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.

Pastimes : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10554)	2/21/2001 3:51:08 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Raymond, Perhaps you are right. QCOM is in big trouble then. I still disagree. RE: The China Syndrome..... I chose to address what I see as the root of the issue..... China might well be playing games to gain an upper hand in all negotiations.... there may well be a ton of political issues at or near the surface affecting decisions...... at the end of the day, capacity issues cannot be ignored..... WCDMA will likely not be ready in time to address China's looming capacity problems IMO...... GSM (a TDMA variant), GPRS or EDGE cannot resolve the capacity issues in China or anywhere. CDMA2000 1x & 1x EV can & will. Also, as noted previously, the GSM cabal has thwarted China from manufacturing any significant portion of their GSM network & as far as I know China does not compete in GSM manufacturing for export due to the excessive IPR charged. Bottom line.... China wants a top flight wireless voice/data solution that is cost efficient. China wants to play a large part of the manufacturing the infrastructure & handsets internally & for export. Unless the GSM cabal can assure China that WCDMA will be built out & fully functional before their inefficient GSM systems are capacity constrained, which I doubt, plus they must make it possible for China to be a significant, competitive manufacturer, which I also doubt, then China will have only one other option at this time. I think China will have much choice but to implement a nationwide CDMA system. BTW, it does not mean that the GSM system will be shut down though. IMVHO, it all come down to costs, capacity, jobs & a certain amount of control in China..... all the rest is wrangling for final royalty rates, better positioning for China, etc. I don't see the GSM cabal meeting or exceeding what QCOM can offer China in all of these critical aspects. RE: The interview with the Erickson VP..... <<This is because at the end of the day, no matter which technology you use in the second generation, they're more or less equivalent. >> <<To a certain extent, that could be true, but then when you get a fully loaded network, the TDMA has the same capacity as the CDMA network.>> FWIW, 2G is at the end of it's road. I still believe that CDMA outperforms any other 2G system but it isn't worth the time to argue over. The world is moving beyond 2G. However, I firmly believe that the differences are not as great as what will be seen with 2.5G & 3G CDMA though.... so this ERICY VP may almost have a point, but so what? The world is moving from 2G to 2.5.... and beyond...... that's where CDMA delivers in a big way. All he managed to do was obfuscate irrelevant issues & completely avoid discussing the relevant ones in an attempt to cloud the genuine advantages of QCOM's 2.5G & 3G over GPRS, EDGE & WCDMA. Throw a quarter at ERICY, NOK & the GSM cabal & you will generate long lines of folks who will be willing to spin a negative tune for QCOM & CDMA. I have no doubt there is a lot of truths in what he said (perhaps a few half truths & some serious spin too). I doubt that TDMA could perform as he suggested in the real world. IMO, TDMA has been tweaked & upgraded about as far as it can theoretically go. There is no 2.5G based TDMA. CDMA is far from being tweaked & upgraded to it's theoretical limits. I'll ask you one question..... Why did the standards bodies settle on CDMA as the basis for 3G? Even the GSM cabal could not come up with a competitive system that delivers like 3G CDMA to win in the standards competition for 3G. The world choose CDMA over ALL existing & proposed standards for 3G. What does that tell you? And before you go off into any IPR discussion..... QCOM's patents continue to be upheld worldwide, in court, even for 3G. QCOM owns essential IPR for any variant of CDMA..... at this point in time. The GSM cabal wants to maintain the IPR gravy train they have held on GSM. They want to retain their lucrative & royalty laden infrastructure & handset capabilities in house too. IMO, WCDMA was their attempt to thwart QCOM & continue charging charge excessive royalties for their system. They may get WCDMA to work & they may get to add IPR charges to WCDMA, but they will also pay QCOM IMVHO. IMVHO, when the dust settles, the world is headed to 3G CDMA in various flavors. Me thinks QCOM will develop & deliver leading edge solutions for infrastructure & handsets for their versions of 3G. They will also deliver leading edge solutions for the other flavors of 3G CDMA as well..... and the other flavors of 3G CDMA will need to incorporate essential IPR from QCOM to make it work. IMO, QCOM's CDMA is cheaper..... better..... faster..... AND it is here AND it works now. Perhaps I have on rosy spectacles. It is getting harder & harder to sift out the BS from reality from ANALysts & company officials with an axe to grind or an agenda. I placed my belief in a company that has consistently delivered time & time again. I own a CDMA phone & my sister uses AT&T's best, which I have also used from time to time. She gets dropped calls almost as often as she gets a signal too poor to even be capable of placing a call, which is frequently. Her phone has serious trouble inside a home or any building. She gets dropped calls most frequently when driving. My CDMA phone rarely drops a call & there are few areas with a signal too weak to place a call. The quality of the CDMA phone is remarkable..... most folks have no idea I am on a cell phone. I always know when my sister is calling from her cell phone due to the static, garbled transmissions and invariably dropped call. I regularly discuss quality/cost issues with friends & family..... pretty much the same results as I have personally observed. Bottom line..... 2G CDMA clearly is superior in my neck of the woods..... no if's and's or but's about it. Perhaps my neck of the woods is anomaly. Perhaps I have inappropriately concluded in regards to QCOM & their CDMA technology. Perhaps not. Ö¿Ö

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10554)	2/21/2001 4:08:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 13572

FWIW...... siliconinvestor.com Ö¿Ö

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (10554)	2/21/2001 10:28:38 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13572

Hi Ray.... That is one interesting interview. I actually agree with the central point that applications are what will drive subscriber growth. However, there are more than a couple of points that are blatantly false. Pinkham: This goes back to the kinds of games that technology people can play. To a certain extent, that could be true, but then when you get a fully loaded network, the TDMA has the same capacity as the CDMA network. I think that even Qualcomm detractors usually concede the point that CDMA provides about 1.5-2x the capacity of either GSM or TDMA operators. Of course, they believe that Qualcomm renege on their promise of 10x but that is another story. I really dont think you could find an engineer who believes they have the SAME capacity. Even, GSM and TDMA dont have the same capacity....GSM is a little bit higher. TDMA takes a different approach. They have what's called pico cells or hierarchical cell structures. You can have pico cells, regular cells or macrocells, so it's an umbrella kind of effect. With CDMA you just segment the cells and make smaller and smaller cells. He actually is emphasizing one of CDMA's strengths. Network planning for a CDMA operator is much simpler than for a TDMA/GSM operator. A CDMA operator doesnt have to worry about frequency reuse and cell planning. Again, this isnt really disputed by anybody I have read. Slacker