Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

In <vi151ogh3tod5c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
sfbacellexpertNO@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:

>The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
>that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
>whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
>was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
>for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
>the CDMA. ...

The above is fantasy. Here's reality:

<http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
Rod Nelson
Chief Technology Officer
AT&T Wireless

It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
assumptions rooted in technology.

When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
assessed.

Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.

[MORE]

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

What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<Hn2Ua.5190$dk4.228735@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <vi151ogh3tod5c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
> sfbacellexpertNO@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
>
> >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
> >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
> >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
> >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
> >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
> >the CDMA. ...
>
> The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
>
> <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
> The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
> Rod Nelson
> Chief Technology Officer
> AT&T Wireless
>
> It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
> see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
> more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
> assumptions rooted in technology.
>
> When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
> evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
> advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
> assessed.
>
> Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
> migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
> for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
>
> [MORE]
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Just like a VZW CTO and a Sprint PCS CTO and T Mobile CTO would say the
same thing, "Its nice to know we chose the best path."

Come on... of course all of them are going to say the same damn thing.
MB makes a good point.

--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


malebomb@comcast.net (Male Bomb) wrote in article
<vi1jqsevo98hf0@corp.supernews.com>:
> What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
>
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
> <Hn2Ua.5190$dk4.228735@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <vi151ogh3tod5c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
> > sfbacellexpertNO@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
> >
> > >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
> > >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
> > >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
> > >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
> > >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
> > >the CDMA. ...
> >
> > The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
> >
> > <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
> > The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
> > Rod Nelson
> > Chief Technology Officer
> > AT&T Wireless
> >
> > It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
> > see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
> > more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
> > assumptions rooted in technology.
> >
> > When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
> > evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
> > advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
> > assessed.
> >
> > Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
> > migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
> > for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
> >
> > [MORE]
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

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

Not an engineer, but an officer of the company. Hence he has not only has
knowledge, but also legal liability with regard to the accuracy of his
statements. They are thus the best available evidence for what actually
happened. Steven, on the other hand, has no knowledge and no substantiation
for his claims, which are directly contradicted by this officer of the
company. The only reasonable conclusion is that Steven is off in the Twilight
Zone.

In <vi1jqsevo98hf0@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:34:04 -0000,
malebomb@comcast.net (Male Bomb) wrote:

>What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
>
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
><Hn2Ua.5190$dk4.228735@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>>
>> In <vi151ogh3tod5c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:21:44 -0000,
>> sfbacellexpertNO@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
>>
>> >The article contends that if not for the NTT requirement
>> >that AT&T would have simply deployed EDGE. But the
>> >whole reason AT&T went the GSM route in the first place
>> >was because GSM is the interim step to W-CDMA. If not
>> >for the NTT Docomo money they would likely have chosen
>> >the CDMA. ...
>>
>> The above is fantasy. Here's reality:
>>
>> <http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2...htchoice.shtml>
>> The Right Choice for TDMA Carriers - GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS
>> Rod Nelson
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> AT&T Wireless
>>
>> It's always a good thing to look back on the decisions you made to
>> see if the world you envisioned has actually come to pass. It is even
>> more intriguing to do this when you view the future with basic
>> assumptions rooted in technology.
>>
>> When AT&T Wireless began looking to deploy a new network, we
>> evaluated several technologies and paths to provide customers with
>> advanced 3G services. TDMA/EDGE, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS were all
>> assessed.
>>
>> Now, a year and a half into our program, we believe the decision to
>> migrate to GSM and GPRS/EDGE/UMTS was THE best solution and decision
>> for our company, our customers, and our shareholders.
>>
>> [MORE]

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

"P Howard" <thrillme5@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vi298fdgklim2d@corp.supernews.com...
> Just like a VZW CTO and a Sprint PCS CTO and T Mobile CTO would say the
> same thing, "Its nice to know we chose the best path."
>
> Come on... of course all of them are going to say the same damn thing.
> MB makes a good point.

It's like the GSM trade group's statements about GSM versus CDMA,
versus the CDMA trade associations statements about GSM versus
CDMA. Most people prefer independent analysis, and take self-serving
statements with many grains of salt.

Steve

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

In <VBbUa.119380$Io.10174682@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 25 Jul
2003 15:00:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>"Male Bomb" <malebomb@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vi1jqsevo98hf0@corp.supernews.com...
>> What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
>
>That statement from the AT&T CTO sounds like a desperate
>attempt to rationalize ...

