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: Raymond who wrote (17506)	11/1/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero - I have a friend in LA. He and his colleague just tossed their Nokia phones and GSM through PacBell and signed up for single mode PCS phones made by Qualcomm. They found the standby and talk time to be an improvement and think the phone is clearer. The real clincher though is that my friend likes the $.10 a minute offer by Sprint which includes any long distance call made to anywhere that is also covered by Sprint PCS (which is a large proportion of the country). (As a note, my wireline long distance fee through Sprint is $.10 a minute and I have to pay a $4.00 monthly fee to get it. This is also much cheaper than many major long distance companies.) He also says that the Sprint offer charges only the foreign charges for long distance overseas. He thinks the whole package is cheaper than wireline service. This is just a sample of two, but these are typical US consumers making critical consumer choices. (My friend is a big Consumer Reports fan and analyzes his purchases from every angle.) Here is the phone they went with \, $99 : qualcomm.com Tom

To: Raymond who wrote (17506)	11/1/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Raymond - But why should ETSI care about if the American IS-95 operators will get a cheap upgrade. Well, of course they shouldn't. But in my last post I wasn't disputing that. I was arguing against using 'system performance' (e.g. spectral efficiency) as the metric since I doubt that there is any company in the world that does that. They all use their money as the metric. Therefore your argument that 'Qualcomm should license W-CDMA because they believe it is more spectrally efficient' is completely specious. Similarly, it is understandable that Ericsson et al are taking the position of wanting an incompatible W-CDMA - for the reasons I gave in my last post. Spectral efficiency enters the picture only in so far as being inefficient may hurt their future cash flow. This is definitely an important factor, but it isn't the only one. Many years has passed since the basics of IS-95 was specified. Don't you think that all that money that has been put in to research and the experiences from the systems up in service today has given anytthing.I am sure that there are more knowledge today how to make an optimal system then they had when IS-95 basics was set. Maybe, but it is impossible for those of us without access to the detailed test results to really know. I could equally well argue that Qualcomm and CDG entered trials many years ago (7 or 8?) and thus have access to data that Ericsson et al are only just now collecting. This is made even more true by the fact that, as you yourself said in a post to Maurice, many factors are only knowable once a system is out of trials and into full loading. Has Ericsson done this? No. Bottom line - I suspect that Qualcomm's experience in what is after all, the baseline technology, more than outweighs whatever gains have been made in technology outside of CDMA and that Ericsson is now trying to fold into W-CDMA. Besides which there is still the credibility issue. I trust Ericsson much less than I trust Qualcomm. Why should a system were you use a GPS-system be more efficient then in WCDMA where you synchronize all the basestations with a System frame number protocol from the basestationcontrollers.I think that is a rather intelligent way to do the synchronization. Well, you've caught me partially unprepared. I'll have to look into exactly how W-CDMA plans to do sync to get a better feel for how much penalty is paid for a lack of sync. However, I've seen systems where sync was attempted in a distributed fashion, and it is substantially more difficult than centrally coordinated sync. Clark