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: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 11:05:49 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197241

deploying lots of micro BTS to increase My recollection, too, and the basis of my statement which seems to have caused so much controversy, though I should have specified that it involved microBTSs, something I had forgotten until you mentioned it. As I recall, there are lots of sources corroborating this aspect of things. Along comes Zyray and MIMO and produces a chipset which actually gets back 2.5 dB and WCDMA can work lots of other places now wihtout the $1B of extra BTS units. So BRCM buys ZYRAY and decides to enter the 3G fray. QCOM says "pay me a license" and BRCM says NO. I stopped looking at the issue at about the time this happened. Before this took place, I guarantee you that NOK was salivating at the prospect of putting micro BTSs in every street corner. If my recall is correct [this happened a long time ago], the microBTSs were already designed and ready to go.

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 11:21:48 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197241

You saw lots of delays and BS flying around in 2002 and 2003 about not the right time, etc. At that time there was 3 flavors of BTS around and certain WCDMA chipsets only worked on one flavor. QCOM chipsets worked on all of them. Could you explain then why Qualcomm failed so badly in getting WCDMA chipsets to market for Hutchison's initial launch and why they are still so far behind their 50% market share goal (or even my more conservative 30-35% goal)? Slacker

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 11:38:42 AM
From: kech	Respond to of 197241

Along comes Zyray and MIMO and produces a chipset which actually gets back 2.5 dB and WCDMA can work lots of other places now wihtout the $1B of extra BTS units. So BRCM buys ZYRAY and decides to enter the 3G fray. QCOM says "pay me a license" and BRCM says NO. It would seem like BRCM's beef should be with the other WCDMA patent holders for not recognizing the importance of its FOUNDATIONAL Zyray patents rather than just plain old ESSENTIAL patents for making WCDMA Asynchronous work better. Odd that it demands a break from Qualcomm on licensing its patents, but maybe they are just trying everything - or maybe it is like Billie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks, he answered, "that is where the money is".

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 11:45:05 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197241

*re: "WCDMA requires about 3.2x more basestations than CDMA and GSM."* You put the reason for this on WCDMA's use of asynchronous base stations. But with a quick skim of Qualcomm's white paper "WCDMA Network Deployments: Asynchronous vs. Synchronous", I could not find any mention of a difference in base station density ... let alone such a significant difference. If it's there, where did I miss it? If it's not there, why did Qualcomm not exploit such a golden PR opportunity?

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 12:06:33 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 197241

But you and everyone else can try to rewrite it in terms of what was done in the PR sheets. You acknowledge that higher frequencies require more basestations, yes? A lot more. Hmmm, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other factors. I have no doubt that asynch had impacts. But, for instance, a 3 dB impact in an R^3.5 propagation environment would only impact the number of basestations by about 50%. Nowhere near 3.2x. I.e. the majority of the increased basestations numbers often quoted is about frequency Clark

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/4/2006 12:44:12 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 197241

Zyray from a Man who Should Know ... engineer, Along comes Zyray and MIMO and produces a chipset which actually gets back 2.5 dB and WCDMA can work lots of other places now without the $1B of extra BTS units. So BRCM buys ZYRAY and decides to enter the 3G fray. QCOM says "pay me a license" and BRCM says NO. Back in early 2005 when Nokia had the best selling UMTS (WCDMA) handset on the global market -- actually a WEDGE handset, you stated ... ZYRAY started from NOTHING and made a WCDMA chipset in less than 12 months. And NOKIA? Message 21136904 I asked you ... What handset shipping commercially uses Zyray's (now Broadcomm's) SPINNERchip 1.1 WCDMA co-processor or any other variant of same? I am not aware of one, but I suppose one might exist and given your association with them you should be able to give us maker and model. You did not respond. Since you were one of the initial members of Zyray's Advisory Board, and consequently should know the answer, I would like to ask you a few follow up questions ... 1.) When did the first handset using a Zyray WCDMA chip or chipset ship commercially and who was the manufacturer? 2.) What manufacturers are currently commercially shipping handsets using the latest version of a Broadcom WCDMA chip or chipset evolved from Zyray's efforts? I patiently await your answer. As for "And NOKIA?" At the end of Q1 Strategy Analytics credited Nokia with obtaining 30% global share in WCDMA handsets for the 1st time. In a Deutsche Bank AG/London Nokia update that has NOK rated 'Hold' dated July 21, 2006, Gareth Jenkins and Varun Khanna credited Nokia with 34% of global WCDMA shipments in H1 2006 (12.8 million of 42 million units). That's just a few data points but I suspect both SA and DB are close in those estimates given the depth and breadth of Nokia's WEDGE product range. Cheers, - Eric -

To: engineer who wrote (54159)	8/5/2006 6:18:51 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 197241

