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 (33275)	3/9/2003 5:41:55 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196699

I have a few questions which I hope you and others can answer to help me understand better the issues around CDMA/GSM handoffs. 1) First the simplest question: Do vendors offer handoffs from and/or to analog from any of CDMA, GSM, TDMA, or IDEN? That is, if I'm in my car driving down the highway and using my cellphone on any of the 4 digital techs listed, and run out of coverage, and there is analog coverage by that same vendor for that area, will my call be handed off to analog and I not know the difference except maybe for a beep or something the carrier has built in to warn me I'm roaming? 2) If this is being offered today, and I thought it was, then it seems to me that taking this handoff capability between one of the digital standards and analog up a notch to work between two different vendors is mostly political, and billing. Since roaming between carriers is in production, the billing problems have been solved if the whole call takes place on one network, and it seems to me doable to track the half a call that gets done on the non-primary network and treat it as a roaming call for billing. Does anyone offer digital to analog (or vice versa) handoffs across carriers today? If yes to 1 but no to 2, my question is why not? If yes to both 1 & 2, then what is harder about digital to a different digital than going from digital to analog?

To: Eric L who wrote (33275)	3/9/2003 8:07:26 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 196699

>>>> demand for CDMA/GSM phones will be relatively low I think one needs to wait to see what happens with Vodafone, Telefonica and Telstra(? Austrailia) before accepting your statement. >>>>> GAIT standardized gateway I don't know much about GAIT, but I take it from your comments that it also handles multiple network cores ansi/gsm-map, except in the cases of AWS and Cingular the RANs are both circuit switched. That must make it easier than GSM1x. You have convinced me that GSM1x is still very early in it's development. No doubt, it being targeted at the network end of the system will dictate much different challenges than those in RF. And, it may well be that these challenges will be beyond the capabilities of Qualcomm's engineers. Then again, maybe the GSM1x box has been blessed with the knowledge gained by the engineers who pioneered GSM/CDMA overlay with Vodafone back in 98. For those answers, we'll have to wait and see. Trevor ps Your comments would be much easier to digest if they weren't peppered with shots across the bow. Your well versed and have interesting takes on important issues. However you wish to word them, they are always appreciated.

To: Eric L who wrote (33275)	3/9/2003 8:56:49 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196699

Hi Eric, Re: GSM1X and the MSM6300. 1. Regarding GSM1X you mentioned two primary drivers, the first (“an attempt to plug the gap that has widened each and every year since 1999 between GSM market share and CDMA market share”) being apparently your reason “driving” Qualcomm’s development and promotion of the technology. I would imagine that that was not the primary reason Qualcomm developed GSM1X as it is my understanding that precursor to GSM1X (the CDMA GSM overlay) was conceived before 1999. In fact, a Qualcomm press release in February 1998 described the results (and the reasons for the CDMA GSM overlay) - “The enhanced hybrid technology combines the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) air interface with Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) networks, resulting in a cost-effective solution for GSM operators planning to significantly expand the capacity and features of their cellular and Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless systems or for GSM operators planning new networks. The results demonstrate significant economic benefits over other TDMA-based GSM solutions for increasing network capacity.” And, “. In addition to being the most cost-effective network expansion solution, GSM-CDMA also provides a near-term, spectrally efficient evolution to next generation services including high-speed data and mobile/fixed convergence services. Also, being a significant Qualcomm investor, I again wonder why you disparage the company with the cute reference to DW-40, rather than the proper name. 2. Regarding the MSM6300 you state –“ All this is not the end of the world particularly outside China where demand for CDMA/GSM phones will be relatively low.” It is my understanding that Qualcomm intends to price the MSM6300 very competitively and eventually segment the market as Mr. Schrock stated “come down to the lower end chips also to address the markets throughout the world”. It has also been stated on several occasions that Vodafone is “extremely excited about these chipsets”. In that you are an investor in Qualcomm, I would also think that you would be “excited” about the opportunity for Qualcomm to finally enter the GSM market, the world market, which has the potential to dramatically increase Qualcomm earnings prior to the large scale commercial WCDMA deployments which may still be several years off. China with approximately 200 million GSM subscribers by itself would not be an insignificant market for the MSM6300 along with Australia and the rest of SE Asia which may follow China’s lead. I would be interested in your reasoning as to why “outside China where demand for CDMA/GSM phones will be relatively low”. Is it purely political, anything but Qualcomm, on the part of the GSM vendors and carriers? Thanks for your time- jim