Cellular CDMA technology - Nokia Axes CDMA..chop chops

Author

Nokia Axes CDMA..chop chops

jgrove24@hotmail.com

2006-08-12, 3:33 pm

The company's decision to cut back its CDMA plans has led to a jobs
cull affecting half its San Diego campus

Nokia is cutting around 500 jobs at its San Diego campus - half the
workforce at that location - following its decision to cut back its
plans for CDMA technology, a rival standard to GSM which is used by
one-fifth of the world's mobile phones, according to local press
reports.

Those hit by the jobs cull will be offered a severance package or
relocation within the company working on GSM projects. The layoffs are
scheduled to take place in several waves between the end of 2006 and
the middle of next year.

Nokia won't stop working with CDMA entirely but will instead focus its
efforts on outsourced projects with third-party manufacturers. It
recently withdrew from a joint venture with Sanyo to develop CDMA
offerings, saying the ecosystem is "financially prohibitive".

The news follows a long-running spat between Nokia and Qualcomm, which
owns CDMA patents.
....
The facility will be restructured to focus on production of cell phones
based on GSM, or global system for mobile communication, technology,
said Timo Ihamuotila, senior vice president and general manager of
Nokia's CDMA mobile phone business. That system is used in the United
States by Cingular, T-Mobile and other carriers.

Ihamuotila said the Finnish company would continue to produce
Nokia-branded CDMA phones through third-party manufacturers overseas.

The layoffs, announced Tuesday, will not take effect for a couple
months, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. A Nokia spokesman did not
immediately respond to a phone message asking about the timing.

Steve Sobol

2006-08-12, 3:33 pm

jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:

> The company's decision to cut back its CDMA plans has led to a jobs
> cull affecting half its San Diego campus

And this should surprise no one, given recent news and the fact that Nokia
was never committed to CDMA in the first place.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Simon Templar

2006-08-12, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol wrote:
> jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> And this should surprise no one, given recent news and the fact that Nokia
> was never committed to CDMA in the first place

Why shouldn't they? CDMA is old technology that is being phased out
around most of the world. They are better off looking to the future
with GSM and UMTS, which that article failed to even mention.

--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.

Steve Sobol

2006-08-13, 4:33 am

Simon Templar wrote:

>
> Why shouldn't they? CDMA is old technology

Nokia wasn't committed to CDMA 10 years ago, either. Strawman argument.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Simon Templar

2006-08-13, 4:33 am

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Simon Templar wrote:
>
>
> Nokia wasn't committed to CDMA 10 years ago, either. Strawman argument

They were smart then! You can thank Qalcom for their greedy licensing
arrangements for killing off CDMA, it has NOTHING to do with Nokia, they
just weren't prepared to be ripped off.

--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.

Isaiah Beard

2006-08-13, 12:33 pm

Simon Templar wrote:

>
> They were smart then! You can thank Qalcom for their greedy licensing
> arrangements for killing off CDMA, it has NOTHING to do with Nokia, they
> just weren't prepared to be ripped off.

Funny, considering that UMTS is based on a number of Qualcomm patents,
and they will be getting royalties from that anyway.

Also funnytat you say CDMA is an "old technology." Actually, GSM is
much older. And the other name for UMTS is "W-CDMA," and incorporates a
lot of the same principles. But, you GSM-snobs keep conveniently
forgetting that.

The fact is simply that Nokia sees its skills better used in UMTS. Or
at least, I *hope* that's the case, considering GSM's days in its
current form are quite numbered. Eventually, those carriers will
migrate to UMTS, and many have already started in that direction.

cdmaOne and CDMA2000, on the other hand, have never been Nokia's
strongpoint. They made a grievous error by trying to develop their own
chispets, which were largely subpar. The build quality of the CDMA
handsets, as well as RF performance, was and is horrible.

So it makes sense for Nokia to give up. That leaves plenty of room for
the other major playors in CDMA: Motorola (who is rounding Nokia these
days, both in GSM and CDMA), Kyocera, Samsung, LG, Sanyo.

And in the end, it'll be moot anyway. Carriers from bother sides of the
standards war are already workign toward a 4G bridge standard, that will
unify the two camps.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

George

2006-08-13, 3:33 pm

Isaiah Beard wrote:

>
> cdmaOne and CDMA2000, on the other hand, have never been Nokia's
> strongpoint. They made a grievous error by trying to develop their own
> chispets, which were largely subpar. The build quality of the CDMA
> handsets, as well as RF performance, was and is horrible.
>

Exactly, I know someone involved in qualification and Nokia simply
couldn't make a good CDMA handset.

