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: Eric L who wrote (25454)	5/27/2000 8:56:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

Eric L: Let's hope tekboy is happy that we are now in full "discussion" - not so sure anyone else here is. :-) Hey, at least we are zeroing in on the facts. Glad you do not see 1XRTT (1xMC) as vaporware, since that (without HDR at the beginning) will be available this year for infrastructure build out in China. Whether it happens, who knows? To me HDR is much less of a "no brainer", that will be slower to be installed but I see it first in Korea, then Japan, then on PCS in the US. After that, seems like it will be a matter of evaluating the market and HDR's success where it is in use. No timetable that I see thereafter. So we are probably in general agreement on what is likely except in China itself. The good news is that a year from now all this will be much clearer. For China, the bottom line is that GSM as such is a dead end. To obtain the capacity and data rates required, the GPRS upgrade is good for a couple of years, but then WCDMA or some variant of CDMA will begin as islands within GSMland. The beauty of the CDMA upgrade path is that it is relatively clear and smooth. For GSM after GPRS, the situation is less clear and the only next way to handle 3rd gen is some form of CDMA. So whichever path is taken, some form of CDMA is where the end game is (for 3rd gen at least) and therefore Qualcomm makes money. How much and how soon are the questions - not whether. Best as always. Cha2

To: Eric L who wrote (25454)	5/27/2000 9:19:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric L: Since we are into all this stuff now, here is another post which I would appreciate your comments on: Discusses the discontinuity between GSM and 3rd gen WCDMA. SI: StockTalk: Communications: The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company To: D. Newberry who wrote (10914) From: Ramsey Su Saturday, May 27, 2000 8:30 PM ET Reply # of 10926 D. Newberry, engineer is out of the country and Clark's where abouts are unknown. I am a non-tech but I want to go on record that your post may be in error. "WCDMA uses a contiguous 5MHZ frequency band. This is an efficient way to achieve the 144K/384K data rates. " first sentence true, second not. "WCDMA was designed to allow handover between CDMA and legacy GSM systems" If you mean the gsm ground network, sure. It also is compatible with the ansi41 ground network used here and elsewhere per the ericsson and operaters harmonization agreements, as well as Q's IPR offer to the ITU. If you are somehow talking about the GSM air interface - NOT - GET THIS STRAIGHT - there is no "migration" from the gsm air interface (the radio's that comprise the base stations and the handsets). Here's the migration - RIP IT OUT AND REPLACE IT. Oh, and tell everyone with a gsm handset to buy a new wcdma handset. Migration? What a joke. "Keep in mind that a nominal 5MHZ band is required to provide 144K/384Kbps transmission. " NO, WRONG. cdma20001X-MC accomplishes this same date rate in a 1.25 Mhz channel, which is the standard channel width in IS-95A,B systems. With HDR, which is not a significant upgrade either equipment or expense wise, this can be increased to a max rate of 2.4Meg per sec. "You might also note from the article below that this is accomplished with a 5 to 10% loss of sprectrum efficiency over WCDMA. " - well, the article may claim that, but it has yet to be shown in the real world, where loading, handoff, geographies and lots of other things are real real important to actual results. Plus, when IJ says "we think optimizing a 1.25 Mhz channel for data (HDR) makes a lot more sense than trying to combine both, given the different latency and other requirements of voice vs. data, I will believe IJ every time. I had help with the above so blame ME if it is wrong. Ramsey