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: Gregg Powers who wrote (20565)	12/31/1998 12:15:00 AM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Why is there so much insider activity(selling) with the Jan numbers so close at hand? It concerns me a little that there seems to be an exudus occuring. Do you think we will beat estimates for this quarter?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20565)	12/31/1998 3:39:00 AM
From: GO*QCOM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg a recent article on the front cover of Wireless Week speaks to the European patent Office revoking a QUALCOMM interim standard-95 CDMA patent.The article claims revocation in early December of the patent based on Motorola Inc.'s claim that it is a prior holder of the patent for code division multiple access technology. The article contains remarks about QUALCOMM and its claims of being the inventor of CDMA.QUALCOMM did not respond to Wireless Weeks request for comments on this issue.The question is how will this effect the upcoming ITU decision as well as future claims about QUALCOMM CDMA patents as essential for IS-95? I respect your monumental effort to the patent situation as concerns QUALCOMM's patents and there position as essential.I am puzzled however about this development in Europe while remaining cautious about Ericsson's ability to influence European policy in there favor and spread negative propaganda.The article quotes an Ericsson public affairs person as stating "If I were QUALCOMM,I would be a little concerned about being the inventor of CDMA".This really gets my blood boiling as I am sure it dose alot of people on this thread.What is your take on all of this? The patent that was revoked is US patent number 4,901,307.I would appreciate any input on what this particular patent is used for in the make up of IS-95.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20565)	1/2/1999 9:58:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, When you made this argument originally (when AT&T introduced one rate plan), it made a lot of sense to me. But in light of the article by Michael Elling on cdg.org web site: cdg.org I am not so sure anymore. It seems that the per minute cost of CDMA vs TDMA may be 3:1 in favor of CDMA, but if the cost is 0.2 cents vs 0.6 cents per minute, and the lowest per minute pricing is around 10 cents per minute, this difference is almost irrelevant. I guess what is more important is whether AT&T, or other operators are running into capacity constraints on their network. I asked this on question on the thread before Christmas and neither Walt or Clark knew the answer. Do you by any chance know the answer? More precisely, what is the percentage of their coverage where AT&T is running at peak utilization? I am afraid that the number is low, and the whole advantage of CDMA over TDMA has been mostly academic, since I don't think the operators are near the point where they sold out all the available minutes. At present prices for consumer (more or less equal), the key is marketing, and even (horror) handsets. As far as the cost of long distance calls, and strategies related to that, you can for all practical purposes assume that the cost of long distance is zero to just about every participant. You still have to pay connecting charges for destination of the call, which is more or less equal to all participants, except players like Bel Atlantic / BAM. I am surprised that none of the CDMA operators started the price war. We could probably count BAMs 2400 regional minutes for $160 as a first shot. Re: 3G My opinion remains that for most of the envisioned uses, the high bandwidth is almost irrelevant, since most of the PDA type devices need no more than 19kps. The only use of high bandwidth today would be laptop users connected to Internet. Even that, with pocket switched connection will not be so great. Let's assume that you use up 16kps of bandwidth for a typical call (correct me if I am wrong on this number). In one minute, you would send 960 Kilo bits or approximately 100K (kilobytes). Let me compare this to my bandwidth usage on Internet (mainly catching up with SI backlog). I was online for about 7.5 hours (on and off), I sent 1 MB, received 6.6 MB = 7.6 MB, or about 1 MB per hour, or 16.6 KB per minute or 0.27 KB per second, or little over 2kbs - a fraction of a plain voice call. Of course, my bandwidth useage would be different if I was watching Pamela Anderson / Tommy Lee video, but anyway, my point is that it may be a while before AT&T falls flat on their face, not being able to handle the demand. AT&T may just accelerate their transition from analog to TDMA, which by itself will more than double their capacity. AT&T labeled their one-rate plan a home run or grand slam (I don't remember), and I have to agree with them. (for now) Joe