The 3.2:1 BS Density Advantage??? engineer, << [c2] It takes tons and tons of basestations to provide half way decent service using WCDMA. ... [CH] this is more a function of frequency than CDMA1X/WCDMA technology. So if they are flipping to WCDMA in the same spectrum ... Not true. WCDMA requires about 3.2x more basestations than CDMA and GSM. This was why there was so much hoopla over the rollout of WCDMA a couple of years ago and why so much BS was being thrown around. >> Just to be clear ... ... are you attempting to convince us that asynchronous 3GPP WCDMA R'9/R'4/R'5 with cs voice and cs and ps multimedia data implemented in 2.1 GHz IMT-2000 core band requires ~3.2x as many base stations as IS-2000/IS-856 implemented in the 2.1 GHz IMT-2000 core band, and that 3GPP WCDMA R'9/R'4/R'5 implemented in the 1.9 GHz PCS band requires ~3.2x as many base stations as IS-2000/IS-856 implemented in the 1.9 GHz PCS band, and that 3GPP WCDMA R'9/R'4/R'5 implemented in 850 MHz requires ~3.2x as many base stations as IS-2000/IS-856 implemented in the 850 MHz band? The above questions do of course assume we are talking about implementation in more or less the same topography, i.e. urban, suburban, and rural, with perhaps a 60%/, 30%, 10% distribution of population. Taking the questions further and taking into consideration the hierarchical cell system (HCS) structure of the GSM Phase 2+ GERAN and UMTS are you attempting to convince us that when 3GPP WCDMA R'9/R'4/R'5 with cs voice and cs and multimedia ps data is implemented in 2.1 GHz IMT-2000 core band (or the 850 MHz band) that it will require ~3.2x as many macrocells, + ~3.2x as many miceocells + ~3.2x as many picocells as IS-2000/IS-856 implemented in the 850 MHz band (or the corresponding 850 MHz band)? ... or are you saying that with CDMA2000 in the same frequency plan, comparatively limited macrocell deployment for high traffic areas and comparatively limited picocell deployment will be necessarry for concrete and steel in building and underground coverage for voice and high bandwidth multimedia data in both cases? "The hoopla of a couple of years ago" did of course assume implementation of WCDMA in the 2.1 GHz IMT-2000 core band, since that implementation was prioritized in ETSI/ARIB dating back to 1991 even before WARC 1992 that established the 3G core band and then in 3GPP although it was not initially prioritized in TIA or 3GPP2 dating back to mid-1997 when work on cdma2000 commenced, which is why we only see a CDMA2000 implementation of any consequence in one major market and by one carrier in that market. Work on the downbanding of 3GPP WCDMA R'9/R'4/R'5 for traditional 2G spectrum did not begin till about 4 years and neither did the upbanding of CDMA2000 to the IMT-2000 core band. TIA for your response to these questions. Take your time, relax, and compose yourself before responding. Before I depart for the shore, I will tell you that a WCDMA overlay of a well optimized GSM GPRS or GSM EDGE network in 850/1900 MHz (like Cingular's) or a well optimized CDMA2000 network like Verizon's 850/1900 MHz network will be considerably closer to 1:1 than it will be to 3:2:1 and if you think anything different than you ought to have a serious conversation with a network engineer that has implemented and been involved with the optimization of both. << My discussion was with the cheif architect of the Qualcomm systems group and we discussed the handoff problem and cell density circa 1999. >> Perhaps you should touch bases with the architects of either Lucent's or Nortel's CDMA and UMTS units today before you respond. We have entered the 21st century. << You saw lots of delays and BS flying around in 2002 and 2003 about not the right time, etc. At that time there was 3 flavors of BTS around and certain WCDMA chipsets only worked on one flavor. QCOM chipsets worked on all of them. >> Evidently your definition of working, my definition, and the carriers definition differ. The excerpts below are from a Lehman Brothers Telecom Team report dated September 23, 2004 titled "Asia Telco Tour - Day 3 Highlights." The day before they visited with head of QUALCOMM China, Jing Wang and following that visit they met with Hutch 3's Canning Fok in Hong Kong ... Our visit to Hutchison Whampoa began with Canning Fok stressing the company’s strong 3G subscriber additions continuing in August (~600k) and September (~650k), and potentially hitting the 1 million mark in Nov and Dec, this year. UK 3G outlook appears to be improving ... <snip> ... Regarding handsets, Korean manufacturers remain Hutch’s preferred suppliers with the best performance on battery, low power consumption and their smaller sizes. LG (covered by James Kim) dominates the middle-to-high price segment and is aiming for 3.9mn handsets in the current year. Mr. Fok went to great lengths to emphasize how impressed the company has been with LG handsets. NEC is said to have improved its models considerably and is focusing on the low-price segments. Overall supplies from NEC will be in the 2-3mn range. The handset pricing environment is expected to weaken, and we believe that more vendors joining the 3 bandwagon by this Christmas will improve Hutch’s ability to bargain on pricing. ... The company currently finds the Qualcomm chipsets not very stable on 3G phones, and prefers the ERICY (EMP) chipset. Hutchison confirmed that it is preferred WCDMA chipset vendor remains Ericsson Mobile Platforms(EMP) who have been supplying LG. EMP’s leadership appears to reflect the stability and longer battery life that it chips enable. In terms of network suppliers, Hutchison is using NEC, NOK and ERICY, though finds NEC equipment better than the other two. [9/22/2004] Have a great week. Cheers, - Eric -