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: arun gera who wrote (6435)	1/23/2001 5:15:30 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197054

Arun, it seems that Andrew Viterbi has been quietly interested in OFDM for a while. I suppose the outcome will be Flarion's technology combined with QUALCOMM technology in the SpinCo business. Flarion says they can treat voice as data, but I don't think they can [while retaining the huge efficiencies they claim]. Andrew Viterbi was insistent that the two don't go together and unless I see something convincing to the contrary, I think I'll stick with that. Engineer, Craig Farrill and others have said that data can tolerate small delays, with packets arriving at odd times then being reassembled in the right order, but can't tolerate errors, so error correction is needed and causes little delays. Voice on the other hand, must go through as it happens and if some doppler muck or warble or data loss gets in the way, then that's just too bad and like the mail, the voice must go through, rain, hail, sleet, snow, or data loss nothwithstanding. I envisage OFDM, at some stage, becoming the data link for subscriber devices and CDMA the voice link and probably integrated into one, little, low power ASIC, with radioOne doing some good tricks to make them more efficient. But, CDMA might be so efficient that although OFDM gives more data per spectrum, it isn't that big a deal. A bit like CDMA is much better than GSM, but because all the other costs, such as marketing, dominate so much, CDMA as the subscriber sees it, isn't much cheaper. The great CDMA capacity advantage should translate into subscriber financial advantage. That isn't the case so far. Mqurice