1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Nokia Axes CDMA..chop chops

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by jgrove24@hotmail.com, Aug 12, 2006.

  1. 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.
     



    › See More: Nokia Axes CDMA..chop chops
  2. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    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.
     
  3. Steve Sobol wrote:
    > 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


    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.
     
  4. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    Simon Templar 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


    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.
     
  5. SMS

    SMS Guest

    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.


    They still have to pay Qualcomm for UMTS/HSDPA. The world is moving to
    CDMA, in one way or another. Whether it's GSM for voice/CDMA for data,
    or CDMA for both voice and data, the future is CDMA. Qualcomm profits
    either way. Yes, Qualcomm's royalty demands have affected CDMA voice
    deployment in third-world countries, but that's a business decision they
    made.

    GSM is old technology, and cannot support the bandwidth demands in the
    future.
     
  6. BT News

    BT News Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > 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.

    >
    >
    > They still have to pay Qualcomm for UMTS/HSDPA. The world is moving to
    > CDMA, in one way or another. Whether it's GSM for voice/CDMA for data,
    > or CDMA for both voice and data, the future is CDMA. Qualcomm profits
    > either way. Yes, Qualcomm's royalty demands have affected CDMA voice
    > deployment in third-world countries, but that's a business decision they
    > made.
    >
    > GSM is old technology, and cannot support the bandwidth demands in the
    > future.


    The IPR world also means that Qualcomm pays Nokia for patents aswell.
    The difference is not that big, between them, infact Nokia has more
    "essential" patents than Qualcomm.

    With regard to your "world is moving to CDMA" ... Hmmm maybe you should
    be looking to the real world rather than just USA.
     
  7. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    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.


    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.
     
  8. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    BT News wrote:

    > With regard to your "world is moving to CDMA" ... Hmmm maybe you should
    > be looking to the real world rather than just USA.


    Heh! You need to read the 3GPP documentation. It's quite clear what
    UMTS actually IS:

    http://www.umtsworld.com/technology/wcdma.htm


    It also amazes me how the GSM snobs think that GSM and CDMA are the only
    standards out there. There's Widen, TD-SCDMA, TDCDMA, NTT DoCoMo's own
    implementation of WCDMA with is incompatible with EVERYONE else, and
    EVDO Rev 0, A and soon B. And soon there will be WiMAX and OFDM.

    In reality, there is hardly a dichotomy out there. It's an alphabet
    soup with may players and many incompatibilities.


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

    George Guest

    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.
    >
     
  10. Sco

    Sco Guest

    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:GrqdnUznHpd26ULZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
    > 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.
    >>
     
  11. Larry

    Larry Guest

    Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in news:12dunivl37vif55
    @corp.supernews.com:

    > And soon there will be WiMAX and OFDM


    And his points will be moot....(c;

    Just got off the phone with someone new in Strasbourg, France, on Skype.
    He had his laptop hanging out the window to make it to "someone's wifi"
    that was open....(c;

    Cost to call Strasbourg for an hour from the USA? Priceless!
     
  12. "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:GrqdnUznHpd26ULZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
    > > 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.
    > >>

    >
    >
     
  13. Finding the keyboard operational
    Simon Templar entered:

    > Steve Sobol wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    > 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.


    I am suprised that no one has brought up that CDMA will be replaced by UMTS
    which has a spread spectrum air interface similar to... CDMA!
    Bob (who is so happy that he is no longerdealing with the political BS part
    of this)
    --￾
    --￾
    Coffee worth staying up for - NY Times
    www.moondoggiecoffee.com
     
  14. Sco

    Sco Guest

    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...
    >> 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:GrqdnUznHpd26ULZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
    >> > 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.
    >> >>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  15. SMS

    SMS Guest

    BT News wrote:

    > With regard to your "world is moving to CDMA" ... Hmmm maybe you should
    > be looking to the real world rather than just USA.


    I am. In the U.S., CDMA dominates both voice and data, but in the ROW,
    all of the high speed data is CDMA.
     
  16. (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.)
     
  17. Quick

    Quick Guest

    Doh... a bunch of facts. What a thread killer.

    -Quick


    Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
    > (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.
     
  18. Sco

    Sco Guest

    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 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.)
     
  19. Mutlley

    Mutlley Guest

    "Michael D. Sullivan" <userid@camsul.example.invalid> wrote:

    >(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.
    >

    Telecom New Zealand's main digital cell network is CDMA. (it's old
    AMPS and DAMPS gets closes next April) It's rival Vodafone uses GSM
    which they inherited when Bell South sold it's ops here.. There has
    been some debate recently as to whether TCNZ will continue developing
    it's CDMA network further or go WCDMA which is where Vodafone is
    heading. The discussion has been bought about by the fact the Telstra
    Australia is ditching it's CDMA network for a WCDMA one over the next
    few years. The CDMA technology that TCNZ uses is identical to Sprint
    so read Sprint you get where TCNZ is at..

    At home we have both GSM and CDMA phones. My preference is for CDMA
    especially if your using data..
     
  20. Isaiah Beard

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    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.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?