"Cingular Launches 3G Network"

<http://cingular.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1390>

Cingular Launches 3G Network
BroadbandConnect Service Offers Ultra-Fast Connections

ATLANTA - DECEMBER 6 - Cingular Wireless today launched its
super-charged wireless network capable of providing customers with
high-speed access to information in a world that has gone mobile.
Customers can use the third-generation (3G) network to access
Cingular BroadbandConnect, which is available to nearly 35 million
people in 52 communities throughout the United States. The company
will continue to extend the network rapidly next year.
...
Cingular’s 3G network is the first widely available service in the
world to use HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access) technology.
HSDPA is the high-speed evolution of GSM/EDGE (Global System for
Mobile Communication/Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution), which
shares a common core network.GSM is the world’s most popular wireless
technology, which is used by more than one billion people in 210
countries.

Cingular will initially launch the BroadbandConnect service in Austin
(TX.), Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Portland (OR.), Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco,
San Jose (CA.), Seattle, Tacoma (Wash.) and Washington D.C.
...
Cingular BroadbandConnect is a super-charged enhancement to the
company’s nationwide EDGE network, the nation’s largest wireless
high-speed data network. When coupled with a compatible device and
service plan, the service provides average mobile data connections
between 400-700Kbps (kilobits per second) on the downlink and bursts
to more than a megabit per second.

BroadbandConnect combines a laptop modem card, Cingular’s
Communication Manager software and a Data Connect plan for use on
laptops. Customers can use their laptops to access the Internet or
e-mail, download large files and attachments, and run corporate
business applications at broadband speeds in areas covered by
BroadbandConnect. The service also offers additional security features
compared to alternative wireless technologies. Additional devices and
exclusive services that take advantage of the high-speed HSDPA
network, such as transmitting full motion video and providing
ultra-fast audio, will be available in 2006.

Unlike services offered by some wireless companies, BroadbandConnect
does not drop a session when the user is outside the coverage
area. Cingular said the laptop modem cards are dual-band HSDPA/UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telephone System) (850/1900Mhz) and backward
compatible with EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution) and
GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) in four bands
(850/900/1800/1900Mhz), so the session is seamlessly transferred to
the company’s nationwide EDGE network or a data network of one of its
roaming partners.

The Cingular EDGE network is available in more than 13,000 cities and
towns and in areas along 40,000 miles of highways, providing average
data speeds between 70-135Kbps. Cingular customers can also access
data services in more than 90 countries.

Customers can purchase either a Sierra Wireless AC860 or Novatel U730
laptop modem card for $99.99, after rebate, when they sign up for a
qualifying voice plan and introductory two-year $59.99 Unlimited Data
Connect plan. A variety of monthly data plans are available starting
at $19.99 for 5 MB.

An updated version of Cingular Communication Manager is included with
the laptop modem cards. The software gives customers the flexibility
to connect to BroadbandConnect, EDGE, GPRS or public and private
Wi-Fi hotspots.

[MORE]

BroadbandConnect coverage maps:
<http://www.cingular.com/business/3G_cov_maps_pop>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: "Cingular Launches 3G Network"

John Navas wrote:

> Cingular said the laptop modem cards are dual-band
> HSDPA/UMTS (Universal Mobile Telephone System)
> (850/1900Mhz) and backward compatible with EDGE
> (Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution) and GPRS
> (General Packet Radio Service) in four bands
> (850/900/1800/1900Mhz), so the session is seamlessly
> transferred to the company’s nationwide EDGE network or a
> data network of one of its roaming partners.

Dual band UMTS 3G, using 850 MHz for better propagation, seems
to be a truly international frequency standard this time.
Australia will be upgrading its UMTS to dual band shortly,
using these same frequencies, and with a proposal to phase out
its existing Telstra CDMA network.

