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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnG who wrote (10538)	4/13/2001 3:12:57 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Did QCOM poll the operators with a long 40x stick?? When will you guys understand that CDMA was the price which had to paid for getting US to the global table. And that Q is basically spray painting its surrounding, in spite of early and present warnings?? As well as the fact that SpinCo really will hit the fan of no return. Ilmarinen.

To: JohnG who wrote (10538)	4/13/2001 4:57:16 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 34857

re: Groupie Stuff. << You are more of a NOK groupie that claims Q ownership >> John, I'm a wireless investor, and I'm not into hyperbole, and I'm not into cheerleading, and I'm not into nonsense. When I participate on this thread, I'm here to talk primarily about those things that affect Nokia and about the technologies that affect the life of 88.5% of the wireless subscribers in the world as opposed to the technology that affects 11.5%. I get plenty of the cdma2000 perspective - much of it excellent - on the "Moderated Qualcomm" thread, and historically the "S&P 500" thread, and prior to that the "Coming of Range Thread". I candidly find it unfortunate that I have to wade through the same material redundantly here, that I read there - but that is what one puts up with in exchange for the freedom of being unmoderated. << you have been found to be not very objective in your defense of NOK's weak points >> ... have I been found that by a panel of cdma EXPERT groupies? Sorry about that old buddy. but I am as objective as I am capable of being. Too be sure I don't hew to the QCOM/CDG party line. Sorry I don't buy the evil empire, GSM cabal, eoroserf, 1xX vaporware is good and WCDMA vaporware is bad, horse manure that is liberally spread around here by cdma Moonies, some of whom one would be hard pressed to call "objective". << one of the select few that PUCK didn't kick off his thread from day one >> Just goes to prove Puck doesn't always exercise good judgment ... just sometimes .. but not always. << GSM has poor fidelity compared to CDMA 96A >> Well, you sure got sucked in on that one also. A carryover from early QUALCOMM hype I guess. How much time do you spend on a GSM mobile? What vintage and what vocoder? I have owned 4 cdma mobiles since I turned in my 5 year old fixed AMPS car phone in April 97. The 2 latest are certainly an improvement over my original QCP800 I consider the audio quality to be very good on the most recent models ... most of the time anyway ... although I do get some pretty exaggerated channel pollution characteristic of CDMA occasionally, and sometimes experience what is known as "site breathing", and of course some occasional breaks. I use CDMA about 10 times as much as I use GSM but it is always a pleasure to use my 3+ year old Bosch worldphone which I'm told uses a 13 kilobit EFR CODEC and audio quality is consistently excellent. Side by side with my Kyocera 6035 the CDMA quality seems comparatively muddy. When someone dials my US GSM mobile number (or I forward my landline to it) and they reach me in Cambridge, or Aix, Versailles, Munich, or Hannover, I more often then not here an exclamation of surprise when I tell the caller where I am, because they think they are talking to me on my US landline. This by contrast to CDMA where its noise canceling characteristics can improve or deteriorate quality on the receiving side, so sometimes a positive, sometimes a negative. Mobile audio quality is, in the end, somewhat subjective. Perhaps your experience is different than mine. << If the truth be known, Q polled the operators and found that thy would give up some call quantity for n improvement in call quality. GSM has poor fidelity compared to CDMA 96A. This explains some of the capacity reduction. >> Are you talking back in the late 1996 era when cdma was being commercialized here in the States? They sure as heck needed to improve call quality which was their main CLAIM to fame back then since they didn't do data, and other than battery life they didn't offer much other benefit to the end user back then, although they did have a legitimate and large capacity advantage over any other technology, and there was no reason to continue to exaggerate comparative efficiency, which is where some of their credibility problem originated. As for cdma quality ... the original 8 kilobit CDMA CODEC was TRULY atrocious. That is why the carriers asked for some quality as a tradeoff to capacity. Right now the real purpose of the current EVRC codec is to stuff more calls into existing bandwidth and NOT to improve audio quality, but overall quality is pretty darned good. One of these years we'll get a chance to compare the new CDMA SMV to the current GSM AMR. Not this year though. - Eric -