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: Rajala who wrote (16848)	10/21/1998 9:36:00 AM
From: engineer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala, what so ever are you talking about? I can't even follow your "wasteful" argument. Perhaps you could explain it more fully? What the posting says is that CDMA is far, far more efficent in using bandwidth than GSM. You can split down cells into ever so much smaller segments, a thing which GSM cannot do. So the basestation invetment of say $500k including real estate can be made to support quite a few more subscribers than the same corrersponding GSM station. In the mobile case, you do loose out resources to the handoff and near far power control cases, but this is still 2.5 times MORE efficent than GSM. Your idle control bit rate is meaningless. Why would you bring up this irrelevant fact? Perhaps you would be so kind as to write out a full technical explanation of what you mean here for GSM so that we all understnad your point? what does min bit rate have to do with a TDMA system? You capture the TDMA channel COMPLETELY, thus it makes no differnce if you transmit NOTHING or full rate. If you split the channel down to smaller time slots, then you have done something by using less TDMA time, but then this makes the TDMA ssytem run at half rate and the vocoder suffers some degradation in voice performance (as supported by rough MOS scores in many surveys). You pick nothing back up in the fact that it is mobile or fixed if you split it to half. No blood pressure here. I am just trying to figure out why when you put WLL, you always explain GSM. Why you put down very cleverly a WLL explanation on a thread which perhaps 20 posts ago you also put in the word GSM and then try to explain away why WLL is not ever going to be possible. You were putting in refernces to mobility and gun racks and those posts were inaccurate for CDMA. they are accurate for GSM. In the case of GSM, it does NOT make sense to have WLL over mobiles, as the mobile is about the best one can do on the ssytem and GSM gains no advantage in being fixed so why ot just sel them the best solution that you have today? I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew you were pointing out a well known GSM problem. I was agreeing with you and thanking you. I wouldn;t be doing that if I had high blood pressure about it. My short message the other day was my first time back on the thread after 2 weeks out of the country and I was using a VERY slow terminal in an airport and could only respond in a very short post. It would also be nice if you didn't hide behind an anonymous alias. State your name like Gregg, Maurice, and I do in your profile. Be interesting to see where you really are from. You can see by my alias, I work at Qualcomm. You may also find out that I really have worked on the systems, not just speculating about how they MAY work in the field. I suspect the guy from yahoo thread had INSTALLED many systems in the field and has measured the field performance of them. So, is it possible for you to give us real numbers for the GSM performance? Thanks and Best Regards..