John

John Henderson wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> Cingular said the laptop modem cards are dual-band
>> HSDPA/UMTS (Universal Mobile Telephone System)
>> (850/1900Mhz) and backward compatible with EDGE
>> (Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution) and GPRS
>> (General Packet Radio Service) in four bands
>> (850/900/1800/1900Mhz), so the session is seamlessly
>> transferred to the company’s nationwide EDGE network or a
>> data network of one of its roaming partners.
>
> Dual band UMTS 3G, using 850 MHz for better propagation, seems
> to be a truly international frequency standard this time.
> Australia will be upgrading its UMTS to dual band shortly,
> using these same frequencies, and with a proposal to phase out

Hmm, that means installing a lot more cell sites out in the bush to
provide the same geographic coverage. I always thought that the
justification for Telstra getting all that government aid for their CDMA
network was that they provided coverage to areas that would otherwise
have only analog coverage.

SMS wrote:

> Hmm, that means installing a lot more cell sites out in the
> bush to provide the same geographic coverage. I always thought
> that the justification for Telstra getting all that government
> aid for their CDMA network was that they provided coverage to
> areas that would otherwise have only analog coverage.

Because UMTS uses CDMA instead of the TDMA of earlier GSM,
there's no distance limit imposed by timing advance. And at
850 MHz, signal propagation and penetration should be on a par
with the existing CDMA networks.

So in sparsely populated areas, Telstra's claiming that existing
CDMA cells can be replaced by 850 MHz UMTS cells on a
one-for-one basis. And if 3G usage is heavier, swamping weaker
signals, installing those extra cells should prove profitable.

John

John Henderson wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Hmm, that means installing a lot more cell sites out in the
>> bush to provide the same geographic coverage. I always thought
>> that the justification for Telstra getting all that government
>> aid for their CDMA network was that they provided coverage to
>> areas that would otherwise have only analog coverage.
>
> Because UMTS uses CDMA instead of the TDMA of earlier GSM,
> there's no distance limit imposed by timing advance. And at
> 850 MHz, signal propagation and penetration should be on a par
> with the existing CDMA networks.
>
> So in sparsely populated areas, Telstra's claiming that existing
> CDMA cells can be replaced by 850 MHz UMTS cells on a
> one-for-one basis. And if 3G usage is heavier, swamping weaker
> signals, installing those extra cells should prove profitable.

Ah, I thought they were doing GSM instead of CDMA. Yes, it seems like a
good plan as long as it's UMTS.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:36:58
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Henderson wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Cingular said the laptop modem cards are dual-band
>>> HSDPA/UMTS (Universal Mobile Telephone System)
>>> (850/1900Mhz) and backward compatible with EDGE
>>> (Enhanced Data Rates for Global Evolution) and GPRS
>>> (General Packet Radio Service) in four bands
>>> (850/900/1800/1900Mhz), so the session is seamlessly
>>> transferred to the company’s nationwide EDGE network or a
>>> data network of one of its roaming partners.
>>
>> Dual band UMTS 3G, using 850 MHz for better propagation, seems
>> to be a truly international frequency standard this time.
>> Australia will be upgrading its UMTS to dual band shortly,
>> using these same frequencies, and with a proposal to phase out
>
>Hmm, that means installing a lot more cell sites out in the bush to
>provide the same geographic coverage. I always thought that the
>justification for Telstra getting all that government aid for their CDMA
>network was that they provided coverage to areas that would otherwise
>have only analog coverage.

You're probably thinking GSM range (although it is capable of extended range).
This is UMTS/HSDPA.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:06:50
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Henderson wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, that means installing a lot more cell sites out in the
>>> bush to provide the same geographic coverage. I always thought
>>> that the justification for Telstra getting all that government
>>> aid for their CDMA network was that they provided coverage to
>>> areas that would otherwise have only analog coverage.
>>
>> Because UMTS uses CDMA instead of the TDMA of earlier GSM,
>> there's no distance limit imposed by timing advance. And at
>> 850 MHz, signal propagation and penetration should be on a par
>> with the existing CDMA networks.
>>
>> So in sparsely populated areas, Telstra's claiming that existing
>> CDMA cells can be replaced by 850 MHz UMTS cells on a
>> one-for-one basis. And if 3G usage is heavier, swamping weaker
>> signals, installing those extra cells should prove profitable.
>
>Ah, I thought they were doing GSM instead of CDMA. Yes, it seems like a
>good plan as long as it's UMTS.

