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: Asterisk who wrote (17366)	10/29/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: RalphCramden	Respond to of 152472

CDMA and TDMA both use scarce resources to provide high data rate. <italic>Can I assume from this that you read nothing about the recent QCOM showing at the PCS show? Well let's recap. They showed an advanced high data rate solution that they had made that already did something like 2Mbps (someone correct me if I am wrong), I think that beats your paltry experimental systems and 56k by quite a wide margin. </italic> Demonstrated 1.2 Mbps, but the system will ultimately have higher peak rates. System will be asymmetric, forward link (base to user) will have higher capacity then reverse, which will be max about 300 kbps. This channel cannot carry voice at the same time as carrying this high rate data. In a deployed commercial system, you would have one frequency channel with this high data rate service on it, and another channel for the voice customers. <italic>But enough bragging, I have a question for you. In a TDMA system doesn't it impact capacity pretty severely to string channels together? If so I wonder what capacity penalty Nokia is paying for this data rate. If I remember right I think that in a CDMA system you only pay an extremely slight penalty (a little higher noise floor) for stringing channels together. It seems to me that with CDMA you can bake your cake and eat it too in this case where in TDMA (GSM) you can either have voice or data, not both, without paying severe penalties. </italic> A CDMA system is also limited by a total maximum throughput per sector. However, CDMA is better about sharing that resource which is a major reason it is overall more efficient. A data customer in a CDMA network uses capacity that would otherwise be available to voice customers just as in TDMA. Arguably due to the statistics of typical data usage, the impact on a CDMA system of a 56 kbps max data connection will be less than its impact on the already less efficient TDMA system, but both systems use limited resources to support that call, and use more of those resources the faster the data connection that is supported.

To: Asterisk who wrote (17366)	10/29/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I don't understand your question, I'm not all that smart. But I do know bait and switch tactics when I see 'em. How come Qualcomm keeps talking about these enormous data rates... but intends to launch a 14 kbps smartphone in spring 1999? Isn't there a huge discrepancy here? Why are their actual products at the level of GSM smartphones of 1996 if CDMA is so superior? Would they launch 14 kbps products in spring of -99 if these fancy 2Mbps products were anywhere near production? I think Nokia should create some "the real Ellen Sauerbrey - civil rights record to be ashamed of" - type attack ads they have here in USA. You know... "the real IS-95 - data rate record to be ashamed of". With a grainy black and white video footage of Qualcomm executives promising mega-bps back in 1995. Tero