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: Ruffian who wrote (7591)	3/15/2000 8:08:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 13582

Ruffian: To me the last para is the most eye opening, viz: "Hironobu Sawake, telecommunications analyst at ING Baring Securities, said that using Qualcomm's high data rate (HDR) technology for mobile data transmissions in combination with DDI's current CDMAOne technology for voice services may be the best and most cost-efficient choice for DDI in the long-term. However, this would depend on HDR being added as one of the global standards for third-generation technology, Sawake said." While there are many battles going on, perhaps the most immediate and crucial for the Q is that cited in the last sentence, again viz: "However, this would depend on HDR being added as one of the global standards for third-generation technology, Sawake said." This would seem to be tied to the story that 16 companies were prepared to sponsor HDR as a standard. A story that disappeared without a trace, BTW. We never learned who the 16 companies were, or even if the story reflected reality. Best. Chaz

To: Ruffian who wrote (7591)	3/15/2000 8:57:00 AM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

re: The W-CDMA and CDMA2000 formats are based on the same technology, but the W-CDMA 3G standard can be used with base stations and other infrastructure already in place in Europe. Until you all can prove the above as not true, you are all in denial! If I was the DDI I would go with W-CDMA, just because of the above fact. The cost issue at the base station is not the big a deal when you consider the compatibility issue with Europe. If China would decide to go with W-CDMA then the game is over with! USA can't be an island in a 3G world based on W-CDMA they must bend to the masses. While it would be painful for QCOM to not have CDMA2000 as the standard as an ego blow, if what has been said about QCOM getting $$ at the same rate for W-CDMA as it would for CDMA2000, then in the long run it will not matter. The issue for QCOM then is chip set support for W-CDMA. Remember after awhile W-CDMA, or CDMA2000, edge, or even HDR will not even be used it will be 3G and QCOM earning potential will based on it's ability to provide ASIC and support for 3G what ever flavor it is. Greg

To: Ruffian who wrote (7591)	3/15/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: Webster	Respond to of 13582

Here is an old post which discusses HDR and 3G, which may help sort things out. This is an old post by the "operating profit" on the Yahoo club regarding HDR and UMTS 3G. thanks web.. here it is... Re: UMTS 3G standard operating_prophet > From what I can tell, it seems to be inferior to HDR concerning peak data rate (UMTS: 2Mbits HDR 2.4 MBits). HDR is superior in other ways, some of them profoundly significant: One is capacity. By transmitting Internet data on a separate channel from voice data, HDR can take advantage of the looser latency requirements to maximize throughput. The IEEE white paper available at QUALCOMM's web site explains this intersting latency-throughput tradeoff, and indicates forward link (downlink) capacity increases of three to four times over IS-95C (aka cdma2000 1X, which is the most spectrally efficient of the IMT-2000 standards). Note that maximum downlink capacity is critical for mobile Internet applications (web and e-mail clients in particular). A second advantage stems from HDR's use of a 1.25MHz bandwidth instead of a 4 or 5MHz bandwidth: carriers can partition their spectrum into different modes more efficiently. For example, a carrier could have some block of spectum dedicated to AMPS circuits, some for IS-95A, some for IS-95C (aka cdma2000 1X) and some for HDR. Any future improvements on CDMA might also benefit from this flexibility. As subscriber equipment is upgraded and customer demands change over time, the carrier could easily rebalance its spectrum utilization. With larger chunks of frequency (4 or 5MHz), it would be very hard for a carrier with a total of 25 or 30MHz of spectrum to phase in high-speed data service. Third: a fascinating possibility that QUALCOMM describes is a stand-alone (i.e. independent of any voice network) network deployment. Such a deployment would use off-the-shelf pure-IP networking equipment, providing for a far cheaper and more robust (with redundancy and fail-over) solution than the old telecom dinosuars could ever build. One can easily imagine a solution which would employ voice-over-IP and a separate 1X airlink channel for voice, to deploy a voice and data network for much less than the cost of a conventional network build-out. As far as I can tell, there are no good candidates for operators to undertake this type of greenfield deployment (what with NextWave all tied up in a legal morass), but the possibility is exciting nonetheless. Another possible advantage of HDR is that it getting by with cheaper components than a higher-chip-rate solution. (I'm a little out of my depth here, so can anyone with more specific info please respond... but I think that cheaper VCOs and less silicon devoted to correlators are two examples.) And finally (this is a guess of mine) a big advantage of HDR is IPR issues. While QUALCOMM's IPR covers all these standards (HDR, cdma2000, and W-CDMA), it looks like W-CDMA is turning into a rats nest of IPR claims, a la the original GSM. In summary, the potential of HDR is awesome. It remains to be seen how and when that potential can be realized. The whole HDR vs. 3G debate is shaping up to be no less dramatic than the old TDMA vs. CDMA holy wars. Only this time, QUALCOMM wins either way! That's not to say they would have no preference -- I would wager the advantages to the carrier and the consumer of HDR would make for much wider deployment of services in time and wider acceptance of wireless Internet devices, and that's where QUALCOMM wins big. See (http://www.qualcomm.com/hdr/tech_1.html) for more technical specs, or other parts of the HDR section (http://www.qualcomm.com/hdr) for more general information. [OP]