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: DaveMG who wrote (18314)	11/13/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: Jack Jackson	Respond to of 152472

But most see Microsoft's role in wireless services as an enabler--an opportunity for corporations who sign up for Wireless Knowledge's service to easily extend their existing applications and technologies to mobile workers and smaller devices. "They're giving carriers a jumpstart in this business," said Jamey Mills, product manager for wireless data services at US West, another provider planning to implement Wireless Knowledge's services. Sounds like a jumpstart to me, Jack

To: DaveMG who wrote (18314)	11/13/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Respond to of 152472

11/13 10:27 FOCUS-India's MTNL sees profits, hints at buyback (Adds details of new internet, cable services) NEW DELHI, Nov 13 (Reuters) - India's state-controlled Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL) <MTNL.BO> said on Friday it might buyback some of its shares on the back of an expected strong rise in year end profits, and that it also planned a slew of new Internet and cable services. "I see revenues topping 50 billion rupees ($1.18 billion) and net profit at about 17 billion," MTNL's chairman and managing director S.Rajagopalan told a news conference. In the year ending March 1998, MTNL announced a net profit of 10.73 billion rupees on revenues of 45.77 billion rupees. Rajagopalan called buybacks "an attractive option" after a recent presidential decree opened the door for companies to do so. When asked if MTNL might buyback shares before the end of the current year if allowed to do so, he answered: "Yes". Rajagopalan said the firm, which operates some 3.5 million phones in Delhi and Bombay, would begin Internet services in January 1999, but would start before that if ready. India eneded a three year monopoly on Internet access earlier this month. "I see Internet as the future of this company" he said. "We are basing our Internet service on America Online Inc's model, and calling it Bharat Online... We want to make Internet access cheap, but have original content, web hosting and other services to drive revenues." MTNL was also considering cable television, spurred by synergies between the Internet and cable business, he said. "High speed Internet access on cable make it an attractive proposition." Rajagopalan said MTNL was launching several services such as calling cards, toll-free numbers, and premium rate services. The firm is also expanding and improving its telephone network, by laying optical fibre cables to 250 buildings each in Delhi and Bombay, reducing telephone faults, and switching to a fully digital network by 2000. "We are expanding our wireless phone network. We have placed an order with a consortium of Indian Telephone Industries and Qualcomm Inc <QCOM.O> to expand our existing 1,000-line system in Delhi to 10,000 lines," Rajagopalan said. He added that MTNL had tendered for a 50,000-line wireless phone system in Bombay, and would do so next week for the same number of lines in Delhi. ($1 = 42.3 rupees)

To: DaveMG who wrote (18314)	11/13/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

DaveMG: I believe the "problem" that the consumer group identified is a deliberate software interlock. Most carriers do not want to sell a heavily subsidized phone, only to have the customer use it for a year, and then switch the handset to another less expensive provider. To wit, a Sprint phone cannot be enabled on a PrimeCo network and vice-versa due to this interlock. Both my original QCP-800 and my current Q-800 are generic models that were shipped directly to me by Qualcomm (much to the consternation of GTE Wireless). Other than an occasional experience with a market without GTE roaming reciprocity, my phone has worked flawless in virtually every geography in the country. I will say that I can generally tell the difference between a MOT network and everybody elses, i.e. MOT networks tend to be somewhat warbly and often exhibit duplex problems (clipping of words if people speak simultaneously). As a funny aside, back in 1996 when CDMA was just being deployed, I received my QCP-800 and it was the first digital phone the folks at our local GTE office had ever seen. While I was sitting around, waiting for activation, I noticed a commotion around the manager's office. After much delay, the manager came up and informed me that "he was going to have to confiscate the phone because it was stolen." Needless to say I rather angrily disabused him of my larcenous proclivities and, after a quick call to Qualcomm customer service, I was on my way. I am certain that Tero would have preferred me to be incarcerated. Having used my Q800 for over a week now, I really believe that much of marginmike/Jason's concern for the competitiveness of the Q800 vis-a-vis the MOT StarTac is overstated. My Q came with two Lithium Ion batteries, the smaller purported to provide 1.5 hours of talk time with the larger a more robust 2.5 hours. Believe this or not, on a fresh charge I got more than 197 minutes of talk time out of the smaller battery over the last three days. It is important to note that I never left a digital coverage area, so the phone never had to stand-by (or talk) in the more power consumptive analog mode. I understand the concept of "underpromising and overdelivering", but QC may be excessively conservative since my Q doubled the talk time attributed to the small LiIon battery. To this point, we all need to be careful in comparing specifications. Elroy Jetson indicated that his Q weighed twice as much as the MOT StarTac, but my Q, with its standard battery, weighs 5.7 ounces. The MOT phone is said to "weigh as little as 3.7 ounces" with talk times between 90 and 250 minutes. Clearly juggling the battery size impacts both weight and talk time, while various manufacturers have, shall we say, differing approaches to specification honesty? Since CDMA phones vary their power output in response to network conditions, the actual battery life will be influenced by the specific network conditions. It is quite possible that Qualcomm and Motorola used different assumptions regarding underlying network conditions when formulating talk time estimates. As for the 3.7oz verses 5.7oz, I really think one would have to be a "girlie man" to have a real world concern for this weight differential. Differences in form factor, user interface, keypad feel and voice quality are, to my eye, far more significant. But then, what the heck do I know? Best to all, Gregg