Not even a good scramble. As usual, you had no idea what you were talking
about.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:

> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ah, I thought they were doing GSM instead of CDMA. Yes, it
>>seems like a good plan as long as it's UMTS.
>
> Not even a good scramble. As usual, you had no idea what you
> were talking about.

I'm with Steven ("SMS") on this one.

John

d[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:51:21 +1100, John
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Ah, I thought they were doing GSM instead of CDMA. Yes, it
>>>seems like a good plan as long as it's UMTS.
>>
>> Not even a good scramble. As usual, you had no idea what you
>> were talking about.
>
>I'm with Steven ("SMS") on this one.

A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite different)? Really?
(UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:

> A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite
> different)? Really? (UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)

I doubt that we're disagreeing on anything of substance. I took
it that Steven's bit about lots more cell sites was based on
his assumption that Telstra was replacing existing CDMA with
GSM. I hadn't made it all that clear that UMTS was to be the
replacement, so any misunderstanding was natural. He certainly
didn't deserve harsh treatment for that. If you have other
issues with Steven, I'm not a party to them.

Different or not, WCDMA is Wideband CDMA. UMTS uses
code-division, so it's CDMA. To say otherwise is like saying
that a catfish isn't a fish because it's a catfish.

Personally, I'd rather focus on the good news. It seems certain
that dual-band UMTS phones will soon be readily available, and
will work anywhere in the world where UMTS is deployed. That
has major ramifications for handset availability, choice and
price.

John

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:05 +1100, John
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite
>> different)? Really? (UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)
>
>I doubt that we're disagreeing on anything of substance. I took
>it that Steven's bit about lots more cell sites was based on
>his assumption that Telstra was replacing existing CDMA with
>GSM. I hadn't made it all that clear that UMTS was to be the
>replacement, so any misunderstanding was natural. He certainly
>didn't deserve harsh treatment for that. If you have other
>issues with Steven, I'm not a party to them.
>
>Different or not, WCDMA is Wideband CDMA. UMTS uses
>code-division, so it's CDMA. To say otherwise is like saying
>that a catfish isn't a fish because it's a catfish.

Not really. While the air interface of WCDMA is similar to CDMA, even that is
quite a bit different, and the rest of the technology is based on GSM, not
CDMA. The claim that WCDMA is like CDMA is mostly spin by the pro-CDMA
anti-GSM camp.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:

> Not really. While the air interface of WCDMA is similar to
> CDMA, even that is quite a bit different, and the rest of the
> technology is based on GSM, not CDMA. The claim that WCDMA is
> like CDMA is mostly spin by the pro-CDMA anti-GSM camp.

OK, I see where you're coming from now. I was using the term
generically, because I simply wanted to eliminate timing
advance as a UMTS distance constraint, and didn't want to
unnecessarily complicate things.

John

John Navas wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:05 +1100, John
>Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite
>>>different)? Really? (UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)
>>>
>>>
>>I doubt that we're disagreeing on anything of substance. I took
>>it that Steven's bit about lots more cell sites was based on
>>his assumption that Telstra was replacing existing CDMA with
>>GSM. I hadn't made it all that clear that UMTS was to be the
>>replacement, so any misunderstanding was natural. He certainly
>>didn't deserve harsh treatment for that. If you have other
>>issues with Steven, I'm not a party to them.
>>
>>Different or not, WCDMA is Wideband CDMA. UMTS uses
>>code-division, so it's CDMA. To say otherwise is like saying
>>that a catfish isn't a fish because it's a catfish.
>>
>>
>
>Not really. While the air interface of WCDMA is similar to CDMA, even that is
>quite a bit different, and the rest of the technology is based on GSM, not
>CDMA. The claim that WCDMA is like CDMA is mostly spin by the pro-CDMA
>anti-GSM camp.
>
>
>
Maybe things need to be more specific. WCDMA and CDMA2000 are both
forms of CDMA. CDMA2000 in its various flavors, is usually referred to
as just CDMA. There is a distinction. Both CDMA2000 and WCDMA are
forms of CDMA, although not compatible.

