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: Ruffian who wrote (13070)	7/28/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Gotta love Ericsson - the best in the world at speaking out of both sides of their mouth: <R&D in the early 1990s showed it would not be possible to meet third-generation requirements and still retain backward compatibility with any second-generation technology on the air-interface level.> - a slam at QCOM and one sentences later: <In practice, certain key parameters in WCDMA and GSM have been harmonized in order to achieve an optimal solution for dual-mode GSM/UMTS terminals as well as GSM/UMTS hand-over.> Clark

To: Ruffian who wrote (13070)	7/29/1998 2:41:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks Michael for going out and finding this. Hardly a peep from anyone. I wish this was all irrelevant but don't think it is. ERICY seems to be making several arguments. The first is that there are normal procedures which are followed by standards making bodies, that these procedures have been followed, and that WCDMA has ALREADY been chosen as the "common radio technology for 3rd gen wide- area mobile communications in both Europe, N. America and Asia", that the 2GHz freq has been allocated in Eur and Asia, and that because of GSM's enormous footprint and subs base there is "now a common 3G technology standard". By extension they are arguing that QCOM (although Q is never mentioned ny name) has broken the "rules" and that they have no right to withold or ask exhorbitant prices for IPR. ERICY is also claiming that WCDMA is "totally new" etc.and that WCDMA has technical advantages. I don't think it's too difficult to denigrate the standards procedure but I am completely unable to respond to any of these technical claims. Q claims a chiprate of 3.6864 MCPs is actually more efficient and allows 3 carriers as opposed to 2 within the allotted spectrum. This seems fairly basic and if true would appear to be a strong argument in their favor. What about the rest of these points, some of which are listed below "Technologies considered for wbcdmaOne are related to different elements of backward compatibility to IS-95, this limits the flexibility. This has led to fundamental limitations to wbcdmaOne as compared to WCDMA, especially with respect to its capabilities to support 3rd-generation capabilities. Some examples are: Support of adaptive antennas can not be made with the same performance due to the common pilot channel structure used in wbcdmaOne. wbcdmaOne channel format makes power control less efficient. wbcdmaOne can not operate without external (GPS) synchronization. wbcdmaOne do not support interfrequency handover, meaning that hierarcical cell structure and handover to second generation systems can not be performed. wbcdmaOne do not efficiently support bit-rate and service flexibility. wbcdmaOne do not have an integral TDD mode that supports un-coordinated local area operation. It is also important to empasise that WCDMA have taken into account all the latest research on providing third generation capabilities into this newly developed standard. Wereas wbcdmaOne, with its backward compatibilities to IS-95, are hamstrung by backward compatibility with older, 2nd-generation CDMA technology. In addition, WCDMA is more mature, well-developed than wbcdmaOne and it has been tested in the field." Those of you who can, please enlighten us as to the relative merits of these two points of view.Is ERICY merely putting as Gregg says "gotchas" into WCDMA. Might WCDMA not in fact be a more logical way for GSM to migrate to wideband CDMA? Both sides are making technical arguments which place them at an advantage, which makes perfect sense. Maybe the two camps really don't have any rational for convergence. TIA..dave