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: Maurice Winn who wrote (7510)	2/19/2001 10:26:52 PM
From: Ken S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197139

Maurice Can you help me with the basis of the following statement. I'm confused about the turbo-coding comment and the comment that WCDMA is not synchronized. "To choose between cdma2000 and W-CDMA we really only need to know that cdma2000 is synchronized and has turbo coding and can hum along in 1.25MHz or 5MHz at a nice slow chip rate, whereas W-CDMA is thrashing around unsynchronized, burning silicon at high chip rates and using a weird, convoluted, concatenated coding instead of the swanky and fast Turbo coding of cdma2000" Questions: 1. I thought all CDMA was synchronized? 2. Where is the difference in "turbo-coding" an issue? After all QCOM has W-CDMA chips, and would use "turbo-coding" on both designs. I thought the primary advantage of cdma2000 derives from using a dedicated HDR channel to increase data rates that is not included in the W-CDMA design and thus limited in data rates. Also, HDR separates the latency of voice from data, and thus the data rates improve and can be sent in bursts. Thus, separation is not included in the WCDMA design and data is transferred in by a CDMA channel vs a HDR channel. Thanks, Ken