Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

On 1 Feb 2008 17:19:26 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60h2kuF1qvn4sU1@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA!
>>
>> Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different.
>
>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>but not anytime soon.

Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:13:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a32854$0$84205$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> Alltel is making some pretty good inroads and may largely pick up the slack
>> from Sprint ... especially if they start selling assets.
>
>In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
>countries where there are already established GSM networks. In
>percentage terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share.
>However if and when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that
>will be a blow to CDMA.

Actually just the opposite, as I've proven in past posts.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.

Next G is HSDPA.

--
Charles

Charles wrote:
> In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.
>
> Next G is HSDPA.

Which is W-CDMA.

In article <47a4725f$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Charles wrote:
> > In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.
> >
> > Next G is HSDPA.
>
> Which is W-CDMA.

Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?

You could also say that all cell phones are the same since they are
radios. (to most people that would be true and good enough since they
don't care if a phone uses CDMA, W-CDMA, HSDPA, TDMA, GSM, LTE, etc,
they just want it to work)

Next G is HSDPA. Telstra plans to turn off it's CDMA network.

--
Charles

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>but not anytime soon.
>
> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>

Whatever you say John ... you know best.

Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
.... you know best.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>

There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

On 4 Feb 2008 17:37:31 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60p0qrF1rrm2lU1@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>but not anytime soon.
>>
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>
>Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
>Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.

>But I defer to you
>... you know best.

Discourtesy only serves to make your case less persuasive. Likewise
your lack of anything to support your argument.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 4 Feb 2008 17:44:51 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60p18jF1rrm2lU2@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>
>There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
>Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
>W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
>Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
>patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
>truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
>technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.


Apology accepted.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <60p18jF1rrm2lU2@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
> >
>
> There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name!

The important thing is that they are not compatible, they are
incompatible, not that they have similar names. You can't use a CDMA
phone on a W-CDMA network or vice versa. It is silly to say they are
the same when you can't use one on a network that uses the other.

--
Charles

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>> but not anytime soon.
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>
>
> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
> ... you know best.
>

GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
misguided.

But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...

g

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
<47a75dca$0$36332$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>> but not anytime soon.
>>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>>
>> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
>> ... you know best.
>
>GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
>American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
>To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
>technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
>misguided.
>
>But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...

Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
(infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.

Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>