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: slacker711 who wrote (10574)	2/21/2001 12:35:34 PM
From: DOUG H	Respond to of 13572

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. Interesting all this talk about CDMA/GSM. As I've been reading the thread I've been having this on again, off again, conversation with a lady bopping around LA on her cell phone. After the 3rd dropped call, she called back and says, ##@$$@# ATT, I'm cancelling them, let me call you back when I get to my office" Woe to the operator who thinks scalable capactity is not an issue.

To: slacker711 who wrote (10574)	2/21/2001 2:12:41 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13572

Hi slacker, Since I have only limited expertise in wireless communications, I must defer to your better informed perspective. That said, I'm wondering about your thoughts on how the future development of 2.5G and 3G systems will shake out in view of the fact that GSM systems seem to have a clear evolutionary path through EDGE, GPRS and UMTS (if I understand this correctly) and that each of these steps is incremental to existing service providers. While on the other hand, to abruptly shift to the Q-CDMA migration path means that most of the service providers on the planet would be required to throw out their existing plant, and start all over again. That seems to me to be a high hurdle that Q faces. I know the bean counters at the SPs are loathe to spend any money that would ruin the depreciation schedules on existing infrastructure, and rightly so. I'd be interested in your views. Best, Ray :)