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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DaveMG who wrote (603)	7/10/2000 4:38:20 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197519

Anyway, I'm not suggesting in any sense that IJ lacks integrity so no lynching please, just that I think he really has lost the standards game and one therefore has the right to question his judgement. Well, you ARE suggesting IJ lacks integrity if you believe what you write. If what you say is true, IJ's Bloomberg interview, for instance, is a pack of lies. How has IJ lost the standards game? Hasn't he gone from a "it won't work/it defies the laws of physics" standard to one that will be the foundation of nearly ALL wireless going forward? Is that a sign of poor judgment? I suggest you see how this plays out before re-enacting the IJ bashing of years previous. I have never been disappointed with QCOM's management. I see no reason to think they gave it all up after winning the world. WCDMA is clearly wiping the floor with CDMA2000. At this point it is reasonable to question whether there will ever be any CDMA2000 networks built in the new spectrum. Is this a circumstance IJ expected to be in? I doubt it very much. Of course he is putting the best face on things. Slamming management again I see. "Wiping the floor" is an interesting comment. I see cdma2000 going in USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Japan, China, Korea, and NZ this year and next. I see some detuned WCDMA in Japan in 2001 sometime maybe. CDMA2000 will have one large ass by the time WCDMA is able to muster up a good wipe. Will there be a need for buildouts in new spectrum? Who says that if you build it, they will come? Why is there an auction for new spectrum in the first place? Because GSM is so pitiful in its efficiency, they can't stretch what they have any further. Can the same be said of current CDMA buildouts? IJ, a man whose word is gospel in my opinion, seems to believe he has a solution that is applicable to current spectrum ,and a solution that provides for all the bells and whistles called for in the 3G standards. Yes any flavor of CDMA is good for Q but more CDMA2000 would be better. Q will have greatly expanded opportunity in a 3G CDMA world, but Q's advantage will be greatly diminished, which would have not been the case had CDMA taken the game. Once again, a statement that directly contradicts what has been uttered by IJ. As you all know Q has not participated in any of the WCDMA "tests". As Gus is suggesting, Q will have to trade royalties for the right to play the WCDMA chipset game, and perhaps have to trade royalties in exchange for a partnership. Ahhhh--now I see the source of your idiocy. Gus Gus he's our man.

To: DaveMG who wrote (603)	7/10/2000 5:58:54 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 197519

DaveMG: I was with reading to learn up until the point you quoted Gus. Just kidding of course. You and I have tilted at a few windmills, and as I say, you have my respect generally, but come on: "WCDMA is clearly wiping the floor with CDMA2000." WCDMA simply does not exist in the real world. There is no repeat no WCDMA in operation commercially anywhere, so it is hardly "wiping the floor" (except as a janitor might perhaps). Perception is reality in politics. Is it in technology too? Seems so. I just think the real world matters. And in the real world there is no WCDMA. Note: The "WCDMA" in Korea is "backward compatible" with CDMAOne. Is that the European WCDMA? Seems a bit different from the UMTS being "tested" which uses vans to carry "terminals". And on standards, Dr J won. Its CDMA period for 3rd gen. If that is losing, then that's the kind of losing I admire. Best. Chaz

To: DaveMG who wrote (603)	7/11/2000 4:06:32 AM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 197519

And please don't feed me any of this WCDMA is vaporware crap. You guys can't still really believe that can you? It may have started that way but things are different now. I am curious to know on what facts, including sources, you base this statement on. In November 1999 QCOM demonstrated HDR in live conditions in front of real people and it worked (one source: George Gilder, whom I trust). I have not seen anything like this regarding W-CDMA. If you have, please respond with same. Also, can anyone say with specificity just how W-CDMA differs from CDMA2000, or from 1X/HDR for that matter, other than 1) it is designed to work in wider spectrum and 2) has some fit backwards compatibility with GSM (maybe?

To: DaveMG who wrote (603)	7/11/2000 10:22:14 AM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197519

An excerpt from Dr. Viterbi--read carefully: I believe the challenge in wireless service provision is to understand the nature of the traffic and the technological capabilities and tradeoffs available. There are currently two important misconceptions in the industry: A) that with digital voice, the co-existence of telephony and data services in the same spectrum are a natural consequence; B) that wider is better in the sense that efficiency grows significantly with increased bandwidth. The co-existence fallacy is in not recognizing that all bits are not created equal. Voice bits must be delivered with a common quality of service and with minimum latency for all users, no matter where they are located (near or far from a base station, in a shadowed or in a clear location). This requires allocation of disproportional resources for disadvantaged users, both in the base station and in the portable handset. With data, on the other hand, variable latencies, requirements and resources are the norm. Being able to offer variable levels of service by advanced network measurement and allocation techniques, without overly penalizing the weakest users, we can provide overall data throughputs which are more than triple the total throughput for voice. But co-mingling the voice and data service prevents us from employing such techniques and thus from achieving such improvement multiples. The second belief, that increased bandwidth makes for increased efficiency, is also overestimated. The current standard bandwidth occupancy for CDMA telephony (IS-95) is about 1.5MHz, based on a 9.6 Kbit/sec voice bit rate and a spreading factor of 128, with a resulting coded clock rate of 1.2288 MHz. The proposed "Third Generation" clock rates are either three times this number, 3.6864MHz, or alternatively 3.84MHz, both of which fit in a 5MHz allocation. We refer to this as tripling the bandwidth. The only advantage in efficiency can be that which is due to increased trunking efficiency of a larger accessing population. This may account for 5% to 10% more than the tripling afforded naturally by the bandwidth expansion. This small advantage may be more than offset by the loss in flexibility when having to allocate bandwidth in 5MHz rather than 1.5MHz segments. Furthermore, if this wider bandwidth is shared between voice and higher speed data, even this small advantage is illusory. Data service, as just noted, will require a variety of data rates depending on the user's needs, location and resources, so trunking efficiency for such a diverse population is hardly a meaningful measure, especially if, as noted, throughput can be tripled through alternate service assignment protocols. Which leads us finally to consideration of the means for enhancing throughput of data-only services. We need to recognize, first of all, that the most demanding service application is Web browsing and downloading data from the Internet. Thus the heavily loaded direction is the forward one, to the user terminal from the base station. The reverse direction, from the user to the base station, consists primarily of point-and-click commands. But even the uploading of long files, such as images or long reports, will be far less sensitive to latency than for downloading data to the user. Thus the need for the much higher throughput is not as significant for the reverse direction. In this scenario, by judicious management of latency, resources and requirements, along with some technological improvement, forward throughput can be increased by a factor of three to four times, resulting in average throughput in excess of 600 Kbits/sec and peak data rates of 2.4 Mbits/sec, all within the current CDMA bandwidth. An obvious question then is why triple the bandwidth if we can more than triple the downloading throughput in the current bandwidth allocation?