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: John Cuthbertson who wrote (13818)	8/17/1998 4:47:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

John, it isn't the power output that's a distinguishing feature of PCS. It is more the frequency, but also functionality. The reason for needing more base stations [50% more] for 2GHz instead of 820MHz is that the shorter the wavelength, the more the signal gets absorbed by trees, buildings and stuff, so the weaker the coverage. Also the more line of sight is needed as the shorter signals don't bend around things. That's why in the old long-wave radio days, you could get signals going anywhere, slipping around mountains even! cdmaOne handsets transmit at something like 200 milliwatts. Or less if close to a base station with few other users. Real technical people will be able to give you more accurate information, but that's near enough probably. I don't know what power the Globalstar handsets will put out, but it will be a lot more than terrestrial because the signal needs to go 2000 km instead of 10 km, assuming the same receiving apparatus is used, which it isn't. The signal strength at 20 km is quarter that at 10 km. At 40 km it is 1/16th, at 80 km 1/64th, at 160 km 1/256th, at 320 km 1/1000th, 640 km 1/4000th and 1400 km which is the distance of the nearest Globalstar satellite, 1/16000th and at 2800km which is a distant satellite only 1/64000th. So you can see the signal gets really weak on its travels. So either they have really powerful handsets, or they have really good signal detectors on the satellites. A third option is I've been tricked out of my money. Clark, on the accounts receivable, I guess Qualcomm has arranged to swap debt for equity if the customer is unable to meet their payments. That sounds a likely solution. That way Alan Green$pan gets to print and lend some more SuperDs, Qualcomm gets to buy a valuable share in production of cdmaOne, Samsung, S K Telecom or whoever gets to stay in business, customers get lots of handsets, the other creditors of those Korean companies get paid and all is well with the world. Oh yes, Qualcomm sends me dividends on the profits. There is also a lot of vendor financing they are doing, so I guess some of it will be in base stations for which payment will be made when turned on and working. Or paid out of revenue or some such. In any event, I'm sure there is no problem. Mqurice PS: On hiring the foreign engineers - if Qualcomm and the USA won't, Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel, NEC, Fujitsu, Samsung etc will! If the USA is not getting a return on training engineers, don't train them! Getting Alien high powered brains cheap is damn good buying for Q and USA.

To: John Cuthbertson who wrote (13818)	8/17/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 152472

John, The systems have gotten much better since you last checked. Cellular originally was designed for 3 Watt mobiles, but the portables came along and compromised down to 700 mWatts for analog cellular. CDMA digital went all the way down to 200 mWatts in both cellular and PCS. The 200 mWatts is the same radius coverage as the 700 mWatts analog phones were. Yes, from the 3 Watts days the cell radius has gotten smaller, but this had already happened for the analog portables. PCS coverage ranges are prety well matched to cellular ranges. The GSM system has a little higher power and a little smaller cell range, hence needing more cell sites than a CDMA system. Perhaps this was what you were thinking of...

To: John Cuthbertson who wrote (13818)	8/17/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Drew Williams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

John, I assume you are talking about analog cellular, and you are mostly correct. Analog cellular phones are 3 watt, except for handheld units, which are only about .7 watt due to the antenna's close proximity to the user's brain. At least for analog systems, 3 watt systems will have fewer connection problems at the margins, and this is why I still have a hardwired 10 year old Radio Shack (rebranded Nokia) phone in my Mercury (and will until it dies on its own or my new employer buys me something else)(got a new job this morning Hurrah!).