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 : NEXTEL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (8432)	1/5/1999 8:19:00 PM
From: blue_lotus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10227

Hi, >CDMA - low energy, shorter wave amplitude, shorter distances, requires more towers, weaker handoffs between cells (???), more overall potential capacity, higher cost buildout. Unfortunately, your comprision between CDMA and TDMA is flawed. I am not a Electrical Eng. but have been following the CDMA/TDMA debate for a long time (about 3 years now). Here are some things I find that are wrong : (Also, visit the QCOM thread...there are people there who are very familiar with this debate and will be able to give you an even better perspective) 1) Strong handoff vs. weaker handoff (as you claimed) Well it is actually Hard Handoff vs. Soft Handoff. (TDMA with Hard Handoff and CDMA with Soft Handoff) Hard Handoff is bad because it results in clicks and more dropped calls. While Soft handoff provides seemless handoffs. This is an advantage of CDMA (but would not seem so if it were called "weaker handoff ;-) 2) low overall energy and shorter wave amplitude. Same thing and a plus. You could increase this if you wanted, but why would you. This is an advantage of CDMA achieved due to spreading. 3) More towers and Higher Buildout Cost???? Never herd of this. Please enlighten. After 3 years my conclusion is that though TDMA systems are not bad and do a good job, they have some inherent problems like a) More energy, less capacity. B) Most importantly not very suited for higher data rates. Thus, the result is that even the entrenched GSM (which has a form of TDMA air interface) camp in Europe is going to adopt a CDMA 3G system called W-CDMA. -Raj (Again I recommend anyone who wants to learn more about the CDMA/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA technologies to visit the QCOM thread here at SI.)

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (8432)	1/5/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10227

Frederick, Here is a post from on of the most technology oriented guys on QCOM thread, Walt Houston: Message 7124130 His post summarizes the reasons why the Europeans want to move from TDMA based GSM to CDMA based W-CDMA. He contradicts your point that you need more towers for CDMA. But the main point is that you get a lot more sale-able minutes out of a CDMA system compared to TDMA. And when you are running out of even a higher capacity, provided by CDMA, there are workable ways to increase it, compared to TDMA. I hope I paraphrased it correctly<g>. Joe PS: all this matter only if Nextel running out of capacity, or if capacity constraints are foreseeable or imminent.

To: Frederick Smart who wrote (8432)	1/5/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: engineer	Respond to of 10227

Too bad you know absolutely nothing about CDMA....but keep trying, perhaps after you visit www.cdg.org and go thru the white papers you can perhaps understand it.