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: Clarksterh who wrote (14050)	8/18/2001 1:28:29 AM
From: mightylakers	Respond to of 197244

Clark, the best tech paper about HDR might well be the standard itself. After reading through it you would see just how simple it is compare to the other CDMA, which means a more robust and less expensive system. As for WCDMA, if you don't worry about the detail of the standard such as callP and message flows, then the original proposal by ETSI and ARIB should pretty much tell the essential part of the WCDMA. If you just want to see the physical layer then TS 25 series have all the boring stuffs.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (14050)	8/18/2001 9:49:07 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197244

Clark, << I did try to wade through the WCDMA spec but at several thousand pages it would have been at least a two week project to find the important pieces >> ... pretty tedious. "WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for Third Generation Mobile Communications, Revised Edition" by Harri Holma and Antti Toskala does a pretty good job of whittling down the standard to 300 pages. The revised edition is up to date for 'R99' through the December 2000 version. $85 at Amazon. I lucked out and picked up an overstock at $55 from a used bookseller off the Amazon site. I have not seen any whitepapers that really do anything in sufficient detail to examine WCDMA, which with its multitude of options gets pretty complex. This is a pretty good (quite) high level of the basic architecture of UMTS however: unet.univie.ac.at Best, - Eric -

To: Clarksterh who wrote (14050)	8/18/2001 4:36:30 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197244

Anyone see any good technical papers on 1XDV ---------- Clark, There are 3 proposals for dv foundation technology presently being cross tested and verified by competing teams... L3NQS (LU, LG Electronics, LSI, NT, QCOM, Samsung) 1xtreme (MOT, TI, Philips, Altera, NOK) LAS-2000 (CWTS [China], LinkAir) also, Tantivity is involved with what will, in all probability, become component proposals or technology merged with another proposal.... ---------- L3NQS Physical Layer Proposal: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0106/TSG-C_0601_Vancouver/WG5/C50-20010611-018-1xEV-DV-Evaluation-Methodology-Addendum.doc L3NQS response to the dv Decision Criteria Matrix: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0102/TSG-C/Wg5/C50-20010212-036%20L3QS%20Decision%20Matrix%20Response.PDF ---------- 1xtreme Physical Layer Proposal: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0106/TSG-C_0601_Vancouver/WG5/C50-20010611-008a-MNTIPA%20Joint%201XTREME%20Proposal%20for%201XEV-DV.pdf 1xtreme response to the dv Decision Criteria Matrix: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0102/TSG-C/Wg5/C50-20010212-035%20MNTiP_decision_matrix.PDF ---------- LAS-2000 Physical Layer Proposal: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0106/TSG-C_0601_Vancouver/WG5/C50-20010611-004___CWTS_-_LAS-2000_Physical_Layer_Specification_%28v%200.3.1%29.zip LAS-2000 response to the dv Decision Criteria Matrix: ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0105/WG5/C50-20010507-017%20%20LinkAir%20-%20Response%20to%201xEV-DV%20Criteria%20Matrix%20-%20Rev%200.1.pdf The CWTS and LinkAir appear to submit their LAS-CDMA spreading and coding scheme (which is the heart of their proposal - and in reviewing their responses to the Decision Criteria Matrix, perhaps the only meaningful difference between it and cdma2000) as a component proposal as well - in that they hope, on the contingency that they're not chosen as foundation technology (which appears increasingly likely), to integrate it with the winning foundation technology as a component technology.... ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0102/TSG-C/Wg5/C50-20010215-037%20%20CWTS%20DV%20Components.doc ---------- Here is a dated (3/26/01) comparison by NOK of differences and similarities between primarily what was then L'QS and 1xtreme proposals .... (perhaps bear in mind the ?? credibility of the source <g>)... Around this time the 1xtreme team was hinting at merging proposals with what was then L'QS. The "iFLEX" noted was NT's proposal before merging with what was by that time L3QS to form L3NQS. ftp://ftp.3gpp2.org/TSGC/Working/TSG-C_0103/TSG-C-03_2001/WG5/C50-20010326-005%20Nok%201XEV-DV%20Similarities%20and%20Differences.pdf ---------- clear as mud? <g> ben