SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dave who wrote (1606)3/20/1999 5:16:00 PM
From: brian h  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34857
 
Dave,

My understanding is different from yours.

There are several press releases Qualcomm has issued stating (to be blunt), that if the ETSI does not incorporate CDMA2000 to the proposed WCDMA standard that we (meaning Qualcomm) will not license CDMA2000 to anyone.

QCOM will not license its CDMA to anybody that is only interested in doing WCDMA (GSM to WCDMA) and is not backward compatible with IS-95 (Not CDMA 2000). Essentially, its means ERICY and NOKIA can not go along in doing WCDMA without its WCDMA backward compatible to CDMAone (IS-95).

As for CDMA 2000, The company that already signed on IS-95 can continue to use CDMA 2000 technology.

That is my understanding.

Brian H.

The path has changed to CDMA 2000, WCDMA backward compatible with IS-95 and TDMA-GSM (3G) per recent TABD suggestion.



To: Dave who wrote (1606)3/20/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: Valueman  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 34857
 
I wouldn't agree. Current CDMA licensees are also licensed for cdma2000 by default--no new payments needed. If they do any other flavor of 3G other than cdma2000, they must pay another round of licensing fees. That is directly from QCOM itself.

By the way, the Phillips/LU JV, which is no longer in existence, paid for a W-CDMA license, not a cdma2000 license.