Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 168.09

+1.8%

Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ramus who wrote (17465)	10/31/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: Raymond	Read Replies (2) of 152472

Walt! "Yes, I read. I read that most of the 3G proposals involve CDMA. I read that IS-95 is the only 2G standard using CDMA. I read that CDMA-2000 is a clear and economical upgrade path from IS-95. I read that W-CDMA is the upgrade for GSM. I also read that W-CDMA is not as nearly backward compatible with GSM as CDMA-2000 is backward compatible with IS-95". What is your point? Has anyone arguing against that IS-95 is the only 2G standard using CDMA.That CDMA-2000 is a clear upgrade path from IS-95. I haven't seen anyone arguing against that the airinterface of CDMA-2000 is more compatible to IS-95 then WCDMA is to GSM airinterface.They are not compatible at all.This is the whole point what the WCDMA camp is trying to get across.They don't want to have any backwardcompability.Everytime you have to think about backwardcompability you will not get the most optimal system. If you want to have backwardcompablity you can upgrade the GSM network with EDGE which will give high speeds but will not give all the advantages that a complete new system can give you.What backwardcompabilty can give you is the American NTSC system a good example of.You can go anywhere and get a better TV-picture than you get in US. WCDMA is only compatible to the core network. Nobody is stopping CDMA-2000 from beeing compatible to the core GSM network.They can specify two variants one for operators that use IS-41 and one for operators using GSM core networks. If WCDMA is inferior they can just let Ericsson and Nokia go ahead with it and let QCOM dominate the worldmarket with the superior system.So why are they desperatly trying to stop WCDMA by refusing to licence their IPR:s to it? They should be happy seeing the competitors including their enemy Ericsson going in the wrong direction.I mean as anyone reading this thread knows.Ericsson started with CDMA a short time ago.They can't have learned anything during that time can they? Can you pls enlighten us how you came up with that CDMA-2000 is more spectral efficient than WCDMA.Don't just point to the proposals give us some clues why. You talk about the chip-rate as that is the only difference between the proposals.If you have really has read them you know that are a lot of differences between the proposals except the chiprate. Is this the opinion of people working for QCOM that this whole debate is a competition about which system is more compatible.Then I understand why they think that everyone else having another opinion is stupid.You are right CDMA-2000 is more compatible. "that?? Tero you said "No, I don't know the technical details, but it should be obvious....." What's obvious is you don't know the technical details and you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand! I must admit though I do get a kick out of it sometimes" What should this thread be without Tero and a few others?.You would have no one to argue against.Most posters with a different view has already been chased away. /R

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next