"Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

> A 1 Mbps channel takes 100 times more power, 20 dB, than a 10 kbps
But if you only need to transfer 10k bits, you should be able to
use the fast, high power channel for 1/100 second, then turn it off
for the next 99/100 second, thus using the same average power. No?

---

› See More: "Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700,
>>
>>> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
>>> something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he
>>> states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
>>>
>>> 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is
>>> to
>>> venture a little way past them into the impossible.
>>>
>>> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
>>> from
>>> magic.
>>>
>>> -Arthur C. Clarke
>>
>>Interesting quote but I'm not sure how this applies.
>
> Read #1 and #2 again.
>
>>If you are doubting
>>Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I
>>think
>
> What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.
>
>>I will terminate my part in this discussion now.
>
> Your choice.
>
>>WiMax presently has a definition.
>
> Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.
>
>>You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.
>
> CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?
>
>>I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the
>>footprint. If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address
>>the footprint problem, it's no longer WiMax.
>
> Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.
>
>>If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
>>then CDMA doesn't go away.
>
> I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.
>
>>This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
>>going away to be replaced by WiMax.
>
> With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
> simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
> be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.
>
>>> Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and
>>> is spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in
>>> that and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an
>>> issue (as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual
>>> modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will
>>> be a killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good
>>> to argue about it now.
>

Gee, Johnny- I see that are once again dabbling in areas that you don't
understand. I'll assume that all of the 'information' you posted was
the result of yet another google search- why should this time be any
different than any other?

The information provided by G is accurate and much more reliable than
your own personal pipe dreams.

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:

>> If you are doubting
>> Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think
>
> What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.

I'd be interested to hear your description of the theorem and how it is
to be correctly interpreted.

>> WiMax presently has a definition.
>
> Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.

Which would make it something other than IEEE 802.16 that is as yet not
suggested and unknown.


>> You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.
>
> CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?


The part where you responded to what I said:
>> WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
>> >possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
>> >I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.
>
by writing:
> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app."


>> I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
>> If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
>> problem, it's no longer WiMax.
>
> Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.

OK. If we let the meaning of WiMax change to "something that has some of
the current aspects of WiMax but also provides low channel rate voice
service" rather than the presently understood definition, then I agree
completely with you. "WiMax may replace all of CDMA".

However if in any discussion those involved say "all words are subject
to having their meanings modified or adapted at any time to mean
something else" then there's not much point in trying to learn from one
another.

Though I have to admit, this exchange has been sort of amusing...

>> If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
>> then CDMA doesn't go away.
>
> I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.
>

ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
replaced.

>> This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
>> going away to be replaced by WiMax.
>
> With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
> simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
> be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.

That's not what your response indicated. Perhaps you didn't correctly
present your opinion.

I'm waiting to hear your clarification of the definition of Shannon's
channel capacity equation.

g

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:44:44 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> If you are doubting
>>> Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think
>>
>> What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.
>
>I'd be interested to hear your description of the theorem and how it is
>to be correctly interpreted.

Focus first on the first part of what I wrote, about your assumptions.

>>> WiMax presently has a definition.
>>
>> Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.
>
>Which would make it something other than IEEE 802.16 that is as yet not
>suggested and unknown.

[shrug]

>>> I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
>>> If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
>>> problem, it's no longer WiMax.
>>
>> Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.
>
>OK. If we let the meaning of WiMax change to "something that has some of
>the current aspects of WiMax but also provides low channel rate voice
>service" rather than the presently understood definition, then I agree
>completely with you. "WiMax may replace all of CDMA".

I said nothing of the kind, as I've again made clear.

>However if in any discussion those involved say "all words are subject
>to having their meanings modified or adapted at any time to mean
>something else" then there's not much point in trying to learn from one
>another.

Fair enough.

>Though I have to admit, this exchange has been sort of amusing...

My own words are "silly" and "pointless".

>>> If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
>>> then CDMA doesn't go away.
>>
>> I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.
>
>ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
>replaced.

Nope. Read more carefully.

>>> This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
>>> going away to be replaced by WiMax.
>>
>> With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
>> simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
>> be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.
>
>That's not what your response indicated. Perhaps you didn't correctly
>present your opinion.

Perhaps you didn't pay much attention to what I actually wrote.

>I'm waiting to hear your clarification of the definition of Shannon's
>channel capacity equation.

Suit yourself.

I think we're done. Feel free to have the last word.

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

[email protected] wrote:
>> A 1 Mbps channel takes 100 times more power, 20 dB, than a 10 kbps
> But if you only need to transfer 10k bits, you should be able to
> use the fast, high power channel for 1/100 second, then turn it off
> for the next 99/100 second, thus using the same average power. No?

Yes. But the problem remains that we can't support the higher rate,
burstier channel without going to something other than WiMax and without
expensive changes in hardware at both handset and base.

Implementing a lower rate channel with this technique would drastically
increase the crest factor requirements of all the hardware.

And even if it were implemented perfectly we still have to deal with
lower efficiency of VoIP vs. dedicated audio protocols. This also
translates to cell footprint shrinkage, though it would seem that it
would be possible to improve on the existing situation. I don't know if
it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a decent VoIP
call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which is roughly
what conventional audio requires.

g

> I don't know if it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a
> decent VoIP call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which
> is roughly what conventional audio requires.
Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
the internet is not substantial.

