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: Eric L who wrote (17005)	12/2/2001 12:14:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197204

If you would like to perpetuate the myth that so far as 3GPP is concerned there is no valid reason other than a Q IP workaround for utilizing 5 MHz carrier, asynchronous as well as synchronous mode of operation, AMR, authentication with SIM, etc, etc., feel free to do so. C'mon. I know you are a long-time observer of wireless issues, long in tooth, etc. Nevertheless, I've been around long enough to have noticed ETSI's refusal to allow CDMAOne into Europe, Nokia's stance that it's CDMAOne license was sufficient for 3G, and ERICY's fighting stance and ultimate capitulation. I remember reading all the laughable garbage about how UMTS would avoid Q's patents. Even an unbiased observer would infer that there was planning and concerted action. An unbiased observer would be compelled to ask: Why? The only reasonable answer would be the friction over open standards on the part of those who did not have IPR and proprietary ones on the part of those who did. If excluding QCOM was not a planned, concerted effort, then I'm the Tooth Fairy.

To: Eric L who wrote (17005)	12/2/2001 12:47:52 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 197204

And the exclusion of US technologies is still not over. Wonder about WTO issues? Does GE/Honeywell ring a bell? It's a lot bigger than simply Q's IPR. From RB: By: pixilated $$$ Reply To: None Sunday, 2 Dec 2001 at 12:05 PM EST Post # of 100045 ETSI in US versus European packet standard battle "so we have decided to establish the standards and then throw them over the wall to ETSI." By Nolan Fell Electronics Times (05/11/01 09:55 AM GMT) Cable operators and equipment manufacturers are squaring up for a battle with European telecoms standards body ETSI over packet data on networks. They have set up the EuroPacket-Cable Forum because of frustration at ETSI's insistence on a European packet standard, when a US standard already exists. They see the lack of an agreement as hampering the roll-out of broadband services and Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP). According to Andy Mullan, a consultant for ADC Telecommunications and the Forum's vice-chairman of marketing, the dispute with ETSI mirrors an earlier one over cable modem standards. "ETSI resisted the adoption of [the] Docsis [modem standard] in Europe for three and a half years as it was a US standard," he said. "ETSI favoured the European DVB standard despite it being technically unproven. "With IP cable communications there is the same fight. Europe has a so-called solution, but we want the US standard because it works. We have had to dedicate too many resources to fighting these battles, so we have decided to establish the standards and then throw them over the wall to ETSI." The Forum's founding members are ADC, Broadcom, Callahan Associates, Cisco Systems, Ericsson Telecom, European Technology Services, Pace Micro Technology and Thomson Multimedia.

To: Eric L who wrote (17005)	12/3/2001 11:48:34 AM
From: Kayaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197204

If you would like to perpetuate the myth that so far as 3GPP is concerned there is no valid reason other than a Q IP workaround for utilizing 5 MHz carrier, asynchronous as well as synchronous mode of operation, AMR, authentication with SIM, etc, etc., feel free to do so. Given what Dr. IJ said (below) at the recent analyst presentation in response to the question "Why is WCDMA lower in capacity?", combined with the 2-3 year delay of WCDMA (vs CDMA2000) it's hard for me to see how WCDMA is anything other than a (failed) attempt to avoid Q IP. IJ: With respect to the differences in performance; when the standards groups were getting together and trying to design WCDMA, there were several factors driving them. One of those was to try to make it different from what we were already doing with CDMA. So for example, going asynchronous rather than synchronous. That means it takes a little bit longer to do a time search, to do a handoff, and that actually has a little bit of a quality and capacity implication to it. The kind of vocoding that was introduced was a little bit different, not the full variable rate that we make use of, and so that has a little bit of an implication. The number of codes that they have available, Walsh [?] code capability that they have available limits the number of calls that can be up. When you go to a wider bandwidth, which by the was we also thought for quite a time you needed to efficiently to handle high speed data, until we came through with the breakthroughs we put into 1x, and EV, DO and therefore gave high speed data efficiently in the smaller bandwidth. Until then, we thought we would have to go to the wider bandwidth to handle data, but it wasn't really optimal for voice in the sense that voice is a narrow band process. When you go to wider bandwidths, and I'll get slightly technical here, what happens is that the multipaths [?], the fact that radio waves bounce off many different objects, you end up, because of the higher bandwidth, that each one of these multipaths has kind of a shorter time period to it, one over the bandwidth [?] in a sense, so you end up with 4x as many of these reflected signals that you then have to build little receivers to receive. But each one has less energy in it, so it's harder to receive. Well, the kind of equipment that's being built, if you put more of these receivers there's more expense. Currently they're getting by with a smaller number and that has a performance impact. Power control is done a little bit differently again, probably either to try to avoid some patents, or to include somebody else's patents. Again not quite done, although not well specified, but not necessarily done quite as well. So there's a whole variety of things here and there that as we carefully try to analyze, and also absorb the data that has been published, and that we do ourselves, because of course we're working very actively on WCDMA, that's where we're coming up with this shortfall in performance in WCDMA vs 1x. 1x has had the advantage of starting with 95A & B and we've learned a lot. We found that we were very conservative with some of our estimates. We found that we were able to, for example on the link from the phone back to the base station, it was a little more stable than we originally assumed, we were able to put a little bit more pilot [?] energy which improves the performance. So the whole set of these things that we were able to build in that I think will be able to take another cycle on WCDMA. So over time it will improve, but if you look at what is currently being launched -- late, based on everything we now know, the waterfall chart shows that the performance is just not up to that of the equivalent 1x carriers. Over time it will improve, over time 1x will improve.

To: Eric L who wrote (17005)	12/11/2001 10:05:47 PM
From: Kayaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197204

If you would like to perpetuate the myth that so far as 3GPP is concerned there is no valid reason other than a Q IP workaround for utilizing 5 MHz carrier, asynchronous as well as synchronous mode of operation, AMR, authentication with SIM, etc, etc., feel free to do so. Eric, I haven't heard back from you (#reply-16737675) so I thought I'd ask again.... At the recent analysts' meeting, Dr. IJ gave a detailed response (#reply-16692685) to questions regarding the 3-5 year delay of WCDMA vs CDMA2000 and numerous reasons why WCDMA will be lower in capacity as compared to CDMA2000 (note that he addressed both the 5 Mhz, and asynchronous vs synchronous issues). Given that these delays and capacity constraints will cost the European carriers multi billions of dollars, how do you explain their decision to reject CDMA2000 as anything other than an attempt to avoid Qualcomm IPR?