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: bananawind who wrote (16807)	10/20/1998 2:09:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajiala & Dave, I have noticed you guys are not around, or very quiet whenever the Q spikes up. What's up with that? Kinda look forward to you two being around, and participate in the good news. Regards, Michael

To: bananawind who wrote (16807)	10/20/1998 2:27:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

To Jim: Thanks. Would very much appreciate the views of Engineer and Clark also. Suggest that this is a complex political question as well as a complex technological one. If the US Trade Rep gets CDMA2000 a seat at the 3rd gen table and vital access to Europe and Japan, can the Q say "no, we take our marbles and go home?" Doubt that in the real world. But as we all know this has a long way to run and the path of negotiations is a bumpy one, no? And seems like a negotiated settlement - both political and technological - is more likely than a knock em down, drag em out fight. But only time will tell. Cheers. Chaz Onward and upward for the Q ! PS Expect the Q management will play its cards carefully and well as it has to date. Think what the Q's management has accomplished from a standing start. Seems like they deserve some benefit of the doubt re their skill on the 3rd gen. And in the meantime there will be IS-95B and IS-95C and IS-95(?), no? Data is coming.

To: bananawind who wrote (16807)	10/21/1998 12:15:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re: (Converged W-CDMA/CDMA-2000) vs (W-CDMA that is backwards compatible with IS-95) This isn't really a technical question, but I would say it is all but certain that there are many more ways to make W-CDMA backwards compatible with IS-95 than there are to merge W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 and maintain backwards compatibility. (The key is the word 'and'. Qualcomm would almost certainly not accept a merger of CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA that was not backwards compatible. Too many of its valued customers would be left out in the cold, and it would lose too much business waiting for W-CDMA to come out.) Clark