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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (37881)	8/11/1999 12:47:00 AM
From: Brian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

QDOG you have made several strong assertions over the last couple of days which I dont understand. Perhaps you could explain. You said CDMA is not the technology of choice for broadband wireless. Evidence is to the contrary. In that ERICY, NTT , and the ITU appear ready to adopt CDMA as the next generation broadband wireless technology. QCOM has indicated that CDMA2000 will offer 2mbs datrate which will be more than adequate for internet, full motion video etc. You also said cellular and PCS are LOS. Anyone who has heard annoying cellphone ringers in theaters knows that cannot be true. In the conventional lingo of the industry, Cellular and PCS are not considered LOS. I don't care how many modems qdog has made, or how many MIT professors he has made look stupid -- qdog is not using the term correctly. LOS literally means that you can see one communication point from the other -- that you could hit one point with a beam of light originating from the other. Cellular and pcs systems violate this description as a matter of course. As far as the preferred technology for broadband, the answer is it depends. For fixed point-to-point broadband at very high data rates using directional antennas at both ends -- the traditional MMDS model -- the benefits of CDMA are not compelling. CDMA just adds cost. When you change that to a mobile or quasi-mobile environment, add the desire to use non-directional antennas, a medium-high data rate and point to multipoint configuration -- any of the 3G CDMA systems are far superior. gdog, my text book tells me that the free space path loss of an RF signal varies with the square of the frequency. That is, twice the frequency gives you four times the path loss. The reflection coefficient of an RF signal, which is related to the signals ability to penetrate physical objects, also varies with frequency. So a 2.4GHz would have 2/3 more path loss than a 1.9GHz signal. It would also have a higher reflection coef. I would think these attributes would make it, at the very least, preferable to use the lower frequency bands. Any chance that is why they selected these frequencies for cellular in the first place? Yes, you can always put a base station next to every house. The point is to provide coverage with the minimum number of base stations.

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (37881)	8/11/1999 8:31:00 AM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

IF it ain't LOS then I can work any tower in a metro area, irregardless of obstructions. I can take a 2 way FM radio, put it on a dummy load, inside a concrete reinfored structure and still hit the repeater when it's only less than a mile away. Yet that is still considered a P-MP system and LOS. The reason cellular works, is the proximity to towers that are generally 100 foot tall or so and no more than slightly more than a mile away. If you go down undergrowund two parking levels in some spots of Houston you'll not have a signal to work. So yes it is LOS and I don't care what Brian asserts about it. As to your confusion, Greg posted an article about Sprint. That article is about the MMDS companies they have bought recently and is going to be part of the strategy for Sprint ION. It has nothing to do with Sprint PCS. It also will not use CDMA. Sprint and MCIWorldcom are going to petition the FCC to sectorize the MMDS spectrum, which is a form of cellularizing it. Just because it's Sprint and wireless, doesn't mean it's a boon for QCOM and CDMA. Nor do they at this time intend to make it mobile in the same manner as cellular or PCS, but there is nothing from making 2.4 GHz frequency in that regard if they cellularize it the same as 1.9 GHz. As to the impending 3G, the Europeans and Japanese are allocating more spectrum for that service. Most European countries are allocating additional 15 Mhz spectrum for that purpose. What the FCC doing? Nothing as of yet. So now you are going to tell me that Bell Atlantic cellular system is going to do high speed data, along with one rate voice services? Good luck in satisfying the consumer....