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: engineer who wrote (16738)	10/19/1998 1:35:00 PM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>Rajala, You post technicals tuff about CDMA which is totally wrong. >Benn watching your misinformed WRONG posts for more than a week now. >suggest that you get the facts striaght. > >One baststation in CDMA can have 43 users PER SECTOR and alot of >the pure WLL cells are 6 sector. you do the math. Hmmm... I don't think we understand each other much, engineer. When I wrote about the capacity question I clearly stated that it is GSM I'm talking about. >Please don;t act as though you have good information when you get >it from other than CDMA groups. ??? - rajala

To: engineer who wrote (16738)	10/19/1998 8:42:00 PM
From: Drew Williams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

As someone who, like Rajala, has questioned the wisdom of non-mobile WLL, let me ask for some technical clarification. You said a CDMA base station can have 43 users per sector and that pure WLL cells have six sectors. By my math, that means a WLL cell can have 6x43=258 users. Perhaps this is too simple a question (I'm a simple person with limited technical expertise, but I'm pretty good at arithmetic), but how many sectors are there per mobile CDMA basestation? Or is this even a relevant question? Is WLL inherently and significantly cheaper per user than mobile CDMA? If so, how and why? If WLL has 6x mobile's capacity per basestation, then WLL probably makes financial sense, but I think it would take that kind of significant capacity or financial advantage to be enough cheaper than mobile to justify the lower performance levels. My point has been that most people, even relatively poor third world people (the real third world, not Pennsylvania) would rather have mobile service than WLL, all things being equal, and would be willing to pay more for it. How much more? 20%? 50% Double? I don't know. I expect Qualcomm and Leap have studied this issue exactly, and their answer has convinced them of WLL's financial viability, so I am prepared to be convinced.