San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003
16:52:38 -0400, An Metet <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>1. Your SNIPped quotes had NO URLs or reference to back them up.

As you implying I made them up? On what basis? I've actually posted
references before, and they are easily found in any event. But I don't see
much point in doing it again, since CDMA2000 fans just dismiss them out of
hand in any event. ;-)

>2. Your SNIPped quotes, if legit, came from BIASed sources (companies that
>use GSM).

All sources are biased.

>I'm sure Verizon, Sprint or other CDMA companies would paint the
>picture differently.

Of course. Which is why advocacy debates are a waste of time.

>3G is WCDMA aka UMTS, BUT
>It is NOT largely based on GSM infrastructure which uses narrowband
>**TDMA**. It is based on CDMA infrastructure.

No, it's based on (1) a type of basic CDMA air interface that's quite
different from cdmaOne and CDMA2000, and (2) GSM infrastructure. You
apparently misunderstand what is meant by infrastructure.

>And it is very similar to current CDMA

The two CDMAs are substantially different. Convergence efforts between CDMA
and W-CDMA failed due to irreconcilable radio differences. Overall
differences include:

* Chip rate
* Frame duration
* Asynchronous versus synchronous
* Base station acquisition/detection
* Forward link pilot
* Antenna beam form
* Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
* Transmit diversity
* Underlying network

>and TOTALLY DIFFERENT from current
>GSM which uses narrowband **TDMA**..

As I wrote, it's based on GSM infrastructure. The air interface is only a
part of a total cellular system.

p.s. Please note that the foregoing is just technical clarification, not the
silly and pointless "X is better than Y!"

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

An Metet <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
>You GSM troll comments notwithstanding...
>
>1. Your SNIPped quotes had NO URLs or reference to back them up.
>2. Your SNIPped quotes, if legit, came from BIASed sources (companies that
>use GSM). I'm sure Verizon, Sprint or other CDMA companies would paint the
>picture differently.

Well stated. One thing I always do is to NOT use
sources like the CDMA or GSM trade organizations,
or statements from the carriers themselves.

You know no one at AT&T Wireless is going to come out
and admit how they were about to go CDMA but for the
NTT Docomo investment--duh. You have to look at what
the independent analysts and reporters say:

I.e.

"http://www.redherring.com/investor/2000/1212/inv-qualcomm121200.html"
stated:

"Late last month, Japan's NTT DoCoMo (OTC : NTDMY) agreed to
acquire 16 percent of AT&T Wireless (NYSE : AWE). As part of
the deal, AT&T decided to spurn Qualcomm's CDMA technology in
the near term and build out a GSM network in the U.S."

Could it _possibly_ be any clearer?

Other sources put did not put quite so bluntly, using
some weasel words, but saying the same thing:

"http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,20524,00.html"
stated:

"AT&T Wireless' new partner, NTT DoCoMo, likely had
something to do with the decision."


"http://www.thestreet.com/comment/wirelesswiz/1193961.html"
stated:

"Until Thursday, both were thought to be considering a new
third-generation-based technology standard known as 1xRTT
as their upgrade technology of choice."

I'm not sure why anyone is upset over the fact that AT&T's
decision was a direct result of the NTT Docomo investment.
Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, just not a decision that
would have been made if not for that $9.8 billion. Not sure
why all of a sudden the CTO of AT&T feels that he needs to
try to justify the decision; why the insecurity? I never see
Sprint or Verizon trying to explain or justify their decision to
go with CDMA.

I did see a good article in Wireless Week that explained why
two non-AT&T affiliated TDMA carriers chose to move to
CDMA,

"http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=CA216790"
states:

"Forrester Research senior analyst Charles Golvin says that
for small carriers, the switch to CDMA makes sense because
the technology path will give them better overall voice
capacity than the GSM migration path. In addition, Golvin
says that from a spectrum management point of view, it's
much more difficult to evolve along the GSM/GPRS path.
"The spectrum argument plus the capacity argument are
definitely selling points for a CDMA conversion," Golvin
says."

Wow, four references, none of them from the CDMA industry
trade group!

Steve
http://sfbacell.com
[email protected]