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 (17288)	12/12/2001 12:41:19 PM
From: Kayaker	Respond to of 197208

As much as IP license and royalty payments is concerned, the larger issue is strategic control of the architecture of the overall platform and the competitive advantage that accrues from same. Qualcomm wanted it (as they should) and Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Siemens, et al, did not want them to have it. That I believe. It would seem more rational to me if the quality of the technology (WCDMA) and the timetable were closer to that of CDMA2000. I get the feeling that they'd stick with the current plan even if delayed until 2010. I suppose like many, I get POed at the endless BS and propaganda. 'Anything but Qualcomm' seems to be the bottom line for them. Consumers will be the ones to suffer the most. Anyhow, I know this has been beaten to death, so thank you for your response and the links to other posts.

To: Eric L who wrote (17288)	12/13/2001 8:28:41 AM
From: techreports	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197208

Bottom line ... the carriers you refer to ... European, Chinese, Japanese, American (whatever) are dedicated to open comittee-based standards not proprietary open standards and in addition their functional requirements differed significantly from the single converged standard (based on the 5 principles) that Qualcomm promoted. The carriers concern is significantly less centered on IP matters than they are on equipment interoperability (vendor to vendor and network to network), compatibility with elements of their existing network, and extensions of voice and data roaming. Eric, while the carriers may not have that much of a problem with QCOM IP, the handset players and infrastructure people do. They don't want Qualcomm to have control of the architecture. I'll be interesting to see how this plays out. From the looks of it, it seems as though Nokia is taking a page out of Microsoft's play book. Promise next year's technology today. Microsoft started talking about Windoz 7 years before it was released. Eric, maybe you can answer this question for me. Sprint says they have all the spectrum they need. 1x will work in their current spectrum, right? Then why did Verison buy so much spectrum if they will use 1x and DO? Also, does WCDMA require more spectrum? Could that be why Verizon is shelling out so much cash? ragingbull.lycos.com But there was a problem: Verizon, the biggest American mobile company, wanted two of the three blocks. To secure them, it bid the price up to $4.1 billion. Esrey says: "If [Verizon] had settled for one, it could have had it for $800m and dropped out and stopped the auction. So it paid $3.3 billion for the second block in New York City." To put that in perspective, Sprint has spent a total of $3.4 billion on licences in its history - and yet it believes it has enough frequency for the next 10 years.

To: Eric L who wrote (17288)	12/14/2001 5:34:44 PM
From: propitious7	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197208

Help on wCDMA Report Card Colleagues Eric and others have been spinning a fine thread concerning the reasons Euro and GSM carriers have resisted CDMA in the Q flavors and in Eric's Post #16779770 he acknowledges specific technical points made by IJ on comparison of cdma@000 vs. wCDMA concluding"That was a fine explanation from Dr. Jacobs.....Other captains of industry have divergent opinions on that.. . . . I listen to his. I listen to theirs." Who can help me understand the rebuttal of IJ's points; in general, who can help fill in a report card on wCDMA. A lot of smart people are working on it and a lot of carriers are committing capital, market position and reputation to build wCDMA so what are the respects in which it is -- or will be when evolved -- be superior to cdma2000?? Can we grade wCDMA on the following: 1,. Data rate -- Will wCDMA meet or beat the 2.4mbps for do? 2. Capacity increase -- Will wCDMA permit a 2x or greater voice capacity increase? Does wCDMA have capacity enhancements comarable to the promise bruited by IJ to 2x capacity again with dual antennas and other H.Potter magic? 3. Throughput Cost -- Q cost projects data throughput cost per 1M bits at two cents for do and seven cents for wCDMA; Is this eyewash? What's the counter-position. I never read about throughput/cost in wCDMA materials 4. Power Usage -- We read about great computation demands on w and much higher power usage? So? or NO. 5. Drop Rate -- We read about handoff problmes with wCDMA; is this just normal evolution of a new system or is there a congenital problem with synchronous operation? 6. Propagation -- IJ and others have said that dynamic range problems with synchronous can be overcome but only by increasing base stations; I have read three times more per area of service. Is this true, false or just temporary? 6. Radiation -- We read that the Chinese are claiming lower radiation emissions for cdma? Is this a corollary of power usage? Will radiation be higher or lower than cdma2000? 7. Bandwidth Requirement -- Eric writes that minimum for cdma2000 is 2.5mhz (Why is that, Eric, I thought it was 1.25mhz; is it that two bands are minimum?) and 10mhz for wCDMA ( I thought it was 5mhz -- again why double). Of course, to get comparable performance you have to compare 10mhz to 10mhz; but is there an advantage to using wider band or to using narrower band apart from obvious advantage that wider bandwidth may not be available until new spectrum is allocated for mobile use. 8. Async vs. Sync -- Is there some performance advantage to asynchronous service apart from not having to depend on U.S. provided GPS for time signal? When wCDMA service is normalized and optimized will there be advantages to async service? Should we assume that if EC does build a Euro GPS, then wCDMA service will be converted to sync timed to EuroGPS? 9. do for wCDMA. The advantages of data only service, segregating voice and data, seem so obvious why is this not adapted to wCDMA to provide flexibility and upgrade data rate? Any answers or steers to sources for study on the Comparative Advantages of wCDMA will be appreciated. propitious