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: tero kuittinen who wrote (20494)	12/29/1998 10:56:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero: Just who is fantasizing? Did you or did you not participate in the Frezza Forum? Did you or did you not pontificate alongside Bill & Company as to CDMA's technological impossibility? Give me a bleeping break. While you are off in revisionist wonderland, can you please tell me how Nokia put the first man on the moon and how Ericsson invented the transistor. If Ericsson and Nokia have been working on W-CDMA for "7-9 years", why are their systems still in the precommercial stage? Please show me one...just one...commercial W-CDMA system ANYWHERE in the world. Go on, find it for us! Please explain why Nokia bought an IS-95 license from Qualcomm and agreed to pay royalties instead of simply introducing a CDMA product that they designed themselves. Does Nokia like paying royalties? Since, as you claim, Nokia already had CDMA technology, management was obviously...what...tricked by fairy dust into believing that it needed QC IPR to do IS-95? While you are at it, please explain why Ericsson acquired Orbitel, and IS-95 (Globalstar) licensee. Lastly, please explain, in precise, understandable and logically consistent terms, why ...if DoCoMo, Ericsson and Nokia have so much invested in W-CDMA...why, pray tell...why, would the former offer to build a "bridge" to IS-95? Are you suggesting that DoCoMo management, in the spirit of Christmas, charity and goodwill to mankind, decided to alter its standard, 7 to 9 YEARS worth of R&D and all the associated software, semiconductors and equipment, just to be kind to us 'mericans? Fantasies or delusions??? Give me a break Tero. Gregg

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20494)	12/29/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Your Teroist methods of discussion have reduced Gregg to shouting at you and giving up in the face of what Americans call stonewalling, or being "in denial". I suspect the frustration stems from different perspectives. You are like a happy lamb, playing in the springtime, prancing and gamboling, enjoying the Nokia moment and not really wanting to hear the deep rumble of the abattoirs truck taking the sheep away. Gregg is trying to pin down logical outcomes to the current situation. Trying to get a happy lamb on a sunny day to sit still and have a logical, factual, discussion is simply not going to work. You did ask a question: "It has been pointed out again and again that W-CDMA has been under development for 7-9 years. Yet this legend that W-CDMA is somehow a response to IS-95 lives on. Look, I know Nokia people who were working on W-CDMA back in 1993. Short of buying them tickets to San Diego and making them swear on a bible that the W-CDMA program existed in early Nineties, just what does it take to convince Qcom enthusiasts?" Dear Tero, QUALCOMM was formed in 1986. The founders had been creating TDMA in Linkabit. They formed Q! with the idea of bringing CDMA to mobile. In 1991 Q! had their initial public offering. In the late 1980s, they had already formed alliances and were signing licences. To their credit, Nokia was aware enough to sign a licence in the early 1990s. A bit late, but due to the unexpectedly lengthy development process, not too late as it happened. Interdigital was also working on CDMA with more focus on wireless local loop because mobile isn't that easy. Their CDMA was broader band than QUALCOMM's. When you say that Nokia was working on WCDMA in 1993, it is pretty clear that they were at least 7 years later than the QUALCOMM founders who were probably thinking about it even earlier than actually forming Q! Now perhaps you can find some who were working on it sooner than 1993, but in any event, it seems likely that they were responding to IS-95 and looking for a way to take it beyond voice only. Data was then likely to be important, and that would have been the focus of their efforts. The Web arrived later than that. Well, the network existed, but the concept of the Web as totally dominant only arrived over the past year or three. $ill Gates only woke to it in 1995. Many are still struggling with it, not understanding that the Web is going to make the industrial revolution look trivial. The idea of ubiquitous multimedia WWeb CDMA based handy little devices only arrived in the past couple of years. And is still questioned by many, even including some CDMA fanatics on this very thread [Qdog anyway]. Q! was lining IP [internet protocol] up in 1990 to form part of the Q! world. It is now becoming timely. So you can see that Nokia and Ericsson can hardly be said to be in the vanguard of WWeb[TM]. Despite you knowing Nokia people who were working on VW40 back in 1993. So, to answer your question, it