Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (103)	7/23/1999 8:26:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey Su: Thanks. Appreciate a review of how far ahead the Q is in making their chips so powerful - especially with data capability built in - that it is almost impossible for any other company to catch up. That is truly reminescent of Intel in its heyday. My puzzlement is still that if all Ericsson is doing is a job of assembly using the Q's parts (and software?), i.e. putting stuff in a small box with software from the Q, why does it take Ericsson almost a year? Chaz BTW Is this subject OK within the guidelines here in your view?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (103)	7/23/1999 9:41:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Is the money that was raised by the stock offering enough to take a run at Ericcson? I have been thinking about that lately and think that the two are a decent fit. Ercy has been able to do the infrastructure thing while Q has not, they have manufacturing, a name, and influence where the Q wants to go (China, Europe). Right now they are vulnerable from the change in management that has occurred, and the street may not even like the management that they have installed (according to an earlier post). I may be way off base but could this be the fit that the Q is looking for?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (103)	7/24/1999 2:01:00 AM
From: engineer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

<<It seems to me that it would have taken a miracle for ERICY to produce a workable CDMA handset by spring of next year with their own chipset.>> The real design phase is more like it takes 3-4 months to figure out what system design to use (assuming you know this upfront), another 18 months to design it and get it to first chips, another 6-9 months to qualify this and get it into production phones. To give you an idea, we were testing MSM3000 chipsets in early 1997/1998, released in 1998 (late). but here we had the system deisgn done and the phone platform done. If you were starting from scratch and wanted to do this, it would take more than a year longer. Then after you have this chipset, you need to build a phone wiht real RF around it and test this for another 6 months. At this point you have a phone design good enough to start thinking about production. All told, if you wanted to start a phone design company tonight and build ASICS and then a phone, given that you have unlimited captial and the ability to hire resources, it would take you about 3-4 years to get a phone to market. Given that ERICY has little real knowledege in CDMa manufacturing or in actual IS-95 designs, it would take them at least a year or two to get a design done. Then refer to my last post on how much longer to get that design to market, even with a seasoned team. Nokia and Mot have been at it since 1993 and they somewhat understood the system design.... It is a miracle that they will have a handset by next year.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (103)	7/24/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: Ron M	Respond to of 13582

The following link is from a National Science Foundation symposium regarding Tetherless T3 and beyond. Participation by QCOM and UCSD as well a lot of info regarding 3G and visions of the future. cudenver.edu There apppears to be a lot of info here, discussion?? An excerpt from the Executive Summary; The following is a report on the discussions and findings of a workshop held in Denver, CO on November 19 and 20, 1998 that addressed the characteristics and possible applications of future-generation wireless communications systems. Thirty-four experts on various aspects of wireless communications, from the physical to the applications layers, were in attendance. To give a specific topic for discussion, the question posed to the participants was "What research needs to be done to achieve full T3 (45 megabits per second) via the wireless medium by 2005?" The workshop identified several potential applications of wideband wireless communications, including virtual navigation, telemedicine, infostations, telegeoprocessing, crisis management, education via the Internet, and computer- and network-aided remote collaboration. Another clip regarding wireless and T3 T3 Wireless Applications and Their Impact on Network Design. T3 applications generally involve the transfer of large data blocks in real time, or the streaming of high-resolution video or both, such that lower data rates (in the Mbps range) would not be adequate. Several examples were given earlier. In examining these and other similar T3 applications, one identifies some recurring features that are likely to have important impact on network protocol design. Among these are: (1) Traffic asymmetry. In most cases, the T3 data rate is from base station to the mobile (one exception might be telemedicine). This greatly simplifies the problem since the base station has full control (and thus can better allocate) the outbound channel to the mobiles. (2) Streaming versus burst transmissions. Streaming requires bandwidth preallocation, possibly over several cells. Bursts also require a setup (for example, beamforming). (3) Mobility pattern. The predictability of the mobility pattern (based on previous measurements) can have major impact on resource preallocation policies. (4) Ability to adapt to resource reductions and/or to channel degradation in the network, or even temporary loss of connectivity. For example, the application may be able to reduce its data rate, at the expense of QoS degradation. (5) Ability to adjust to the limited and diverse interface capabilities of the mobile. For instance, if the mobile is a cell phone, the application will convert text to speech, or will reroute data to a proxy, which can do the translation. Likewise, if the cell phone is connected to other local devices (e.g., laptop, etc.), the application will be able to detect and exploit that. If the application cannot adjust to the end device capabilities, then the network protocols may need to intervene (for example, by dropping high-resolution substreams of a hierarchically coded stream).