Who stole the definition of 3G?

[email protected] wrote:
> Explain this, then: Can W-CDMA deliver 2 mbps indoors?
> The answer is no. It can only deliver 384 kpbs indoors. It doesn't
> meet the FCC definition of 3G.
>
> Let's take the argument to the extreme: I'm outside, but stationary,
> and the mobile terminal antenna is outside. Peak speed 384 kbps.
> Move 6 inches (15 cm) so that the mobile and antenna are inside and
> stationary (door open with direct line of sight to the transmitter
> tower). Peak speed is still 384 kbps. The mobile terminal is inside.
> The peak speed is still 384 kbps.


The problem is you're a assuming a worst case scenario in which only one
code is used, in which case you'll acheive your data rate of 384kbps. I
seriously doubt you'll witness your worst case scenario a lot.

The target for W-CMDA in a fixed location is 2MBps, and is acheived
using a total of six codes, acheiving an effective max throughput of
1.9MBps.

In case this isn't obvious, the current GSM carriers will most likely
all move to W-CDMA at some point, since its far more logical for them to
implement the system than CDMA2000. W-CDMA permits current GSM carriers
to reuse most of the core network, as well as the BSTs.

Julian

---

› See More: Who stole the definition of 3G?

Julian <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:

> In case this isn't obvious, the current GSM carriers will most likely
> all move to W-CDMA at some point, since its far more logical for them to
> implement the system than CDMA2000. W-CDMA permits current GSM carriers
> to reuse most of the core network, as well as the BSTs.

Some will move to W-CDMA 3G, some will stop at
EDGE because they don't have the spectrum for W-CDMA.
The CDMA carriers have an advantage as they can
deploy CDMA2000 in existing spectrum. Since demand
will be light at first, they don't have to have more spectrum
or build a new infrastructure for 3G data. Going to W-CDMA
from EDGE is not so easy. The whole reason EDGE came into
existence is because it was the only easy way to get data
speeds that, while not meeting the 3G definition, were thought
to be sufficient for most users. Cingular is now trying to
acquire more spectrum, especially from Nextwave, but they
need it just for voice and EDGE.

Steve

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:46:52
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:28:39 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:18:30
>>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>AT&T Wireless' pamphlet proclaims
>>>
>>>"AT&T next generation services and devices".
>>
>>>They're claiming 3G without saying so....
>>
>>No, it (not they) is proclaiming 2.5G (GPRS) now, and 3G (EDGE) by the end of
>>the year.
>
>Sorry, the pamphlet says nothing about next year, nor even the
>technology.

One pamphlet is not all that ATTWS is saying. (This really is silly and
pointless.)

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

Socal Cell (Steve) wrote:
> Some will move to W-CDMA 3G, some will stop at
> EDGE because they don't have the spectrum for W-CDMA.
> The CDMA carriers have an advantage as they can
> deploy CDMA2000 in existing spectrum. Since demand
> will be light at first, they don't have to have more spectrum
> or build a new infrastructure for 3G data. Going to W-CDMA
> from EDGE is not so easy. The whole reason EDGE came into
> existence is because it was the only easy way to get data
> speeds that, while not meeting the 3G definition, were thought
> to be sufficient for most users.

I agree with you that not all carriers will move to W-CDMA immediately,
although I beleive its only a question of time.

I didn't mean to imply that migrating from EDGE to W-CDMA is easy, I was
only trying to point out that the migration will be easier to W-CDMA
than to CDMA2000, should any carriers chose to do so, since the core
network can be largely reused.

Current CDMA carriers do have the advantage of reusing their current
spectrum, but it seems to me that the American and especially the
international carriers would prefer that the American carriers be
allocated the same frequency as the rest of the world for 3G, whether
that will happen or not is something else.

> Cingular is now trying to
> acquire more spectrum, especially from Nextwave, but they
> need it just for voice and EDGE.

Cingular is in a very tough situation, since of all the major carriers
they have the least spectrum to spare, compared to other carriers like
T-Mobile (I think they have 15-20MHz in most markets, all in the PCS band).

