Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 155.82

-1.3%

Jan 23 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: foundation who wrote (32498)	2/17/2003 1:24:24 PM
From: q1000	Read Replies (1) of 197351

Do you conclude that 1x and wCDMA are parallel and identical in their relative efficiencies at any frequency? Sprint presently uses 1x at 1900mhz - roughly the same frequency and characteristics as Euro 3G spectrum - do you conclude that it "would also be a problem" for Sprint to provide economic network capacity/coverage/performance? The point of my comment was to show that IJ was being far friendlier in his handling of WCDMA at the meeting this year in contrast to his ripping apart the arguments for WCDMA two years ago. By mentioning higher frequencies as the first problem, he was linking WCDMA with all other technologies and in effect defending it a bit. Regarding Slide 27 on Frequency Propagation, IJ said, “One interesting thing is that as you go up in frequency the effective area covered by a cell site is reduced… And so there is additional cost as you go up in frequency.” This IJ statement was the basis for my statement suggesting that 1x would also have “weaker propagation of the signal at 2.1 GHz.” I do not know why you jump from my statement to talking about 1x and WCDMA being identical in their relative efficiencies. I have no idea how many cell sites are needed in 1 square mile in a city. But if it were 10x cell sites for 1X at 800 MHz, IJ’s statement could mean that you needed 12x at 2.1 GHz. If WCDMA needed 15x at 800 MHz, IJ’s statement could still be true if WCDMA needed 50x at 2.1 GHz. My point again is that IJ was dealing very gingerly with WCDMA – presumably because he is working with the European carriers every day trying to solve their problems and does not want to demean their technology choice in a public forum. I did not hear him say anything that refutes what you have long been saying about WCDMA cell sites. Indeed his answer to a question about the number of cell sites for WCDMA question spoke of “some fairly dense provisioning of cell sites in urban areas – a limited number of urban areas – to support higher data rates” supports you analysis (IJ put emphasis on the “a limited number of urban areas” in his answer). On Sprint, I will try to restrain myself. I have been a Sprint user in the Bay Area for about 5 years. My calls are still dropped on some heavily traveled corridors that I use frequently - the SF Bay Bridge west of Yerba Buena and on the top of Fell Street in SF. I have no coverage on a heavily traveled city street in the East Bay which connects the flat lands of Oakland to the hilly Montclair district – the problem area is 5 or 6 blocks long and runs through a sort of canyon. My daughter has Verizon and has no problems in these areas or others. I have just about made up my mind to switch to Verizon which operates at 800 MHz in the Bay Area to obtain better coverage (including within my house which has thick stone walls) even though Verizon seems 6-12 months behind Sprint in introducing the latest model phones. I was surprised that IJ stressed that the 1x and 1xEV-DO would be offered in the 2G spectrum in Slide 28. It would seem to be easier to obtain regulatory approval to change the 3G licenses to permit the operator to use both WCDMA and 1x in the 3G spectrum than to change the rules for the 2G spectrum. In addition, there would probably be some capacity problems already in some of the 2G spectrum. However, I assume IJ proposed use of the 2G spectrum because it would be cheaper and quicker for the operators – they would use the GSM core and would simply add 1x equipment at existing cell sites to pick up the 1x signals. In fact, IJ said: “And so what we propose is that those other frequencies using the same antennas – cell sites – in fact fewer of the total, one can put on CDMA2000 with an expansion in voice capacity – considerable expansion – as well as the higher data rate capability because they can get by in less frequency than required for the WCDMA.” Thus, 1x seems to be more efficient in propagation than GSM since fewer of the cell sites need to be used. But if use of the 3G spectrum for 1x required that the cell sites be only, say, 20% more dense than GSM, I assume the costs for coverage comparable to the existing GSM would be much more substantial and there would be delays due to the need to do more cell site leasing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next