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 173.96

+1.4%

Nov 11 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Raymond who wrote (19711)	12/14/1998 1:08:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (3) of 152472

I am probably the least qualified person to argue technical specs, but based on what I know, here is the hole in your argument: There is no "backwards compatibility" to IS-41 or GSM, as these are both TDMA based systems. As such, thinking about all of the GSM operators and their huge investment in GSM equpiment is pointless -- they will all need to make substantial reinvestment for 3g anyway. The same is not true for IS-95 operators. There is a backwards compatiblity possibility for these operators. It would lower their upgrade costs substantially. Existing GSM and TDMA operators do not want to give up this advantage to cdmaOne operators. To date THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE TO W-CDMA AND IT MAY IN FACT BE DISADVANTAGEOUS IN TERMS OF NETWORK CAPACITY. If the above is all true, there is NO advantage to the W-CDMA proposals and ergo ipso facto, no reason cdma2000 cannot be THE converged standard. IMHO, as always, and certainly open to being corrected. mmeggs P.S. Your example of why 3g systems are "not just broader pipes" applies equally to both W-CDMA and cdma2000, no? How will W-CDMA overcome this problem where cdma2000 inherently won't?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next