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: Ramus who wrote (18338)	11/14/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: Michael Young	Respond to of 152472

For those who care about stock prices, here's a view from hedge fund manager James Cramer: <<tmcenery: I'm looking at Nokia, Qualcom and erikson. Any perspectives? Creme_Delacramer: You are looking at one winner and two losers. The first is the winner >>> I'm long both NOK.A and QCOM, but there is no doubt that NOK.A is executing much, much better and will likely bring better near term (one year) appreciation to shareholders. MIKE

To: Ramus who wrote (18338)	11/15/1998 1:50:00 AM
From: freak.monster1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

cdma2000 vs. W-CDMA: >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. Agree with you completely. Have seen some posts here about how W-CDMA was designed ground-up for data and how backward compatibility with IS-95 will hurt the efficiency of the system. As you point out this is complete baloney. One thing that you didn't touch on is the synchronous (IS-95, cdma2000) vs. asynchronous basestations. I have it from someone who has implemented both synchronous as well as the asynchronous basestations, asynchronous basestations are much more complex. Of course, like a lot of W-CDMA, it is an attempt to avoid QCOM IP. Not saying that W-CDMA doesn't have some extremely clever things in it. It clearly does. And one of the 3 fairness principles Qualcomm has stated for convergence, allows for a converged standard which benefits from the innovation of both cdma2000 as well as W-CDMA. For a more detailed view of some of the differences between the standards, and Qualcomm's view of the technical directions for the new converged standard see: qualcomm.com