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 (19679)	12/14/1998 9:33:00 AM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika: I have several responses to this eerily ERICY-stooge-like comment you made: "The demand for a higher chip rate is that by an operator(s). Lowering the rate will reduce capacity. So to use your expression, operators migrating/implementing WCDMA will have to mutilate themselves. Actually, Qualcomm are asking operators to cut 10% of their revenues (as they lose about 1 in 10 subscribers, by going all the way down to 3.6864 Mcps). It doesn't sound much, but would any company like to be asked to do that, particularly as TDMA based carriers are far in the majority. The Ericsson announcement is only a proposal. Basically, read between the lines and they have said that if operators hate it, they'll go back to 4,096 Mcps. (Also note that Nortel recently said that 3.84 was Ericsson's original proposal, but DoCoMo said no..we want more at 4.096)." Capacity is the issue? Then why do those ultra-sensitive operators use GSM in the first place? Why are they not up in arms over the move from 4.096 to 3.84? Is it not true that there is no evidence as of yet that we can quantify the capacity difference at these various chip rates(and that there may be none at all in the real world implementation)?

To: Mika Kukkanen who wrote (19679)	12/14/1998 10:18:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Mika - My last response to you. Lowering the rate will reduce capacity. It absolutely stuns me that so many people who know nothing technical, and who acknowledge that Ericsson is a squirly company when it comes to telling the straightforward truth (do you really believe that Ericsson's problems stem from Asia, not being creamed by the competition like Nokia), seem to believe this. It is not true. What if the decided to use a chip rate of 10MHz in an allocation of 5 MHz? Would that get you more capacity? Obviously not since you would have to filter out much of the chip rate and in the process would get substantially worse performance (because you disrupt the signal) than say 3.6MHz chip rate. How about a 5MHz chip rate? The problem is that filters are not crisp, and the faster you make them fall off the more complex they become, but also the more distortion you add. This distortion really screws up the data, and thus there is an optimum transmission rate for any type of signal. This optimum is very dependent on the type of transmission being sent. If Ericsson's chip rate is really superior, all that they have to do to win, and make Qualcomm look extremely foolish, is show that it does indeed give better transmission rates since Qualcomm has agreed to use whichever technology is better. Towards this goal there have been several independent studies which show CDMA-2000 has significantly more capacity that W-CDMA. Point me to even one such study which says the opposite. (You won't find it). In any case, I say to you the same thing that Qualcomm says to Ericsson - put up or shut up. Clark