would take a little more than some specious claim to knowing a couple of Nokians who in 1993 claim to have been working on VW40 to convince me that VW40 is not a response to the development of cdmaOne. When companies work on something, they don't start out full blown. They have somebody who has an idea, who persuades their boss who allows a tentative dabble which then expands as confidence and necessity build. Q! in 1986 had a handful of people working on cdmaOne. Now there are many thousands. Same with Nokia and Ericy. While denying cdmaOne could work, they were not fully gung ho on it in their R&D departments. Nokia wouldn't have brought out a failure of a cdmaOne handset in 1998 if they had been fully gung ho. Claiming a great victory over cdmaOne because of the huge growth of GSM is a bit like Saddam claiming a marvellous victory after taking over Kuwait. Even I bought 3 GSM handsets [Alcatel] recently. So did thousands upon thousands of others buy GSM. So I have been boosting the great and wondrous success of GSM. Yes, I love the standby time. You are right, I bought a low end model because as you identified in your spotting the trend, I don't plan on keeping it long. But the price per minute is absurdly high. You don't mention that very much in your enthusiasm for GSM handsets and what is important to customers. Yes, my QCP820 battery life is hopeless in analogue mode and I don't use it. But as soon as cdmaOne is available, guess what is going to happen to the analogue phones. Yep, they'll be tossed into the abattoir's truck, along with any Teroists still gamboling in the GSM fields. There you are, your question answered. Mqurice PS: Thread members, don't bother with giving Teroists lists of questions, or even single questions. Don't bother with other than rhetorical questions. I tried once to get Tero to answer a single simple question and persevered with it until it was clear than he has some gap in his corpus collosum which prevents questions being handed over from his receptive centres to his processing centres in the other half of his brain. neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (20494)	12/29/1998 10:25:00 PM
From: Ramus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Tero, I realize this is long but you should read it all and think about it. Do a little investigative work as well. As an engineer interested in the technological claims of both sides I have to take exception to your claim that W-CDMA has been under development for 7-9 years. I'm going to quote from the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA proposal as submitted to ITU for consideration last June of 1998. I will submit the page numbers so you can read this yourself if you like. I also suggest that you pass it on to your engineer friends so that they too can evaluate what I am saying. Before I do I want to tell you that my reading of the UTRA document is that it was thrown together by some knowledgeable individuals. Knowledgeable in certain aspects of CDMA... but not all. I can give you many examples of this apparent lack of knowledge but I will give you just one for now. The companies who wrote this specification, although they have done some reading, do not currently manufacture CDMA equipment. Their lack of experience with this technology is self evident. There is much they don't seem to understand. Here goes.... This is a quote from page 110 of the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA submission available at the ITU website: Linearity: Mobile Station: For 2 equal power signals being separated by 200 kHz leading to an output level of 21 dBm each the resulting intermodulation spectrum shall not exceed relative to peak spectrum: -38 dB at 200 kHz to -90 dB at 800 kHz offset from higher/lower frequency signal (linear decrease) <=-95 dB at 1 MHz from higher/lower frequency signal and above This is known as a two tone test. The idea here is that these two tones, if passed through a non-linear amplifier (like a cell phone power amp maybe) will generate intermodulation products. These products will be tones at spacings of 200khz(as above) and depending on the non-linearity...there can be quite a few...theoretically an infinite number. Their powers tend to taper off as you get farther from the two original tones. Note above how the specification calls attention to offsets of 800KHz and 1MHz above and below the original two tones. Listen carefully... in 1998 I can't think of anyone, who does CDMA and understands it, who would specify linearity this way. Now consider the following: From the December 1998(this month) issue of Microwave Journal, The featured technical article: "Measuring ACPR in CDMA Amplifiers" by Mark Slovic, Hewlett-Packard Co. Santa Rosa, CA USA. As you know Hewlett-Packard makes test equipment and should