Does QCOM have the patent over WCDMA?


"Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bgqmf.77564$2k5.46437@dukeread09...
> John Navas wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:05 +1100,
>>John
>>Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite
>>>>different)? Really? (UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)
>>>>
>>>I doubt that we're disagreeing on anything of substance. I took
>>>it that Steven's bit about lots more cell sites was based on
>>>his assumption that Telstra was replacing existing CDMA with
>>>GSM. I hadn't made it all that clear that UMTS was to be the
>>>replacement, so any misunderstanding was natural. He certainly
>>>didn't deserve harsh treatment for that. If you have other
>>>issues with Steven, I'm not a party to them.
>>>
>>>Different or not, WCDMA is Wideband CDMA. UMTS uses
>>>code-division, so it's CDMA. To say otherwise is like saying
>>>that a catfish isn't a fish because it's a catfish.
>>>
>>
>>Not really. While the air interface of WCDMA is similar to CDMA, even
>>that is
>>quite a bit different, and the rest of the technology is based on GSM, not
>>CDMA. The claim that WCDMA is like CDMA is mostly spin by the pro-CDMA
>>anti-GSM camp.
>>
>>
> Maybe things need to be more specific. WCDMA and CDMA2000 are both forms
> of CDMA. CDMA2000 in its various flavors, is usually referred to as just
> CDMA. There is a distinction. Both CDMA2000 and WCDMA are forms of CDMA,
> although not compatible.
>

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:35:13 GMT, "Uno" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Does QCOM have the patent over WCDMA?
They have a number of CDMA patents, however I don't remember if it is
WCDMA ,or CDMA2000. One if tightly controlled, the other is not.

Qualcom was furious when the Europeans settled on a standard that
didn't require the use of any of the Qualcom patents. One of the
reason for the much more widespread use of GSM is that while there are
patents on some of the chips and implementation, there are no patents
on the underlying technologies. I.E. you can build a GSM BTS or phone
without violating or licensing a single patent.


>
>
>"Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:bgqmf.77564$2k5.46437@dukeread09...
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:00:05 +1100,
>>>John
>>>Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A lot more cell sites? CDMA, not WCDMA (which is quite
>>>>>different)? Really? (UMTS is not CDMA -- it's WCDMA.)
>>>>>
>>>>I doubt that we're disagreeing on anything of substance. I took
>>>>it that Steven's bit about lots more cell sites was based on
>>>>his assumption that Telstra was replacing existing CDMA with
>>>>GSM. I hadn't made it all that clear that UMTS was to be the
>>>>replacement, so any misunderstanding was natural. He certainly
>>>>didn't deserve harsh treatment for that. If you have other
>>>>issues with Steven, I'm not a party to them.
>>>>
>>>>Different or not, WCDMA is Wideband CDMA. UMTS uses
>>>>code-division, so it's CDMA. To say otherwise is like saying
>>>>that a catfish isn't a fish because it's a catfish.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not really. While the air interface of WCDMA is similar to CDMA, even
>>>that is
>>>quite a bit different, and the rest of the technology is based on GSM, not
>>>CDMA. The claim that WCDMA is like CDMA is mostly spin by the pro-CDMA
>>>anti-GSM camp.
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe things need to be more specific. WCDMA and CDMA2000 are both forms
>> of CDMA. CDMA2000 in its various flavors, is usually referred to as just
>> CDMA. There is a distinction. Both CDMA2000 and WCDMA are forms of CDMA,
>> although not compatible.
>>
>