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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (12112)	7/7/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Hello Maurice: First of all, I should indicate I do not follow QCOM very closely. As you noted the speech compression and silence suppression techniques used by CDMA technology are a perfect fit with IP telephony. However, you should be aware that IP telephony does not really use the Internet (too congested), but private networks. See for example the discussion in techweb.com Given that cdma2000 aims at transmitting both voice and data, and uses the same voice compression format as IP telephony, the convergence is obvious. However, it is still difficult to have a good view of the overall wireless/wireline architecture that will result from this convergence. Best regards, Bernard Levy

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (12112)	7/8/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 152472

<<< Anyway, if you can enlighten me I'd appreciate it. 1 I want no more phone numbers. 2 I want good clear voice with outside noise filtered. 3 No voice delay. 4 Cheap. >>>> Maurice, Can probably do 1 and 2 without much problem. doing 3 is a real bit of a problem, but as long as it is below 200 milliseconds, you can;t tell anyhow, and #4 probably never.....(but then this isn;t a technical problem eh?) I do not think that doing voice over IP is the most cost efficient solution in the long run. Perhaps a mix of CDMAOne and CDMA2000 is best, where you still go back to fixed voice channels when your doing pure voice and data channels when you want data. I think there is also a bigger problem looming in the very near future. If we get all these gadgets (Anita) and CDMA data links into everything, then very soon there will be lots of multiple line users. does this mean multiple MINS (phone numbers)? Or will a cellular connection be able to sign on just using their IP address and not have a MIN? billing and switching systems today all use MINS for everything. Since none of these are co-located, they cannot share an IP address and just send multiple links to the same physical connection. The CDMA carriers are still using the 5ESS type switches designed for landline systems with an overlay for wireless. they still think about circuits which are being connected to fixed telephone numbers (MINS). there has to be alot of fundamental changes to this to make the switches needed for the future. Have seen alot of IP switch stuff going on, but not the meld between the two. there is ALOT of legacy in these systems, both on the switching side and on the billing side. This will take more than 10 years to change. I am talking about within 3 years this will happen. If cellular data gets out there and people start using it for alot of reasons, I can see you haveing a PDA device, a phone device, a smart car, a smart home, perhaps a CDMA based wireless LAN device into your PC, etc. If you were pushing the techno-nerd status (good phrase, eh surfer mike?) then perhaps you may have 5-8 of these things. If it were me, I want it all rolled up into a single billing structure. (just how many of you now have a second line for FAX/teenager and perhaps another line for ISDN or cable modem? this is how my house is setup......)