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: DaveMG who wrote (25304)	3/27/1999 9:18:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - Are there differences in the way the spreading/handoffs etc are to be done in WCDMA compared with CDMA2000,leaving timing issues aside? As usual, some good points. There are a lot more differences between W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 then just chip rate and synch. Almost surely the protocols for power control, soft handoff, vocoder bit rate changing, ... are all different, and I suspect that these areas are ones in which Nokia and Motorola have had a lot of problems. Qualcomm appears to have listed all the things that made W-CDMA incompatible with CDMAOne and then prioritized them according to which would cost the most to change in an existing CDMAOne system and removed all but the top five. Why is WCDMA called direct sequence and CDMA2000 multicarrier, as if CDMA2000 were not direct sequence? I would speculate that it is for the same reason that W-CDMA is the acronym. Confusion between the generic and the particular. 'We're the experts in Direct Sequence CDMA' makes you think that they know more than Qualcomm about all forms of DS-CDMA, when in reality all that they are really more experienced at is the particular mode. Isn't this just a spectrum issue which has nothing to do with synchronous/asynchronous pilots, chiprate, concatenated convoluted Solomon turbochargers and the rest? Is there any reason CDMAone can't be used in these new slices of spectrum? The difference in spectrum used between W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 in its wide mode is very little. And CDMA-2000 in its wide mode is not multi-carrier. Just FYI. Of course we won't know until later but perhaps the 3.8x rate is 10% more efficient and someone building an entirely new network ie NTT might be willing to take the risk with the hope of gaining that capacity. And what about data? Is there even a kernel of truth in these factoids we've seen numerous times claiming WCDMA will do data better? W-CDMA might indeed provide 10% more throughput due to chip rate; then again maybe not. The big argument against a different chip rate is that there are many things in the system that affect the capacity more than the slight difference in chip rate possibly could, and the system capacity uncertainty is certainly greater than the chip rate difference. To hone a particular parameter that has a few percent effect on performance which is lost in the noise is known in engineering circles as 'polishing a turd'. As for handling data, there are few ways to know without a full simulation, but generally I would expect that if there are significant differences that most of them could be easily handled in software. Most hardware aspects are probably not factors in data transmission performance. Thus this is not likely to be a good reason for keeping a separate mode. Clark

To: DaveMG who wrote (25304)	3/28/1999 4:17:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

NTT and where to? Dave, you wrote, "NTT is obviously the biggie and the parameters they choose to use may set the trend. I find it hard to believe they'll go CDMAone because then they'll be pitted directly against DDI/ IDO, late to mkt with exactly the same technology..." If they don't go with cdmaOne they have to wait until either cdma2000 is ready or W-CDMA. That will take 2 years. That is a very long time for their customers to be leaving for DDI and competitors. Since there is no technical merit in W-CDMA, they won't have any special advantage over cdma2000 which might already be well installed at competitors by the time they get W-CDMA. If they put in cdmaOne now, they'll have a smooth and fast upgrade path and compete right now with others providing cdmaOne. If NTT waits years for W-CDMA to grind its way through the lab on the off-chance that it's a fraction more spectrum efficient, they might be just installing it when Q! brings out OFDM in 4G with directional antennae, and "Current Price is ..." Peripheral Processing [TM] making NTT's brand spanking new W-CDMA look like something out of the ark. I think NTT better give Ericy an order for cdmaOne now. They have a factory ready to roll. Ericy need no longer deny them that request. The attempts [by Koreans, NTT, Nokia and others] to reduce royalties by feigning favouritism of Ericy can be shelved since the rate is now set at a fixed price whichever system they choose. They can start ordering equipment now [last one in loses the most customers]. Mqurice