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: JGoren who wrote (19598)	12/13/1998 4:07:00 AM
From: freak.monster1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

>That's partly why I posted yesterday, that the ITU press release >was not bad for Qcom. No decision leaves it up to the market. >Qcom can go forward with a TDMA-compatible 3G; carriers will >gravitate to cdma and Ericy is left out in the cold without a >3G option that can be implemented. The market will move forward >and determine the standard. Agree that ITU announcement is good for QCOM. I think it is poor for NTT DoCoMo, and hopefully, their response will be a positive one: one of trying to bring about a converged standard. Also, CDMA2000 1X can proceed unabated, giving CDMA operators additional capacity gain over GSM based operators. With multi carrier overlay options, the upgrade path for CDMA operators is excellent. Would like to also say that Ericcson's "concession" on chip-rate was at once completely bogus and frighteningly real. It was bogus because, as Clark has pointed out before, 4.096Mcps is not a viable technical solution, and it had been widely understood that Ericcson would at some point change the chip rate to a lower number. That they chose 3.84Mcps instead of 3.68Mcps is a clear indication that it was bogus "concession" and still fails to meet the fairness criteria. As for chip-rate reduction causing proportianate decrease in capacity, Clark has again pointed out the flaw in the argument. It is too simple, and not accurate given the complexity of the system. But the concession is frighteningly real for the blind supporters of Ericcson. They have been sold a bill of goods about how 4.096Mcps was untouchable, and now a complete turn-about! I believe Mika is hinting at a third TDMA based standard emerging in light of the CDMA IPR issues. Would be interesting to see how that pans out and how it compares with the CMDA2000 alternative. Certainly by choosing W-CDMA over TDMA, Ericcson, Nokia and NTT have admitted the superiority of the CDMA solution for 3G.

To: JGoren who wrote (19598)	12/13/1998 1:11:00 PM
From: Greg B.	Respond to of 152472

JGoren, Although only an ITU-approved 3G TDMA-based proposal would create favorable competitive dynamics for CDMA, I believe that the majority of manufacturers, carriers, and standards bodies prefer a harmonized W-CDMA going forward, in addition to the TDMA-based proposal. Two ITU approved standards is the best compromise for global telecom consumers. It is not in the best consumer interest to artificially create three standards by suggesting that W-CDMA and cdma2000 remain incompatible. I disagree with all the talk that Ericsson's proposal for harmonized 3G offers equal opportunity to all operators and users worldwide, and a particular interpretation of the statement that all standardization must consider the requirements of the marketplace and the operators. This position does not justify unnecessarily penalizing the CDMA carriers with incompatible chip rates, different basestation synchronization method, etc., when virtually no functional or feature difference exists between either cdma2000 or W-CDMA, and those proposed alternatives in the current version of W-CDMA provide no real technical advancement. Unnecessarily penalizing the CDMA carriers translates into unnecessarily penalizing consumers because consumers must "make whole" the unnecessarily added costs. Even the fallback position of three standards still penalizes consumers because of the unnecessarily degraded economics of scale. Consider that, until now, that many vocal GSM operators, who would benefit from handicapping their CDMA carrier competition, had the option of choosing CDMA. They chose GSM for whatever reason. Maybe the technology choice was influenced by the ability to bid for spectrum. Maybe some had an incorrect perception that CDMA would not work, or the incorrect perception that CDMA would be more expensive on either a per subscriber or per minute usage basis. But regardless of whatever transpired in the past, the spirit of standardization should not entail unnecessarily penalizing consumers. Best regards, Greg B.