Funny, but that's just what I'm thinking about your post, a desperate attempt
to rationalize your absurd, unsubstantiated claims about ATTWS and CDMA2000.

Sorry, Steven, but no cigar.

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

John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?

--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<Z%bUa.5270$dk4.235055@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <VBbUa.119380$Io.10174682@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 25 Jul
> 2003 15:00:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> >"Male Bomb" <malebomb@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:vi1jqsevo98hf0@corp.supernews.com...
> >> What did you think a ATTWS engineer would say? We ****ed up?
> >
> >That statement from the AT&T CTO sounds like a desperate
> >attempt to rationalize ...
>
> Funny, but that's just what I'm thinking about your post, a desperate attempt
> to rationalize your absurd, unsubstantiated claims about ATTWS and CDMA2000.
>
> Sorry, Steven, but no cigar.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

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

In <vi2khqgd5j164c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
thrillme5@aol.com (P Howard) wrote:

>John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
>speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?

What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
migration path?

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

CDMA alone can hold more calls per channel than GSM because of spread
spectrum transmission. CDMA 1xrtt doubles that capacity. CDMA 1xrtt,
first generation 3g offers average throughput of 50-70k vs 30-40k on
GPRS. 1xEVDO averages 800-1200kbps vs EDGE at 300-400kbps.

--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user


John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<EBcUa.5286$dk4.235314@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <vi2khqgd5j164c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
> thrillme5@aol.com (P Howard) wrote:
>
> >John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
> >speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?
>
> What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
> migration path?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

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

In <vi2pc9al1dr0b9@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:14:49 -0000,
thrillme5@aol.com (P Howard) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
><EBcUa.5286$dk4.235314@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>>
>> In <vi2khqgd5j164c@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:26 -0000,
>> thrillme5@aol.com (P Howard) wrote:
>>
>> >John... your thoughts on cdma's higher call capacity and faster 3g
>> >speeds as compared to the GSM migration path?
>>
>> What higher call capacity and faster 3g speeds as compared to the GSM
>> migration path?

This likes like a CMDA2000 troll to me, so I'll make one and only one
response:

>CDMA alone can hold more calls per channel than GSM because of spread
>spectrum transmission. CDMA 1xrtt doubles that capacity. CDMA 1xrtt,
>first generation 3g offers average throughput of 50-70k vs 30-40k on
>GPRS. 1xEVDO averages 800-1200kbps vs EDGE at 300-400kbps.

To quote Rod Nelson, Chief Technology Officer, AT&T Wireless:

* GSM has almost double the capacity of TDMA - and with AMR codec software
deployed, will quadruple TDMA capacity, making GSM voice capacity equal
to or better than CDMA2000

* Single Antenna Interference Cancellation, in development, will provide an
additional 60-100 percent increase in voice capacity.

* EDGE software triples the data speeds of GPRS using the same spectrum and
radio frequency.

* UMTS provides additional capacity and quality-of-service mechanisms, and
flexibility in managing resources between voice and data services. And
more than triples the data speed of EDGE.

To quote Bill Clift, Chief Technical Officer, Cingular Wireless:

Cingular Wireless vigorously evaluated competing air-interface technologies
and migration strategies, and several factors played into the decision to
deploy GSM/GPRS/EDGE:

* Speed -- GPRS and EDGE data rates in a loaded network compare very well
with any other 3G technology in a similar mobile environment.

* GSM’s capacity and spectrum efficiency is competitive with any other
technology choice that Cingular might have made.

To quote Chris Pearson, Executive Vice President, 3G Americas:

Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT, AN
INTERIM STEP TOWARDS 3G that promises to use spectrum more
efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is
that, based on best-case data from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC
handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with
AMR handles 142 Erlangs, it is a great stretch to argue that 1XRTT
has a major advantage over GSM. GSM operators also can deploy dynamic
frequency and channel allocation (DFCA), which assigns calls to
channels based on conditions such as signal and interference. With
AMR and DFCA, GSM can handle 170 Erlangs per sector – an improvement
on 1XRTT’s 156. [emphasis added]

In the near future, 1XRTT operators will probably be able to deploy a
technology called selective mode vocoder (SMV), which could provide
20% more capacity over EVRC. The catch is that SMV-like methods can
be applied to GSM to produce almost identical capacity gains. Thus,
while one technology may have slightly higher capacity gains at one
point in time, another technology is always preparing to leap-frog
over it.

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