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 151.05

+2.6%

10:58 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Raymond who wrote (17506)	11/1/1998 2:29:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Raymond - But why should ETSI care about if the American IS-95 operators will get a cheap upgrade. Well, of course they shouldn't. But in my last post I wasn't disputing that. I was arguing against using 'system performance' (e.g. spectral efficiency) as the metric since I doubt that there is any company in the world that does that. They all use their money as the metric. Therefore your argument that 'Qualcomm should license W-CDMA because they believe it is more spectrally efficient' is completely specious. Similarly, it is understandable that Ericsson et al are taking the position of wanting an incompatible W-CDMA - for the reasons I gave in my last post. Spectral efficiency enters the picture only in so far as being inefficient may hurt their future cash flow. This is definitely an important factor, but it isn't the only one. Many years has passed since the basics of IS-95 was specified. Don't you think that all that money that has been put in to research and the experiences from the systems up in service today has given anytthing.I am sure that there are more knowledge today how to make an optimal system then they had when IS-95 basics was set. Maybe, but it is impossible for those of us without access to the detailed test results to really know. I could equally well argue that Qualcomm and CDG entered trials many years ago (7 or 8?) and thus have access to data that Ericsson et al are only just now collecting. This is made even more true by the fact that, as you yourself said in a post to Maurice, many factors are only knowable once a system is out of trials and into full loading. Has Ericsson done this? No. Bottom line - I suspect that Qualcomm's experience in what is after all, the baseline technology, more than outweighs whatever gains have been made in technology outside of CDMA and that Ericsson is now trying to fold into W-CDMA. Besides which there is still the credibility issue. I trust Ericsson much less than I trust Qualcomm. Why should a system were you use a GPS-system be more efficient then in WCDMA where you synchronize all the basestations with a System frame number protocol from the basestationcontrollers.I think that is a rather intelligent way to do the synchronization. Well, you've caught me partially unprepared. I'll have to look into exactly how W-CDMA plans to do sync to get a better feel for how much penalty is paid for a lack of sync. However, I've seen systems where sync was attempted in a distributed fashion, and it is substantially more difficult than centrally coordinated sync. Clark

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next