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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bux who wrote (3817)	2/9/2000 6:14:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 5195

Just for the sake of keeping things straight, Q is Qwest, not Qualcomm. It wouldn't matter except both of them are in the telcom business.

To: Bux who wrote (3817)	2/9/2000 7:00:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5195

bux "It always surprises me when I hear that some people think Qualcomm is obligated to sell their intellectual property at a rate that is to be decided by someone else." they signed the IMT2000 agreement obligating such. Q's deal to other operators is their combination of essential with non-essential which, i suppose, they believe can be packaged. their total packaging of their IP is their marketing flavor. a problem with this approach is that WCDMA is already proposed to be packaged with technology which Q doesn't profess to own such as matched filter technology. you change the filter base, other variables also change. a WCDMA network can be built with correlation filter technology, as IDC proved with their BCDMA product (they also utilized a conceptualized/designed matched filter technology). correlation works well within Q's CDMA2000 proposal of 1.25mghz, with four or so designated channels, total 4mghz, model. WCDMA's 5mghz model does utilize a wider spread, but spectrum efficiency is not realized in the distribution but in the process of identifying/sending/retrieval. If WCDMA is capable of retrieving/locating more signals and processing them more efficiently, full spectrum efficiency, as defined by Qualcomm, has less meaning. I can shoot at a flock of 2000 ducks and hope I hit one; or I can aim at a flock of 1 and hit it. WCDMA basically allows for aiming at all 2000 at once, identifying them, categorizing them, and picking the best one for shooting; all in record time/speed while maximzing the flow to and from. Because CDMA2000 has a built in design to conserve spectrum, is extremely focused in its search, nearly at all costs, it remains confined to those limitations. Q's position that the "half-life" of a signal is optimized at 1.25mghz, obviously has much research and merit to back it. However, when you change the method by which a given signal is retrieved within a cell; any number of different combinations become possible. If the receiver is able to identify and sort the combinations in an efficient manner, the 1.25mghz optimization argument has less significance. CDG stated as much on their site when comparing WCDMA with CDMA2000: "...Instead, other system designs such as channel structure (including pilot structure), power control mechanisms, diversity techniques, handoff efficiency, and base station synchronization have a much greater impact on system capacity..." How true. The developers of WCDMA's state they've perfected (as far as current means go) a pilot structure method (which IDC helped develop) and synchronization techniques within the 5mghz channel. And again on their comparison: "...WCDMA advocates propose using more complex filters to address this. While in theory such an approach can be conceived, the required filter is hard to realize within a 5 MHz bandwidth ( 3 ). Essentially, the purported 10% capacity gain is not realizable in practical deployments that in many markets need to consider adjacent channel interference or FCC power emission requirements ? not a realistic solution for operators...". It has been the teaching at several universities that a matched filter design (to which they are refering) will not adequately address the necessary banding or division requirements as set forth by the FCC. But, sorry to disappoint a few - the ITU2000 has incorporated a matched filter CAI design for WCDMA systems to address this issue. There are two designs; one from Golden Bridge (a design that GB states was adopted). Although CDG has this wording on their site it is about two years old and needs to be updated as it doesn't currently reflect the state of WCDMA technology. And yes, the filter method of WCDMA does solve the problem - and at the same time improves spectrum efficiency through other means. I'm also surprised that this statement remains on the CDG board site: "ARIB (Japan) recognized this early on and has been instrumental in reducing the number of differences between cdma2000 and WCDMA to a handful. However, some WCDMA proponents have not been receptive to these efforts." The ARIB WCDMA deisgn was converted to the European/U.S. WCDMA proposal. As far as the differences being a "handful"...this may have been accurate in early 1998 (when the CDG published this material), but the improved technology has made such a statement outdated and not consistent with current ITU proposals. CDG does need to update this comparison to accurately reflect information in regard to WCDMA/CDMA2000 as it currently exists. It is dated November 1998. The Japanese in early 1999 developed their own matched filter technology designs which changed a number of other factors as proposed by ARIB. (It is these designs that NTT has been testing by the way.) Because European/US designs already contained the filtering changes, ARIB changed their proposal to match the European/US proposals. cdg.org