma2000 are not interoperable, they are "virtually identical" and would not create the competitive benefits to consumers and operators that the significantly different second-generation standards created, according to CDG. "In the whole spirit of the ITU process, when you have common proposals it is ludicrous not to try to seek convergence," LaForge said. "The issue has to do with the commonality of the CDMA proposals." CDG reiterated its support for multiple standards in the overall 3G marketplace and clarified that the group does not seek to converge cdma2000 with other proposals under consideration. "With [time division multiple access], you're talking about convergence of apples and pears," LaForge said. "But on the CDMA side, you do have the opportunity to converge." However, W-CDMA proponents argue that the two CDMA proposals are not at all identical. "Saying 'CDMA' is like saying 'vehicle,'" said Gary Jones, director of standards for Omnipoint Corp. "A car is different from a truck. They have different engines and different parameters that accomplish different things." Unlike wireless multimedia and messaging service or WIMS W-CDMA, which merged with W-CDMA/North America late last month, cdma2000 contains several different technical parameters that affect system performance, according to Jones. Differences in chip rate, channel pilot structure and base station synchronization, for example, remain critical areas of contention in harmonization. Changing to cdma2000's chip rate would reduce a system's data throughput capacity by at least 10 percent, the W-CDMA camp said. CDG maintains that there are no technical reasons against harmonization. The claim that cdma2000's chip rate would reduce transmission capacity has not been demonstrably proven, LaForge said. \| Home Page \| Site Map \| Search Archive \| PowerSearch \| \| International \| Wireless Web Sites \| Hot Stories \| Please send comments and suggestions on this Web site to jcollins@chilton.net Wireless Week, 600 S. Cherry St., #400, Denver, CO 80246 Voice: 303-393-7449, Fax: 303-399-2034 Published by Cahners Business Information © Copyright 1998. All rights reserved.

To: Techteam who wrote (16144)	10/7/1998 11:01:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

> Assuming you are not an insider at QCOM, you would of course not be aware of the specific terms of all the cross licensing agreements. The fact that you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist.< Techteam, since you ARE aware of the terms of these supposed "cross-licensing agreements", that would make you a Qualcomm insider? No?

To: Techteam who wrote (16144)	10/7/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Techteam, Hello. Are you coming back to tell us YHOO does not worth that much market value? Again? Which companies should be worhthy of investment now? With solid earning? CCI or BAC? Brian H.

To: Techteam who wrote (16144)	10/8/1998 8:50:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Techteam: Nice attempt at sell-side doublespeak, let's look at what you said: << Your math works but unfortunately your assumption of royalty per phone is way too high. Try on average $5-7. >> You attempt to substantiate the $5 to $7 metrics by suggesting that some of QC's cross licensing contracts carry no net royalties. I opined that you were loose with your facts specifically because (a) you did not make a good faith attempt to realistically calculate royalties per handset based on publicly available information and (b) you attempted to justify this inaccurate calculation with an unsubstantiated claim that QC has entered into net-zero cross licensing agreements. While I do not get inside information, my firm been the company's largest shareholder for many years and there are many questions that I have asked over-and-over-and-over. Based on the company's public and private comments, I stand by my earlier statement that there are no permanent zero-net royalty licensing agreements. Furthermore, if you thought about it for a second, you would realize that your zero-net royalty argument is at odds with your suggestion that QC realizes only $5 to $7 per handset, i.e. if some of the company's licensees are paying nothing, then others would have to be paying an astronomical amount in order to account for the company's actual royalty realization. As typical with Wall Street, opinions are plentiful and facts are few! Gregg