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: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/18/1998 11:01:00 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 152472

Wow- Perry many thanks for a great post. Certainly is nice to hear a CDMA perspective on the negotiations! Tom

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/18/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thank You Mr Laforge for taking sometime to give us some insights into the CDG and it's work. I have one question that I never seem to get an answer to. Why cant Qcom or a CDMA vendor produce GSM-CDMA2000 overlay and just beat Ericsson to market. If My beliefs are correct CDMA2000 is at least 1-2 years ahead of WCDMA. If they can produce a competitive product two years ahead of Ericy, and assuming an open standard is maintained,why is WCDMA even an issue. Qcom can block WCDMA and simply bring their system to market first. Assuming they can get CDMA as one of several open market standard's approved by ETSI. This seems to be enevitable if a single standard is not approved. In this case Qcom still ends up with a huge competitive lead to market. I hope my question made sense, I am not shakespere!

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/18/1998 11:14:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Well, well, well, look who popped up. Thanks for the background information Perry. [Looks like a dinkum post - nothing in it to suggest a fake, can't be too careful you know.] At some stage, the "let's delay" strategy will reach a cusp and flip over to, "Okay, we give in, let's have a deal. Full steam ahead on W3G." Having given a little ground and with the array of operators calling "Uncle", it seems that there is immediacy. Presumably things can move a lot more quickly once there is a common direction. Ericy, Nokia, GSM NA must be not far from that cusp about now. Delay has to benefit them for them to continue with it. As soon as they no longer benefit, they'll want all speed on W3G [the fig leaf version of cdma2000]. I today, [I wouldn't have believed this a couple of days ago] bought 3 Alcatel GSM handsets, prepay minutes, no contract. No doubt GSM is enjoying huge sales for similar reasons that I bought these. Lack of choice and I just couldn't go on waiting for cdmaOne to arrive in NZ. But these handsets are only going to be used until cdmaOne does arrive and serious competition arrives with it. Our minute price is NZ50c off-peak = US28c and NZ$2 peak = US$1 per minute. What a rip-off. And they think they are offering a bargain. My point is there is going to be an avalanche away from GSM around the world, despite Tero's precious Nokia making great little handsets. The avalanche will be similar to the abandonment of analog. The fun has begun. But not here yet! Thanks again for the comments Perry. Mqurice

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/18/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Perry, Thank you for your post. May be some name change for these terms - CDMA2000 and W-CDMA will resolve this face saving issue on ERICY and its supporting groups. Change the term only. Everything else still follow QCOM suggested chip rate and 3 fairness principals. Change the term to "WWWCDMA (World Wide Web CDMA)". Since 3g is essentially for wireless internet application + phone. This term will give customers immediate name recognition. Or "CDMA.COM", for example. All customers will understand right away. Should I register these terms for some trade mark rights? (gg) What do you guys think? Brian H.

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/18/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Harvey Rosenkrantz	Respond to of 152472

Thanks for the insight and information.

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/19/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

Mr. LaForge, thank you so much for your superb post and the insight into the hard work that you and other members of the CDG have been doing. It must have been even more frustrating to you to have direct contact with others who have had closed minds than it is for us shareholders to see, from a distance, the PR-spin game. It is also gratifying to know that some of the excellent analyses that have been posted on this site (including some of my own, if I might say so)have been on target. Good luck on your continuing endeavors.

To: Perry LaForge who wrote (20061)	12/19/1998 10:29:00 AM
From: JMD	Respond to of 152472

Thanks Mr. LaForge--please drop in more often. The keepers of the flame need to hear from the official folks. Your contributions, past and present, are very much appreciated. From a PR point of view--and I suspect that is one of your main areas of concentration--would you comment on why the CDMA camp does so little to defend itself against the cries of those claiming excessive royalty/license fees being extracted? I have always found this puzzling: in an age where perception is reality, it seems to me that Qualcomm needs to take the offensive on this issue. On the other hand, I've always struggled with originating a snappy marketing slogan. "Give me direct sequence spread spectrum or give me POTS" lacks a certain zing but no worries--I'll keep trying and get back to you. Thanks again. Mike Doyle