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: engineer who wrote (16864)	10/21/1998 10:10:00 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Engineer: State your name like Gregg, Maurice, and I do in your profile. Your name isn't in your profile or even much else. Here's a link... techstocks.com dave

To: engineer who wrote (16864)	10/21/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: lazarre	Respond to of 152472

From the FWIW Dept: On CNBC's Taking Stock's Segment this PM, a viewer called in and asked the guest about the Q. The guest said that they are the guys with the CDMA technology , they're making $$$, and they are a BUY at these levels. The screen flashed 51 7/8. L

To: engineer who wrote (16864)	10/22/1998 5:32:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

>what so ever are you talking about? I can't even follow your >"wasteful" argument. Perhaps you could explain it more fully? >(long rant with GSM mentioned 12 times) Dear engineer. We can both safely conclude that you can not follow what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that WLL concept is a dog. CDMA1 based WLL is a dog, GSM based WLL is a dog. I'm not trying to prove that GSM is technically a better system than CDMA1 (the fact that it got a head start and now has +100M users does prove nothing about its _tehcnical_ superiority). There has been plenty of counter argument about how "inexpensive" (CDMA) based WLL is, as compared to CDMA1, which I did not buy. I did not believe that "signalling" (terminology appears to vary , I mean all supportive signalling that makes the call possible but is not the content of the call) in CDMA1 is 2/3 of the total traffic as x 3 capacity for WLL would suggest. As claimed by your expert friend "Q". This figure has come down now to little less than x 2 (which I don't still buy). Furthermore, I claim that even if the CDMA WLL base station capacity is almost x 2 compared to CDMA1, there is no significant cost saving. I base this on the fact that this paralyzed fixed with virtually mobile prices is not going to be a big hit - and hence the capacity is not important. You simply can not fool enough morons with this pissy a concept (Disclaimer: lots of MBAs appear to believe that the underpriviledged masses of the 3rd world can not distinguish between "mobile" and "fixed, which is almost, like, mobile, sort of"). Compared to (and now I place my words very carefully so that you might not lapse into that GSM rant again) CDMA1 solution WLL is useless. It is totally brainless. No use. No good. Lousy. - rajala