be up on what is going on so they can sell test equipment to companies making stuff...like CDMA equipment. Pg 74, Quote" Adjacent-channel power ratio (ACPR) testing is commonly used in the wire-less communications industry to characterize the distortion performance of CDMA amplifiers." Did you get that? "commmonly used in the wire-less communications industry ....". Wow I'm stunned aren't you? The companies who wrote the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA specification aren't using the "commonly used" method!! BTW, the two tone test goes way way back 20's, 30's??. ACPR(adjacent channel power rejection) is something relatively new (1990's?) and found around systems doing digital noise like signals (spread spectrum...CDMA?? Cool huh??). Now, read on because it gets even more interesting... from the same issue of Microwave Journal pg. 24 "Linear RF Power Amplifier Design for CDMA Signals: A Spectrum Analysis Approach" by Qiang Wu Intel Corp., Network Product Division, Aloha, OR and Heng Xiao and Fu Li, Portland State University, Deptartment of Electrical Engineering, Portland, OR. Quote:"Traditionally, the nonlinearity of an RF amplifier is described by IP3 or, equivalently, by the 1dB compression point." What this means Tero is that traditionally a 1 or 2 tone test has been used to measure the nonlinear characteristics of an amplifier. But they continue:"In experiments and analysis it was discovered that, in some situations, using IP3(two tone test<my words>) only is not enough to describe the spectrum regrowth(or ACP...adjacent channel power<my words>), especially when the fifth-order intermodulation is relatively high compared to the third-order intermodulation". Now, get this quote: "Quatitatively, no clear relationship or expression exists to date between the out-of-band emission level and the traditional amplifier nonlinearity description. The lack of such a relationship poses difficulties for RF designers choosing components. This problem is generic in the design of RF power amplifiers for non-constant envelope digital modulations(like CDMA<my words>)". In other words, if you are going to specify amplifier performance and the signal to be amplified is CDMA than you can't use the traditional or two-tone description. According to Hewlett-Packard, A guy from Intel and two college researchers, this is widely known. As someone who is familiar with this technology I can assure you that this is widely known, at least amongst folks who work with CDMA. Now, here is what really gets me about the UTRA specification, some might argue that a two-tone test will give you some idea of the amplifier performance. Yes, thats a stretch for CDMA but when you first start out and you're learning about CDMA you might be familiar with the old two tone test and feel comfortable starting with what you know but...spacing the tones 200KHz??????????? Here is what you should ask your engineer friends Tero. If the W-CDMA chip rate is 4.096MCPS and the expected 3rd and 5th order intermodulation products are going to fall say 2MHz and 4MHz away from the center of this spectrum....how in the world is a 200KHz spaced two-tone test going to shed any light on the amplifiers performance?? The 3rd and 5th order products won't fall anywhere near areas of interest!! Tero, find some qualified engineers and ask them that question. The answer is it doesn't shed any light, it's lousy. It doesn't make any sense. The guys who wrote this spec had to answer a specific question from the ITU. They gave a standard textbook answer for linearity but even screwed up the specifics of that. But the big problem I have is that they didn't even know enough to at least specify it as an ACPR test. You can get the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA proposal from the ITU Website at itu.int You can also get the ARIB(Japan) W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 and all the rest there as well. You may contact Microwave Journal at Horizon House Publications Inc., 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 and they can put you in touch with the respective authors. Of course, it should be relatively easy to contact them at HP Santa Rosa or Portland State University. Tero, If you read the various proposals and if you weigh what is in them you will know one thing for sure. ETSI UTRA W-CDMA has not been under development for 7 -9 years with millions of dollars spent on it. The authors didn't even know how to specify amplifier linearity performance correctly for CDMA! This document is the current(according to the website as of June 1998) ETSI submission at the ITU regarding W-CDMA for 3G. Years of development? Cutting edge technology? State of the art proposal? From people who are familiar with and understand CDMA? No...not even close. Regards Walt