[email protected] wrote:
>> I don't know if it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a
>> decent VoIP call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which
>> is roughly what conventional audio requires.
> Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
> phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
> in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
> the internet is not substantial.

Well, I'm not an export on voice compression schemes and their relative
efficiencies but I suspect the answer relates to the generality of IP
based voice as compared to dedicated systems. I'd agree that the 40 byte
TCP/IP overhead doesn't seem like it should be a show stopper. However
for voice I suppose latency management, QOS and such can't help matters.

Since it's all data, one would think that if latency and rate were
satisfied that it should be possible to improve things to a comparable
level. Perhaps it is and common VoIPs haven't yet done this.

I don't know, maybe someone else here does.

g

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:29:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>> I don't know if it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a
>> decent VoIP call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which
>> is roughly what conventional audio requires.
> Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
>phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
>in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
>the internet is not substantial.

The original GSM RPE-LTP (Regular Pulse Excitation Long-Term Prediction)
full rate codec is actually 13 Kbps, but that's over the air interface,
not TCP/IP.

For technical information of VoIP codecs, see
<http://www.zytrax.com/tech/protocols/voip_rates.htm>. Some are
actually more efficient than GSM RPE-LTP.

To calculate the necessary bandwidth for VoIP, see
<http://www.voip-calculator.com/calculator/lipb/>.

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

<http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>

Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
fiscal third quarter.

The Finnish giant said on Thursday that sales rose to €10.1bn from
€8.4bn in the same three month period a year ago.

...

According to Nokia's latest figures, it sold 88.5m devices during its
fiscal third quarter, up 13 per cent compared to the preceding
quarter and a rise of 33 per cent versus the same three month period
a year ago.

...

Nokia grabs 35 per cent mobile market share.

Meanwhile, a new report from Strategy Analytics, which was also
released on Thursday, revealed that the Finnish-based firm has
maintained its top spot on the worldwide vendor table, clocking up
its highest market share level for three years with 35 per cent.

...

Strategy Analytics reports mixed blessings for Motorola, however. The
research firm's study indicates that "Razr mania" would seem to have
peaked with the company losing its crown as the fasting-growing
mobile maker for the first time since the first quarter of 2005. The
US-based mobile manufacturer grew shipments at a healthy 39 per cent
annual rate during the third quarter. It currently has 21 per cent
market share, up from 18.4 per cent a year ago.

[MORE]

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

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:59:34 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:15:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"
>>
>>Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
>>technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
>>market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
>>costs over a much larger TAM.
>
>Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
>Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:
>
><http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_wimax11.html>

Plus, Nokia is actually on a roll:

"Nokia maintains spot as mobile top dog"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>

Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
fiscal third quarter.

The Finnish giant said on Thursday that sales rose to €10.1bn from
€8.4bn in the same three month period a year ago.

...

According to Nokia's latest figures, it sold 88.5m devices during its
fiscal third quarter, up 13 per cent compared to the preceding
quarter and a rise of 33 per cent versus the same three month period
a year ago.

...

Nokia grabs 35 per cent mobile market share.

Meanwhile, a new report from Strategy Analytics, which was also
released on Thursday, revealed that the Finnish-based firm has
maintained its top spot on the worldwide vendor table, clocking up
its highest market share level for three years with 35 per cent.

...

Strategy Analytics reports mixed blessings for Motorola, however. The
research firm's study indicates that "Razr mania" would seem to have
peaked with the company losing its crown as the fasting-growing
mobile maker for the first time since the first quarter of 2005. The
US-based mobile manufacturer grew shipments at a healthy 39 per cent
annual rate during the third quarter. It currently has 21 per cent
market share, up from 18.4 per cent a year ago.

[MORE]

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

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>
> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
> fiscal third quarter.

I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.

Dave

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:43 -0400, Diamond Dave
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>
>>
>> Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
>> phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
>> fiscal third quarter.
>
>I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.

Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".

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

At 20 Oct 2006 00:22:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".

I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...

Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?

Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
with "long term shrinking markets."




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:09:41 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
>low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
>certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
>with "long term shrinking markets."

Nokia has never done well in the American market. I used to have a
Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
looked back.

Dave

At 20 Oct 2006 05:49:09 -0400 Diamond Dave wrote:

> Nokia has never done well in the American market.

If by "done well" you mean you never liked their phones, I'll accept that.

However, in terms of sales, Nokia ruled the US for virtually all of the
1990s and the first couple years of this century, finally
losing it to Motorola a year or two ago.

> I used to have a
> Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
> when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
> looked back.
>
> Dave

Really. I was the opposite. Almost every phone I've owned has been a
Nokia- three AMPS, five TDMA, and three GSM. I tried a Moto StarTac, and
an Ericsson flip back in the TDMA days, and always went back to Nokia.
My favorite phone ever (considering the day and age it was around) was
the Nokia 8290. Six years ago I had a phone that was still small by
today's standards, wighed nothing, had good receptionand even rudimentary
data connectivity. It's still my "hostile environment" phone- the phone
I take places I'd never take my current, far more fragile PDA phone phone
(the beach, for example.)

My current phone is an HTC Windows Mobile-based PPC. I think Nokia has
lost it recently, as if they're trying to make their phones look as
"wild" as possible instead of ergonomically useful. I assume it's a
variant of the "if you throw enough s**t at the wall..." theory- if they
release 20 goofy looking phones a year, one of them HAS to "click" with
the public and become the next RAZR, right? ;-)


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com