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: Raymond who wrote (19711)	12/14/1998 1:08:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I am probably the least qualified person to argue technical specs, but based on what I know, here is the hole in your argument: There is no "backwards compatibility" to IS-41 or GSM, as these are both TDMA based systems. As such, thinking about all of the GSM operators and their huge investment in GSM equpiment is pointless -- they will all need to make substantial reinvestment for 3g anyway. The same is not true for IS-95 operators. There is a backwards compatiblity possibility for these operators. It would lower their upgrade costs substantially. Existing GSM and TDMA operators do not want to give up this advantage to cdmaOne operators. To date THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE PERFORMANCE ADVANTAGE TO W-CDMA AND IT MAY IN FACT BE DISADVANTAGEOUS IN TERMS OF NETWORK CAPACITY. If the above is all true, there is NO advantage to the W-CDMA proposals and ergo ipso facto, no reason cdma2000 cannot be THE converged standard. IMHO, as always, and certainly open to being corrected. mmeggs P.S. Your example of why 3g systems are "not just broader pipes" applies equally to both W-CDMA and cdma2000, no? How will W-CDMA overcome this problem where cdma2000 inherently won't?

To: Raymond who wrote (19711)	12/15/1998 2:44:00 AM
From: freak.monster1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>One of the few differences.That's your opinion.I don't think anyone >knows yet because they are just starting with the >standardization work. One main difference is that W-CDMA is >interfacing a GSM network Today a significant majority of the network interface is other than GSM-MAP, with the IS-41 being the largest chunk of the non-GSM interfaces. That is why QCOM fairness criteria explicitly asks for standardization to support GSM as well as IS-41 network interfaces to be supported equally. Besides, with the GSM-CDMA trials, QCOM has already demonstrated that it is possible to use a CDMA air interface with GSM network interface. W-CDMA is designed for GSM-MAP (by the way that is an issue in Japan), and CDMA2000 for IS-41. If convergence were to occur, the converged common air interface could be made to interface to both network interface. >You say "the other 99% of the binders are largely redundant with >cdma2000" I will not go in to details but I can give you one example >why a 3g system is not just a broader pipe that effects the air >interface. Today the signalling systems in the public network only >support 64kbit/s for circuit switched traffic Agree that there are significant differences elsewhere, but mostly the higher layers are handled in SW and can be accomodated more easily (synchronized base-stations and variable rate coders are two big hw/sw exception to the above). As to the more specific point about circuit switched data, I am not sure what constraint you are refering to (ISDN is able to handle more). In any event, why would you want circuit switch data above 64kbps? Going forward it clear as daylight that packet switched network is the way to go, and both 3G CDMA standards promote this model. >This is why a converged standard will be so difficult to implement >even if they could agree on converging the airinterface.To have a >network that is both backwardcompatible to IS-41 and to GSM will be >a huge task to achieve. QCOM is saying that they demands just >that.It's easy for them to say.Ericsson is probably the company that >has done most work on the GSM and IS-41... It stands to reason that Ericcson has done more work on GSM than QCOM. IS-41, may be also, I don't know. But the point is that on the base station side you don't have to support both. The mobile can roam into both GSM and IS-41 network interface areas. This is not such an outlandish concept. QCOM has done field trials with GSM-CDMA already. In any event what are the alternatives if you want a phone to be operable widely/globally? Satellites only? Multimode phones have to overcome the same problems. Think of the option: you buy a phone for $x, and it only supports the protocol supported in your home country. You want to go abroad or whatever, you download the software over the air, pay some nominal amount and you are good to go (to reduce charges you might only want global roaming limited to only the duration of your vacation). But I am not sure what is the larger point you are making. Is it that convergence is technically impossible? Or that it is simply undesirable? I think it is technically feasible (yes, standardization will be nightmare, but in my opinion extremely valuable). Desirablity of course is strongly dependent on your perspective. I would say wherever there has been only one standard (music CD) in the consumer domain, the cost has come down faster.