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: Ramus who wrote (4703)	12/30/1999 4:23:00 PM
From: JMD	Respond to of 13582

Hey Walt, where the hell you been hiding? Ramsey only lets me post 4/year which keeps this thread half-way legit. Good to hear from you and best wishes for the New Year. best, mike doyle

To: Ramus who wrote (4703)	12/30/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 13582

Walt - just wanted to re-print some of your profound wisdom from a while back. ************************************************* Subject: Qualcomm - Coming Into Buy Range To: Tom Brush From: W. Houston Jan 13 1999 2:23PM EST Reply #21258 of 21285 Tom, In the past I've talked about some of the things I've found in the ETSI submission to the ITU for UTRA W-CDMA. One of the things I pointed out was their specification of Reed-Solomon/convolutional coding as opposed to Turbo coding schemes. Turbo codes have been around for about 6 years(guess) and are at the cutting edge of coding technology. On page 33 of the ETSI proposal under section 5.2.1.1.3 titled "Turbo Coding", they state "The use of Turbo coding for high data rate (above 32 kbps), high quality services, is currently being investigated within ETSI. Turbo codes of rate 1/3 and 1/2 (for the highest data rates), have been proposed to replace the concatenation of convolutional and Reed-Solomon codes. ETSI is awaiting further results of simulations illustrating the performance of Turbo Codes." This is an astounding item of information when you contrast this with the idea that Ericsson, one of the major contributors to the ETSI proposal, has stated they "pioneered CDMA research for military applications and has focused on WCDMA research and development for the past decade,....". They must have focused too hard, missing critical recent developments in the world of coding technology. On the other hand, Japan ARIB W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 specify the use of Turbo coding and detail its usage in their proposals. Big question I've raised before: How can the ETSI or any of its member companies who wrote the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA proposal to the ITU claim that they have "pioneered" CDMA research or that they have spent 10 years developing W-CDMA? Their proposal states that they are using an inferior coding scheme and that they are studying an improved scheme, at the time of the submission? I guess this really means they were not ready last June.... after 10 years of work!!! Wow!! The funny part of all of this is that a lot of the Turbo coding schemes are actually simpler to implement, less hardware required, while being more powerful than older schemes such as serially concatenated codes like Reed-Solomon/convolutional codes. Hence, very desirable. If you're interested you can go to the following Jet Propulsion Labs website devoted to Turbo coding. Some of the discussion deals with coding schemes used for telemetry transmissions from deep space probes and performance improvements brought about by the use of Turbo coding. Go to www331.jpl.nasa.gov If you really want to go deep and read a definitive paper titled "Serial and Hybrid Concatenated Codes With Applications", go to www331.jpl.nasa.gov Somebody once said something to the effect that the ETSI proposal was written by a number of different companies (I imagine so)... sort of written by committee(or by one company and approved by the rest?). Therefore, mistakes and omissions were inadvertently made in the process and are therefore understandable. Bull, what really happened is that with all the research money and capacity that is represented by all of these companies, no-one had gotten around to an extremely important aspect of the technology proposal, coding. Something that has an ultimate impact on all kinds of basic system claims, like number of users/MHz/cell and data throughput/MHz/cell. The proposal, as of June 1998, states they are still awaiting results from simulations?? Whatever side of the fence you are on, think about this next time Ericsson says something like "lowering the chiprate will degrade performance"? CDMA-2000 has a lower chiprate AND better performance, just read the ITU submissions. Or W-CDMA represents state-of-the-art technology. CDMA-2000 uses Turbo codes while ETSI UTRA W-CDMA is still studying them and instead specifies Reed-Solomon/convolutional coding?????. Ya! I want these guys to build my new souped up 3G system! Let's see, the Voyager probe used concatenated Reed-Solomon/convolutional coding. When was that launched? 1977? I wonder who used it before that? Hmmmmm, I think I'm beginning to understand now. :) Regards All Walt ******************************************************** Subject: Qualcomm - Coming Into Buy Range To: W. Houston From: Jeff Vayda Jan 13 1999 2:53PM EST Reply #21260 of 21285 Houston, Do you realize what you have said? You have hit upon the Holy Grail of the IPR debate. Many times the answer is so clear, people look right over it. You make the observation Erisson chose an outdated method. (Reed-Solomon/convolutional coding) You point out that the ETSI has acknowledged as much. (ETSI proposal under section 5.2.1.1.3 titled "Turbo Coding", they state "The use of Turbo coding for high data rate (above 32 kbps), high quality services, is currently being investigated within ETSI.Turbo codes of rate 1/3 and 1/2 (for the highest data rates), have been proposed to replace the concatenation of convolutional and Reed-Solomon codes.) You comment : "with all the research money and capacity that is represented by all of these companies, no-one had gotten around to an extremely important aspect of the technology proposal, coding." Bingo! Coding is the absolute foundation of why CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is better that TDMA, GSM, Analog, or cans with strings. CDMA is first and foremost about coding . For Ericy to miss that point and propose an acknowledged inferior and outdated method speaks volumes. The ETSI comments leave no room for any other interpretation, Ericy is out of touch. Hey Qcom PR folks, grab on to this and the battle will soon be over. Jeff Vayda