> So it makes sense for Nokia to give up. That leaves plenty of room for
> the other major playors in CDMA: Motorola (who is rounding Nokia these
> days, both in GSM and CDMA), Kyocera, Samsung, LG, Sanyo.
>
> And in the end, it'll be moot anyway. Carriers from bother sides of the
> standards war are already workign toward a 4G bridge standard, that will
> unify the two camps.
>

Sco

2006-08-13, 3:33 pm

Qualcomm shutdown CDMA base station development many years ago. For unknown
reason, Qualcomm could not build a successful CDMA base station. It has been
a bad sign for CDMA of Qualcomm in the future. It just can't go on with
CDMA. I believe that AT&T will kill CDMA of Qualcomm once for all.

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:GrqdnUznHpd26UL
ZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...[color=darkred]
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>
> Exactly, I know someone involved in qualification and Nokia simply
> couldn't make a good CDMA handset.
>
>
>

Phillip Devoll

2006-08-13, 10:33 pm

"Sco" <Sco@eng.com> wrote in message
news:TzLDg.12233$gY6.9364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Qualcomm shutdown CDMA base station development many years ago. For
unknown
> reason, Qualcomm could not build a successful CDMA base station. It has
been
> a bad sign for CDMA of Qualcomm in the future. It just can't go on with
> CDMA. I believe that AT&T will kill CDMA of Qualcomm once for all.

Didn't at&t use tmda?????

>
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:GrqdnUznHpd26UL
ZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
the[color=darkred]
will[color=darkred]
>
>

Sco

2006-08-13, 10:33 pm

AT&T used to use TDMA. Now, AT&T uses HSDPA. Ericson took over Qualcomm's
CDMA cell site business when Qualcomm sold it. It was the end of Qualcomm
CDMA cell site business.

"Phillip Devoll" <phillip@devoll.org> wrote in message
news:97ODg.5355$%j7.5044@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Sco" <Sco@eng.com> wrote in message
> news:TzLDg.12233$gY6.9364@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> unknown
> been
>
>
> Didn't at&t use tmda?????
>
>
> the
> will
>
>

Michael D. Sullivan

2006-08-15, 4:33 am

(Sorry to cross-post; I've set followups to alt.cellular.verizon.)

On 8/13/2006 4:02 PM, Sco wrote:
> Qualcomm shutdown CDMA base station development many years ago. For unknown
> reason, Qualcomm could not build a successful CDMA base station. It has been
> a bad sign for CDMA of Qualcomm in the future. It just can't go on with
> CDMA. I believe that AT&T will kill CDMA of Qualcomm once for all.

Qualcomm got out of the base station and handset business entirely; not
because they couldn't build a successful CDMA base station but because
those were and are commodity businesses at which they couldn't achieve
the high profit margins that Qualcomm achieves from its chipmaking and
patent licensing businesses.

I don't understand what you mean when you say Qualcomm "just can't go on
with CDMA." CDMA = Qualcomm = CDMA. Qualcomm owns the patents and
makes/licenses the chips. It has no other business of significance (I
doubt Eudora is a huge profit center), and its CDMA line of business
makes money each time a cellphone or base station is sold that uses
standard CDMA, 1xRTT, 1xEVDO, W-CDMA (aka UMTS), or W-CDMA with HSDPA.
That's a very sizeable (i.e., huge) proportion of all the phones being
sold and base stations being deployed in North/South America, Europe,
Asia, and Australia. Probably Africa, too. (Pity that Antarctica isn't
a big market...) Now and for the next decade, at least. And I suspect
that Qualcomm has its tentacles into at least some of the technologies
being developed for fixed broadband.

And as to AT&T killing off Qualcomm once and for all, fuhgeddaboutit.
AT&T hasn't been an equipment manufacturer for ages -- it sold its
equipment to Lucent. (Seen any Lucent handsets?) AT&T also spun off
its wireless operations, which were TDMA, to AT&T Wireless. AT&T
Wireless then developed its PCS networks using GSM and introduced
W-CDMA, which is reliant on Qualcomm patents. AT&T Wireless then merged
with Cingular, which also used TDMA and GSM, and the merged company
proceeded to (a) transition from TDMA to GSM and (b) roll out W-CDMA and
HSDPA 3G service, which again uses Qualcomm patents. Then one of
Cingular's parents, SBC, bought out AT&T and took its name, and SBC is
in the process of buying Cingular's other parent, BellSouth; after the
merger of AT&T and BellSouth is complete, Cingular will be AT&T's
wireless arm, and it is fully committed to Qualcomm-licensed W-CDMA and
HSDPA.

--
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(To reply, change example.invalid to com in the address.)

Sco

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

Qualcomm out of base station business. Ericson took over Qualcomm CDMA base
station business. It became junk. Ericson has all the right to develop CDMA
and HSDPA. I don't think Ericson will pay license to Qualcomm on CDMA and
HSDPA technology. Many international companies said that they don't need to
pay Qualcomm on HSDPA license fee. I think AT&T won't pay either.

