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: Ramsey Su who wrote (10923)	5/27/2000 8:37:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey - fantastic post ! It was so good that I will try to restrain myself from putting stupid stuff on your thread for a while (this post is exempt). Jon.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (10923)	5/27/2000 10:03:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 13582

< Oh, and tell everyone with a gsm handset to buy a new wcdma handset. Migration? What a joke.> and also GPRS. See why NOK is pushing it:) Ruff

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (10923)	5/28/2000 1:08:00 AM
From: waverider	Respond to of 13582

Wow! Who wrote that? Sounds like engineer is passing along some nifty tid bits. <H>

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (10923)	5/28/2000 2:01:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 13582

Another item on that article you criticized [with a little help]. It said: <...You might also note from the article below that this is accomplished with a 5 to 10% loss of sprectrum efficiency over WCDMA. The efficiency tradeoff is necessary to achieve backward compatibility with CDMAone.> If taking the trouble to actually read the article 'below', we see that the 5 to 10% loss of spectrum efficiency happens "in certain conditionse". For example, say you are driving at 300 kph in a suburban street, then you lose 5% or maybe 10% spectrum efficiency. The article did NOT say what those special circumstances were nor whether they actually ever occur in reality, nor whether that saving in spectrum in those special circumstances is offset by some other deleterious effect in common circumstances. Here it is: <...The multicarrier approach has been proposed since it might provide easier an overlay with the existing IS-95 systems. This is because without multipath it retains orthogonality with existing IS-95 carriers. However, in certain conditions the spectrum efficiency of multicarrier is 5 to 10 percent worse than direct spread since it can resolve a smaller number of multipath components [51]. > The answer of course, in the absence of any theoretical basis being stated for the claim of special circumstance increased efficiency, is to check out the trial sites. Ooops, the trial sites do NOT demonstrate such savings - or if they do, they sure haven't told anyone who has noticed it and commented on it to the extent that the hawkeyes here have noticed. Which leaves us yet again with ZERO advantage for W-CDMA over MC-CDMA as far as subscribers are concerned and plenty of disadvantages. How come the alleged advantages of W-CDMA are so elusive yet the disadvantages are conspicuous, starting with expensive IPR by a bunch of greedy bells and whistles providers? Mqurice

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (10923)	5/28/2000 2:04:00 PM
From: D. Newberry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Hi Ramsey Su, "WCDMA was designed to allow handover between CDMA and legacy GSM systems" That was pasted directly from the article, and it needs to be read in the context of the rest of the discussion that goes with it (note the URL). If you go back and reread that section I think you will find we are in agreement. "Keep in mind that a nominal 5MHZ band is required to provide 144K/384Kbps transmission. " For full 3G capability this is true. I wasn't discussing 1X so your points, while true, are not germane to the point I was making. "You might also note from the article below that this is accomplished with a 5 to 10% loss of spectrum efficiency over WCDMA. " Again, I wasn't referring to HDR. Your comments as such are true, but not relevant to the above statement. The above statement was pasted from the article and presented as such. The article's author has their opinion, you have yours. In the end it really doesn't matter. CDMA2000 will be deployed in CDMAone networks because the protocol was designed for that purpose. The fact that we have design tradeoffs in a very complex technology is to be expected, and is not detrimental to the design. Please don't take it as such. Before we go further on this, let's make it real clear that I am firmly in the Qs corner here. CDMA is going to be the center of 3G deployments and the Q is going to profit a great deal from these developments. My original point to all this is that WCDMA and CDMA2000 protocols were each developed to address a particular set of design goals. As such, each will be deployed in various capacities to address the needs of individual carriers. In the end, CDMA will be everywhere and the Q (and all of us, the currently suffering investors) will profit by this. Regards, DN