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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gdichaz who wrote (23659)	4/26/2000 9:44:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2, << Have you spent so much time in Europe that vaporware is vapourware to you >> My spell checker dictates vapourware. Could of course be too much time in Europe where practical (and real) applications of wireless data were available several years ahead of the US (except for CDPD and GSM-1900). << just translating into New Zealand spelling for Maurice's benefit? >> That too. Could be where I got vapourware? << On the substance, my understanding is that the standards are agreed to and the specs set for CDMA 2000 a.k.a. MC. Is that wrong? >> Perry & Dr. J. have agreed to them. Has the ITU? Has OHG? My impression is Qualcomm, CDG, and 3GPP are scrambling. Two months ago they got the message that a UIM had to be a physical device rather than a logical one and got a rush approval from TIA for a UIM (R-UIM). Just one example of a need to catch up with the flow. It appears they are attempting to harmonize quickly after they realized that their course is a bit tougher than originally envisioned and cdma2000 (IS-2000) was not going to be the dominant mode of 3G operation. << Have you just chosen your designations carefully to include the non standard version of WCDMA which DoCoMo claims it will launch a year from now >> Yes, I am. << and exclude 1XRTT which Qualcomm and CDG call the first phase of CDMA 2000 which will be available commercially before the end of this year or early next in Korea, Japan and in the US (Verizon test starting this June) >> 1XRTT was originally called (on the CDG site) a migratory step to 3G. I have not checked to see if they have changed this. Do you consider 1XRTT to be 2.5G or 3G? This is NOT a loaded question. I know that you have researched this closer than any SI contributor I know, and certainly closer than I. I consider 1XRTT to b 2.5G CDMA. I consider TDMA EDGE to be 2.5G but 'T' and the UWCC call it 3G. I happen to follow the ITU definition of 3G which amongst other things relates to very specifically defined spectrum and not technology defined to fit in existing spectrum of countries (like those in the Americas) that have a very parochial vision of digital wireless mobile telephony and which are mired in their obsolete but successful analog AMPs heritage. << Q has already designed both the infrastructure and handset chips for CDMA 2000 - what they call 1XRTT as the first phase of CDMA 2000 and 3XRTT as the second phase in their set of designations a.k.a MC. Is that wrong? >> Correct (not wrong). Unfortunately this is turning out to be a small market. << 1XRTT ... which will be available commercially before the end of this year or early next in Korea, Japan and in the US. Commercially available??? That is stretch. More FUD (FUD was invented in the US by IBM and needs to be practiced skillfully to be effective). I admire skillful practitioners of FUD and abhor amateurs. << Or in this confusing alphabet soup is IS-2000 somehow distinct from CDMA 2000 or MC? >> Evidently IS-2000 is the new and correct name for CDMA 2000 or MC. << is this a somewhat fine definitional or labelling distinction with a European flavour or a substantive technological distinction? >> IMT-2000 is a global specification. It is not European. The last holdout is the US. No thats wrong. The UWCC (very US group) and GSMNA have somewhat gotten on board. Perhaps the FCC will get the message. - Eric -