"Michael D. Sullivan" <userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote in message
news:_3fEg.56052$zc2.226@trnddc06...
> (Sorry to cross-post; I've set followups to alt.cellular.verizon.)
>
> On 8/13/2006 4:02 PM, Sco wrote:
>
> Qualcomm got out of the base station and handset business entirely; not
> because they couldn't build a successful CDMA base station but because
> those were and are commodity businesses at which they couldn't achieve the
> high profit margins that Qualcomm achieves from its chipmaking and patent
> licensing businesses.
>
> I don't understand what you mean when you say Qualcomm "just can't go on
> with CDMA." CDMA = Qualcomm = CDMA. Qualcomm owns the patents and
> makes/licenses the chips. It has no other business of significance (I
> doubt Eudora is a huge profit center), and its CDMA line of business makes
> money each time a cellphone or base station is sold that uses standard
> CDMA, 1xRTT, 1xEVDO, W-CDMA (aka UMTS), or W-CDMA with HSDPA. That's a
> very sizeable (i.e., huge) proportion of all the phones being sold and
> base stations being deployed in North/South America, Europe, Asia, and
> Australia. Probably Africa, too. (Pity that Antarctica isn't a big
> market...) Now and for the next decade, at least. And I suspect that
> Qualcomm has its tentacles into at least some of the technologies being
> developed for fixed broadband.
>
> And as to AT&T killing off Qualcomm once and for all, fuhgeddaboutit. AT&T
> hasn't been an equipment manufacturer for ages -- it sold its equipment to
> Lucent. (Seen any Lucent handsets?) AT&T also spun off its wireless
> operations, which were TDMA, to AT&T Wireless. AT&T Wireless then
> developed its PCS networks using GSM and introduced W-CDMA, which is
> reliant on Qualcomm patents. AT&T Wireless then merged with Cingular,
> which also used TDMA and GSM, and the merged company proceeded to (a)
> transition from TDMA to GSM and (b) roll out W-CDMA and HSDPA 3G service,
> which again uses Qualcomm patents. Then one of Cingular's parents, SBC,
> bought out AT&T and took its name, and SBC is in the process of buying
> Cingular's other parent, BellSouth; after the merger of AT&T and BellSouth
> is complete, Cingular will be AT&T's wireless arm, and it is fully
> committed to Qualcomm-licensed W-CDMA and HSDPA.
>
> --
> Michael D. Sullivan
> Bethesda, MD (USA)
> (To reply, change example.invalid to com in the address.)

Isaiah Beard

2006-08-16, 10:33 pm

Sco wrote:
> Qualcomm out of base station business. Ericson took over Qualcomm CDMA base
> station business. It became junk.

So before you were saying that Qualcomm's base stations were junk BEFORE
they sold the base station business. Now it's *after?*

> Ericson has all the right to develop CDMA
> and HSDPA.

As do Lucent and Samsung, so long as they pay royalties.

> I don't think Ericson will pay license to Qualcomm on CDMA and
> HSDPA technology.

They *have* to.

> Many international companies said that they don't need to
> pay Qualcomm on HSDPA license fee.

Cite?

> I think AT&T won't pay either.

You appear to be badly misinformed regarding the nature of the wireless
industry, or simply biased to the point of being blind to the facts.
AT&T would not HAVE to directly pay licensing fees, because they do not
make handsets or base stations. AT&T's vendors, however, DO pay the
licensing fees whenever AT&T purchases handsets to sell to their
subscribers, or base stations to build out their network, as part of the
cost of doing business.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Uno

2006-08-18, 10:33 am

Qualcomm out of base station business. Ericson took over Qualcomm CDMA base
>
> So before you were saying that Qualcomm's base stations were junk BEFORE
> they sold the base station business. Now it's *after?*

If you knew Qualcomm's CDMA base station well, you must know that it was a
piece of junk.

"Isaiah Beard" < sacredpoet@sacredpoe
t.com> wrote in message
news:12e738t8n7p5662
@corp.supernews.com...
> Sco wrote:
>
> So before you were saying that Qualcomm's base stations were junk BEFORE
> they sold the base station business. Now it's *after?*
>
>
> As do Lucent and Samsung, so long as they pay royalties.
>
>
> They *have* to.
>
>
> Cite?
>
>
> You appear to be badly misinformed regarding the nature of the wireless
> industry, or simply biased to the point of being blind to the facts. AT&T
> would not HAVE to directly pay licensing fees, because they do not make
> handsets or base stations. AT&T's vendors, however, DO pay the licensing
> fees whenever AT&T purchases handsets to sell to their subscribers, or
> base stations to build out their network, as part of the cost of doing
> business.
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

LinkBot