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: Greg B. who wrote (18327)	11/13/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

L.B.P (long boring post) - IF the CBOE's data (on their Internet page) cboe.pcquote.com is correct, someone transacted about 2800 option spreads today involving Jan 65 calls (with LWIN) and Jan 90 calls (with LWIN). The Jan 90's, (which had an open interest of 3300 contracts before this trade) all traded at 1/8. The Jan 65's traded around 1 3/4 to 2 -ish. (Open interest before this trade was 1223 (!)). Maybe this person was long the 90's coming into today, and rolled to the 65's. (Open interest figures on Monday morning should "tell all.") But, why sell something (with months to go still) at 1/8 ? Jon.

To: Greg B. who wrote (18327)	11/14/1998 1:42:00 PM
From: Ramus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Greg, Thanks for posting this. I'm glad they addressed the spectral efficiency question(my chip rate is bigger than yours baloney). I want to point out that not only does the independent Chinese analysis show that the CDMA2000 forward link is 30% and reverse link is 19% more spectrally efficient than the UTRA/W-CDMA proposal. But UTRA/W-CDMA is going to have a hard time fitting the number of carriers they propose because of guard-band considerations. In most deployments this will seriously degrade their overall spectral efficiency. Translation....UTRA/W-CDMA= less subs/buck...maybe a lot less subs/buck!! All this and they want you to buy all new physical layer hardware too. As I've said before, if you don't believe this then go to the referenced ITU link... itu.int and under "Proposals" click on "Proposals submitted by June 30, 1998" you can read the various proposals and decide for yourself. Another thing, in CDMA-2000 the use of 1x and 3x 1.2288mcps carriers is very smart. Not only the implications of upgrade from IS-95 systems but the enhanced versatility to provide a mix of 2G and 3G services as networks mature. No need to dump large cash moving from 2G to 3G. W-CDMA folks will try to have you believe that IS-95 is 2G technology and old hat compared to UTRA/W-CDMA. Reality, IS-95 is 3G technology now doing the 2G job paving the best way to 3G. There is no way that UTRA/W-CDMA is going to be able to match CDMA-2000 in deployment versatility and overall cost efficiency. And I believe that CDMA-2000 and other high speed data services such as IS-95HDR will arrive to market well ahead of the competition. Lastly, the note(3) about spectral efficiency and filtering. Indicates that the UTRA/W-CDMA proposal intends(or will have) to use longer tap filter to meet adjacent channel interference requirements(because of 10% greater chip rate). Thus requiring more computing power=more current drain= less potential battery life/less talk/less standby time= not very smart engineering. The cost of trying to be different? Amazing! Walt