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: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19591)	12/11/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika - We seem to cover the same ground again and again: The Ericsson announcement and Nokia's support is a proposal. Reducing the chip rate from 4.096 down to the cdma2000 3.6864 represents a 10% reduction. What many people fail to realize is what really is this reduction in performance? Well, it is capacity. 80% of the digital mobile world are still TDMA based...are you asking them to cut 10% off future revenue? If so why? It seems to be the Qualcomm argument for CDMA over GSM, i.e., increased capacity. Why should the minority dictate the majority? As I've said before, when it comes to CDMA and chip rates Qualcomm is the majority. So much for the moral standpoint. As for the capacity issue, as has been discussed many times, if everything else is equal, then it is true that the higher chip rate will get higher capacity. But everything is not equal. In order to fit within the bandwidth they have to use filters which may not be sufficient, and in any case kill much, if not all, of the extra capacity. An analogy, although a poor one, is that the 5MHz bandwidth is like a pipe, and WCDMA is trying to stuff so much through the pipe that they produce non-linear effects which significantly degrade the performance. In fluid mechanics there is actually an optimal pressure. Increasing the pressure beyond that point actually decreases flow. While I am neither a filter designer, nor do I have the detailed models it is a good bet that the higher chip rate hits that wall, but that Ericsson, lacking the same models that I lack, didn't know until recently. But I will say, the ITU will have to go with multiple standards (the market wants it!). Hardly! Qualcomm owns much of the IPR. If they say no then there will be no ITU 3g CDMA standard. Too bad for Ericsson. But Qualcomm can continue merrily with CDMAOne and its follow ons whether they are ITU approved or not. The same is not true of Ericsson since they would likely loose (have to live up to the stereotype) an IP fight and know it. Clark

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19591)	12/12/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Mika... Please fill us in on "the more pressing stake". "Again sorry that it is Christmas, but keep your eyes open, as things are happening on this issue." Have we been duped again? "Read between the lines! There is a more pressing stake right now, which I will expand on later. But I will say, the ITU will have to go with multiple standards (the market wants it!)." Fine, we'll take CDMA2000.We're happy with that. I just don't get it. The ITU is supposedly trying to establish a global standard: "There is a growing consensus from all corners to develop a single global standard for third generation based around the ITU IMT-2000 concept. One of the last main remaining stumbling blocks is that of the IPR" itu.ch Here are QCOM's Demands. I would understand if the ITU was not interested in CDMA there might be a problem, but that clearly is not the case. QUALCOMM's said that it was prepared to license its IPR only if the following three principles were met: "A single, converged worldwide CDMA standard should be selected for 3G The converged CDMA standard must accommodate equally the two dominant network standards in use today (ANSI-41 and GSM MAP); and Disputes on specific technological points should be resolved by selecting the proposal that either is demonstrably superior in terms of performance, features, or cost, or, in the case of alternatives with no demonstrable material difference, the choice that is most compatible with existing technology" Please explain what in any of these demands is unreasonable? Either one is trying to develop a single global standard or one isn't. Which is it? "Listen to what I have hinted at in my previous posts. I have mentioned the majority (which is around 80% TDMA based in digital today) and the ridiculous situation that we are ALL in today" Seems you're in that ridiculous situation because your foundation is built on the wrong technology. Are we supposed to pay for that by mutilating ourselves or what? I notice that a judge recently supported Sun Microsystems "control" of JAVA. What is different about this situation? Surely Sun is the minority no? Your majority/minority argument makes no sense. It's logical extension would be the end of private property. Is that what you're advocating? Please explain what mechanism will be used to force "us" to give up our property. I would suggest to you that court is at least as unpalatable to Ericsson et al as it is to Q. A court proceeding with such high stakes would most likely drag on for quite a while. In the meantime, infrastructure deployments come to a standstill, the respective networks go their own merry way. As Gregg asks..."what will NTT do?" And NTT must not be alone. No, court is not a realistic option from anyone's perspective, and it leaves too much up to chance. And the ITU statement is not a wakeup call to anyone in the CDMA2000 camp. It is an integral part of the strategy. As you suggest a compromise will have to be reached. I already posted how I think that compromise will play itself out: Message 6785216 You still seem to buy Ericssons chiprate, I say that 3.6x WILL BE the chiprate. Nothing else will be acceptable to Q and CDMAone operators, minority or not.Short of that it's NO DEAL. Remember, YOU GIVE US EQUAL ACCESS TO THE MARKET, WE GIVE YOU THE TECHNOLOGY. Just reverse roles and repeat after me..WE GIVE YOU EQUAL ACCESS TO THE MARKET AND YOU GIVE US THE TECHNOLOGY. It looks like WCDMAers are VERY VERY AFRAID of IS95 otherwise they wouldn't be wasting so much time trying cut it off at the knees. Despite sounding cocky I confess that I find the whole damned mess a wee bit unnerving, especially because the marketplace is treating Q as if it's going to lose. IMO there can be no other meaningful explanation for the languid price action, lack of institutional interest. So Mika... be so kind as to fill us in on what you're hearing and don't forget to explain exactly how we will be forced to give up our IPR without the chiprate compromise.. Dave...