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: Ramus who wrote (17465)	10/31/1998 2:53:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

All, Nortel Defecting?> Advertise on Totaltele.com Network Trials Aim to Prove 3G's Worth By Vanessa Clark and Sheridan Nye for CommunicationsWeek International 30-OCT-98 With the ongoing battle over third-generation (3G) mobile standards apparently deadlocked, Nortel Networks and Panasonic said they will launch a series of network trials to ensure user demand for future high-speed data services. Brampton, Canada-based Nortel estimates network operators could have to pay as much as $60 billion worldwide to upgrade their networks for 3G compliance. Nortel is a key developer of the proposed 3G technology favored by European manufacturers, wideband-CDMA (W-CDMA): Panasonic, the brand of Secaucus, New Jersey-based Matsushita Electric Corp., is manufacturing prototype handsets. The two companies see the trials as offering vital encouragement to operators, service providers and end-users that 3G can deliver a range of, as yet unthought of, applications. "The whole focus of our trials is to demonstrate what you can do with (3G) that you can't do with second generation," said Ian Sugarbroad, vice president at Nortel Wireless Networks. "The question is, how do (network operators) make a business case" given that users are still unsure about why they might need high-speed mobile services. Whereas second-generation mobile service providers compete almost exclusively on price, said Sugarbroad, 3G providers will distinguish themselves with carefully targeted value-added services. The trials with as yet unnamed operators will start later this year, with one in each of North America, Europe and Asia testing a range of applications in areas such as Internet access, specialist messaging services and mobile multimedia. Meanwhile, the development of a single global technical standard for 3G appears to have reached a stalemate, with the major vendors divided into two camps behind different air interface proposals. North American, Republic of Korean and Australian players, led by Qualcomm Inc. of San Diego, California, back cdma2000, while mainly European and Japanese supporters of W-CDMA are pressing for the International Telecommunication Union to adopt their favored air interface. The differences between the proposals lie in the technical details rather than functionality. The key issue is whether the final standard will be backwards-compatible with existing digital mobile networks. Qualcomm claims its original work on CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) underpins the W-CDMA proposal, and declared it will withhold crucial Intellectual Property Rights from the W-CDMA camp unless the final global standard incorporates backwards compatibility with existing networks based on the second-generation technology. In response, L.M. Ericsson AB, a major force behind W-CDMA, maintains it holds essential IPRs that it could withhold from the cdma2000 alliance. Nortel, which is also aligned with the W-CDMA camp, believes that "the two (proposed standards) could come a hell of a lot closer," said Sugarbroad. "We could restrict all the differences to software and avoid 90% of the cost to network operators," he claimed. Nortel's trials will use a "best guess" at the final standard, based on the current W-CDMA proposal supported by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute as part of its Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) submission to the ITU. Nortel believes 3G will create a new breed of service provider that will develop services for specific markets such as the medical, legal, financial and real estate sectors. Meanwhile, users are bemused by the ongoing dispute, and still need convincing that 3G will provide valuable services. Users want to "get rid of the politics," said Bill Mieran, chairman of the Leatherhead, England-based Telecommunications Users Association. "I don't think it's a technical issue any more. Users want service, price and quality, and they don't worry about how it's achieved," he said. They need to expect that they will get something better when switching to 3G, just as 2G digital offered advantages over analog, added Mieran. Related Stories Stories Related by Keyword U.S. Trade Rep Throws Down the Gauntlet to EU in 3G Squabble Panasonic and Nortel to Test Third-Generation Networks Ericsson Launches 3G Phones Early Next Year Copyright Emap Media Limited © 1998 - all rights reserved. Reproduction of this web site, in whole or in part, in any form or medium without express written permission form Emap Media is prohibited. Your use of this website is subject to our legal terms. Please read these carefully. info@totaltele.com US Bids for Internet Domain Name Control Rivals Demand Tough Conditions for AT&T-TCI Network Trials Aim to Prove 3G's Worth MobilCom Lying in Wait to Swallow Rival PLDT Says First Pacific Talks in "Advanced Stage" Spain to Divest the Rest of Retevision Deutsche Telekom Online Users Plan Boycott to Protest Prices

To: Ramus who wrote (17465)	10/31/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: Raymond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Walt! "Yes, I read. I read that most of the 3G proposals involve CDMA. I read that IS-95 is the only 2G standard using CDMA. I read that CDMA-2000 is a clear and economical upgrade path from IS-95. I read that W-CDMA is the upgrade for GSM. I also read that W-CDMA is not as nearly backward compatible with GSM as CDMA-2000 is backward compatible with IS-95". What is your point? Has anyone arguing against that IS-95 is the only 2G standard using CDMA.That CDMA-2000 is a clear upgrade path from IS-95. I haven't seen anyone arguing against that the airinterface of CDMA-2000 is more compatible to IS-95 then WCDMA is to GSM airinterface.They are not compatible at all.This is the whole point what the WCDMA camp is trying to get across.They don't want to have any backwardcompability.Everytime you have to think about backwardcompability you will not get the most optimal system. If you want to have backwardcompablity you can upgrade the GSM network with EDGE which will give high speeds but will not give all the advantages that a complete new system can give you.What backwardcompabilty can give you is the American NTSC system a good example of.You can go anywhere and get a better TV-picture than you get in US. WCDMA is only compatible to the core network. Nobody is stopping CDMA-2000 from beeing compatible to the core GSM network.They can specify two variants one for operators that use IS-41 and one for operators using GSM core networks. If WCDMA is inferior they can just let Ericsson and Nokia go ahead with it and let QCOM dominate the worldmarket with the superior system.So why are they desperatly trying to stop WCDMA by refusing to licence their IPR:s to it? They should be happy seeing the competitors including their enemy Ericsson going in the wrong direction.I mean as anyone reading this thread knows.Ericsson started with CDMA a short time ago.They can't have learned anything during that time can they? Can you pls enlighten us how you came up with that CDMA-2000 is more spectral efficient than WCDMA.Don't just point to the proposals give us some clues why. You talk about the chip-rate as that is the only difference between the proposals.If you have really has read them you know that are a lot of differences between the proposals except the chiprate. Is this the opinion of people working for QCOM that this whole debate is a competition about which system is more compatible.Then I understand why they think that everyone else having another opinion is stupid.You are right CDMA-2000 is more compatible. "that?? Tero you said "No, I don't know the technical details, but it should be obvious....." What's obvious is you don't know the technical details and you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand! I must admit though I do get a kick out of it sometimes" What should this thread be without Tero and a few others?.You would have no one to argue against.Most posters with a different view has already been chased away. /R