SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mightylakers who wrote (50771)3/19/2002 9:57:24 AM
From: Eric L  Respond to of 54805
 
Lakers,

re: San Diego Twist

<< OK, I may overstated it a little bit, it's G* first, piss Euros off second. OK, I may also overstate a bit, it's to pull the chain, not to PO. >>

Ahhh ...

... a confession? <g>

<< Whatever, just tell that so called top Exec that blaming things on Q's licensing policy is lame or just stick with the Merlot. <ggg> >>

There ya go again. "Top Execs" don't participate in standards work. Their MSEE/MEEE middle management staff does.

They do drink Merlot as good as the top Execs though.

My recall of our elsewhere dialogue that started even more elsewhere is that you were the one that maintained that Q's licensing policy was the barrier to consideration of Qualcomm's "5 principles" by 3GPP (with impact on consideration of narrowband CDMA as a WAP alternative to GPRS in ETSI, or consideration of cdma2000 by Vodafone) in the 98 era following the Newbury CDMA overlay trials, 3GPPs selection of Wideband DS TDD CDMA as the terrestrial radio access technologies for UTRAN, and preceding the publication of GSM phase 2+ GPRS 'R97' in mid 98.

As I stated earlier my Merlot sipping friends focused conversation on Qualcomm's approach to playing the open standards game, and their personal opinions of same, and their opinions of their respective companies reaction to same, not on IP matters and licensing. Wireless carriers don't have a lot of concern with IP matters, but they do with open committee based standards.

Which leads me to ask the obligatory question we ask infrequent posters here.

Have you read the manual?

Don't worry. If you have, I won't tell Ramsey. <ggg>

<< And I believe if you got chance to talk to DoCoMo's exec as for why they did WCDMA, they will give you pretty convincing reason too. >>

I suppose you would like to tell me that when DoCoMo first demonstrated asynchronous WCDMA in their labs at 2 Mbps in 1992 immediately following WRC-92 which recommended setting aside ample contiguous spectrum in the 2 GHz band for third generation mobile wireless telephony, that they were simply trying to avoid having their prospective vendors pay royalties to that then San Diego wireless powerhouse?

BTW: I totally agree with your earlier comment (as it applies to the radio access method - not necessarily the total platform):

So from what I understand about the wireless technology. CDMA is clearly the superior technology compare to TDMA/GSM from academic point of view.

In case you missed it, I would like to also point out saukriver's excellent succinct expression of why CDMA is superior to other (current) access technologies.

"The overriding superiority of CDMA is the ability to move more voice and data over a finite amount of spectrum "

If you ever get a chance to sip Sake with "DoCoMo's exec" you might ask him why they chose to develop WCDMA for 3rd generation.

I suspect that his answer might be along the lines of what saukriver stated.

Oh ... and don't forget to ask him why they chose asynchronous.

And oh ... don't forget to ask him why they are developing 4th generation using variable spreading factor (VSF) and orthogonal frequency code division multiplexing (OFCDM) technologies to obtain 100Mbps downlinks and 20 Mbps uplinks.

Message 17213645

And while you're at it, please ask him if that is yet another discontinuous innovation we should be on the look out for.

Happy sake sipping,

- Eric@chardonnaywheninthestatesplease.org -