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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)
QCOM 178.28-1.7%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: waverider who wrote (94373)2/23/2001 10:44:21 AM
From: Keith Feral  Read Replies (3) of 152472
 
I can't help but to laugh whenever I read the other thread. Another person calling WCDMA vaporware - what a complete friggin joke. This nonsense has to stop.

Let me try to make this point. UMTS is a solution for a 5 MHZ wideband channel that uses a WCDMA air interface. There are only 2 minor differences between DS and MC CDMA. CDMA2000 attempts to manage the wideband channel by setting up 4 channels while WCDMA uses one 1 large channel. The only difference between the 2 solutions is the management of the spectrum. None of the techniques for CDMA have changed.

Jacob's argued that the wideband channel was unnecessary. This was a stupid point. Europe, China, Korea, and other governemtns were anxious to sell the additional spectrum regardless of efficiency. Now, the spectrum has been sold and the issue of 1.25 MHZ vs. 5 MHZ is mute. So is the argument that WCDMA is vaporware. Any CDMA solution that goes into a 5 MHZ spectrum in Europe or China is going to be called WCDMA. We get paid for WCDMA, that is not the argument.

The problem is that NOK & ERICY defined GPRS as a data solution for GSM. QCOM defined 1XEV as a data solution for CDMA2000. Now that they have developed 1XEV for CDMA2000, QCOM is now fighting the battle that should have been launched a long time ago - demonstrating the efficiency of 1xEV vs. GPRS as a data solution for GSM networks.

This sudden realization that full blown 3G is not going to be a 1 step process is not a negative. The long term process of evolving GSM to WCDMA should be taken with the same degree of consideration that CDMAONE operators receivecd when they upgraded to 1X, 1XEV, etc... However, the batlle of 1xEV vs. GPRS has surfaced with all the usual FUD by the European tabloids. Jacob's clearly said that WCDMA would be commercial next year with MASS deployment in 2004. That means that CDMA ASIC production is going to triple from current levels in the next 3 years. Double that number if Europe selects 1xEV vs. GPRS for data.

Since migration for CDMAONE networks had priority over migration for GSM networks to 3G, QCOM is just now beginning to roll up their sleeves and make 3G a no brainer for the GSM group. Europe's lack of progress in the 3G CDMA corner has left the door wide open for QCOM to dominate. Frankly, I am amazed at the utter failure of GPRS. I would love to see more CDMA components in the GSM networks as opposed to GPRS. The transition from GPRS to CDMA2000 for data would be very accretive to QCOM. However, that does not mean that the 5MHZ CDMA system is going to be called anything different than a UMTS system with a WCDMA air interface.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News