|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > July 2006 > Re: Telcos switch from CDMA to GSM
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Telcos switch from CDMA to GSM
|
|
|
| HSDPA in 3G GSM system is using WCDMA. Will it need to pay royalty to
Qualcom?
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ibnkc29i4b1k6sv
7757m17deslruib4vpg@
4ax.com...
> <http://www.ndtvprofit.com/homepage/...tory=n&id=31859>
>
> CDMA technology is fast losing favour with telecom companies and
> handset makers who are switching to GSM, as it is less expensive to
> operate.
>
> When Reliance communications shows signs of abandoning its CDMA
> backbone it is a clear that the technology is running into serious
> trouble.
>
> And on Thursday, Qualcom, the world's biggest CDMA chip maker, gave
> Indian CDMA players one more reason to switch to GSM.
>
> Qualcom said it would continue to charge seven per cent royalty from
> India operators, while it charges only two per cent in China, and
> zero royalty in USA.
>
> CDMA market to shrink
>
> Operators say this high royalty on CDMA sets makes the technology
> more expensive to operate and even handset makers seem to agree.
>
> Nokia for instance, says it believes the CDMA market is going to
> shrink in the long term. It has ended talks to form a joint venture
> with Sanyo Electric Company to produce CDMA enabled handsets.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Uno wrote:
> HSDPA in 3G GSM system is using WCDMA. Will it need to pay royalty to
> Qualcom?
Yes.
There's no debate that high speed data will be CDMA, it's already
happened. The real question is about voice. GSM has a big lead, but GSM
has been losing market share worldwide, as CDMA networks are being
deployed in China, India, and in other countries. In the U.S., CDMA has
a big lead over GSM, and has been gaining market share every quarter.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:02 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44cd76e3$0$96171$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Uno wrote:
>
>Yes.
>
>There's no debate that high speed data will be CDMA, it's already
>happened.
You're playing with words -- a bit like claiming Fords are the same as
BMWs because they're all cars -- W-CDMA (UMTS) is quite different from
and incompatible with "CDMA" (actually CDMA2000).
>The real question is about voice. GSM has a big lead, but GSM
>has been losing market share worldwide, as CDMA networks are being
>deployed in China, India, and in other countries.
Just the opposite, which is why Nokia pulled out of CDMA.
>In the U.S., CDMA has
>a big lead over GSM, and has been gaining market share every quarter.
Again, just the opposite -- GSM gained share rapidly over the past few
years.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| William Ahern 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:15:14 +0000, John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:02 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> You're playing with words -- a bit like claiming Fords are the same as
> BMWs because they're all cars -- W-CDMA (UMTS) is quite different from
> and incompatible with "CDMA" (actually CDMA2000).
>
I think we should institute a rule that "CDMA" should not be used
unqualified ;)
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| William Ahern < william@25thandcleme
nt.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should institute a rule that "CDMA" should not be used
> unqualified ;)
>
Hmm ... if you have to call the air interface for UTMS as CDMA or GSM (TDMA),
which is it?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| Contrary to what Qualcomm CDMA2000 ("CMDA") advocates would have you
believe, Qualcomm doesn't even own all the CDMA-Type patents, much less
other necessary patents, and there is no simple answer to your question.
Applicable cell phone patents (including those for W-CDMA/UMTS) run in
the many hundreds, with the majority being held by companies other than
Qualcomm. Qualcomm needs access to certain non-Qualcomm patents just as
other companies need access certain Qualcomm patents, depending on which
particular technologies are being used. That's normally handled by
cross-licensing agreements in which little money changes hands between
the principal players -- it's the smaller players that have to pay to
play. Pretty much everybody plays nice, the notable exception being
litigious Qualcomm, which, not being a major hardware player, tries to
extract usurious patent royalties from others.
Qualcomm has been free to do pretty much what it wants with CDMA2000,
and has set royalty rates so high that CDMA2000 has been severely hurt
in the marketplace, as evidenced by little adoption outside of the USA,
the recent loss of Nokia as a player, and signs that India may switch
from "CDMA" (Qualcomm CDMA2000) to GSM/UMTS/W-CDMA.
The situation is supposed to be different for UMTS, where international
standards bodies require that technology be licensed on "fair and
reasonable rates" to everyone. Pretty much everybody has agreed to do
that, with the major players agreeing to a total royalty cap of no more
than 5%, but again, the notable exception is litigious Qualcomm, which
is trying to extract more than that from a minority patent position. As
a result, it's being investigated by the European Commission (which
recently slapped Microsoft quite hard).
At the present time there's no way to know how this will all play out,
including how much non-Qualcomm CDMA-type patents will be worth, but it
seems unlikely that Qualcomm will get anything like its usual CDMA2000
royalties from UMTS/W-CDMA.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:55:06 GMT, "Uno" <Uno@max.com> wrote in
<_pdzg.59554$VE1.53095@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:
[color=darkred]
>HSDPA in 3G GSM system is using WCDMA. Will it need to pay royalty to
>Qualcom?
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:ibnkc29i4b1k6sv
7757m17deslruib4vpg@
4ax.com...
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:18:02 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uPrzg.40550$lg2.7070@fe01.usenetserver.com>:
>William Ahern < william@25thandcleme
nt.com> wrote:
>
>Hmm ... if you have to call the air interface for UTMS as CDMA or GSM (TDMA),
>which is it?
It's quite different from and incompatible with CDMA2000, something CDMA
advocates disingenuously try to hide by using the term "CDMA" in
ambiguous ways. CDMA the basic technology is only a minor part of the
overall system and isn't the same thing as either CDMA2000 or W-CDMA.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:06:56 -0700, William Ahern
< william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.07.31.18.06.56. 627912@25thandClemen
t.com>:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:15:14 +0000, John Navas wrote:
>
>I think we should institute a rule that "CDMA" should not be used
>unqualified ;)
Amen. But I doubt Qualcomm CDMA2000 advocates will go along. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|