Julian

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:20:03 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:46:52
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:28:39 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:18:30
>>>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>AT&T Wireless' pamphlet proclaims
>>>>
>>>>"AT&T next generation services and devices".
>>>
>>>>They're claiming 3G without saying so....
>>>
>>>No, it (not they) is proclaiming 2.5G (GPRS) now, and 3G (EDGE) by the end of
>>>the year.
>>
>>Sorry, the pamphlet says nothing about next year, nor even the
>>technology.
>
>One pamphlet is not all that ATTWS is saying. (This really is silly and
>pointless.)

John, think! I'm referring to the 23 page pamphlet "AT&T Wireless
Service Areas and Features Guide". This is what serious prospects
refer to when researching their cell service purchases. So, this "one
pamphlet" is exactly what AT&T Wireless is "saying".

For you to claim otherwise is silly!

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:18:53 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Explain this, then: Can W-CDMA deliver 2 mbps indoors?
>> The answer is no. It can only deliver 384 kpbs indoors. It doesn't
>> meet the FCC definition of 3G.
>>
>> Let's take the argument to the extreme: I'm outside, but stationary,
>> and the mobile terminal antenna is outside. Peak speed 384 kbps.
>> Move 6 inches (15 cm) so that the mobile and antenna are inside and
>> stationary (door open with direct line of sight to the transmitter
>> tower). Peak speed is still 384 kbps. The mobile terminal is inside.
>> The peak speed is still 384 kbps.
>
>
>The problem is you're a assuming a worst case scenario in which only one
>code is used, in which case you'll acheive your data rate of 384kbps. I
>seriously doubt you'll witness your worst case scenario a lot.
>
>The target for W-CMDA in a fixed location is 2MBps, and is acheived
>using a total of six codes, acheiving an effective max throughput of
>1.9MBps.

Hi, Julian. Can you tell me any carrier that claims to be offering 2
mbps with their current W-CDMA implementation?

Could DoCoMo claim 3G when they'd clamped their downlink speeds to 64
kbps due to operational difficulties?

As John Navas pointed out in the FCC web site, max throughput of 2
mbps indoors is part of the requirement for something to be 3G.

I'd be happy to call something 3G if it can deliver, in its commercial
offerings, 2 mbps to a stationary mobile terminal. Currently only
cdma2000 1x EV-DO offers that.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:06:59 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Socal Cell (Steve) wrote:
>> Some will move to W-CDMA 3G, some will stop at
>> EDGE because they don't have the spectrum for W-CDMA.
>> The CDMA carriers have an advantage as they can
>> deploy CDMA2000 in existing spectrum. Since demand
>> will be light at first, they don't have to have more spectrum
>> or build a new infrastructure for 3G data. Going to W-CDMA
>> from EDGE is not so easy. The whole reason EDGE came into
>> existence is because it was the only easy way to get data
>> speeds that, while not meeting the 3G definition, were thought
>> to be sufficient for most users.
>
>I agree with you that not all carriers will move to W-CDMA immediately,
>although I beleive its only a question of time.
>
>I didn't mean to imply that migrating from EDGE to W-CDMA is easy, I was
>only trying to point out that the migration will be easier to W-CDMA
>than to CDMA2000, should any carriers chose to do so, since the core
>network can be largely reused.

Qualcomm does offer 1x GSM overlay, which allows the GSM land side
switching infrastructure to be used with a cdma2000 1x air interface.
So GSM service in all but 1.25 MHz of the spectrum can still continue
while both the cdma2000 1x and GSM users can be served by the land
side infrastructure.

[email protected] wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:18:53 GMT, Julian

> Hi, Julian. Can you tell me any carrier that claims to be offering 2
> mbps with their current W-CDMA implementation?

I read an article from Europe that claimed 2Mb/s
in a laboratory with W-CDMA (and rats that had been
fed copious amounts of artificial sweetener).

Steve

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:35:34
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:06:59 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I didn't mean to imply that migrating from EDGE to W-CDMA is easy, I was
>>only trying to point out that the migration will be easier to W-CDMA
>>than to CDMA2000, should any carriers chose to do so, since the core
>>network can be largely reused.
>
>Qualcomm does offer 1x GSM overlay, which allows the GSM land side
>switching infrastructure to be used with a cdma2000 1x air interface.

No, Qualcomm claims, but has yet to actually demonstrate, 1x GSM overlay. At
best, that won't happen for several months. In other words, vaporware. In
addition, the last time Qualcomm tried this, it was a commercial flop, so
skepticism is warranted.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:29:20
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>Could DoCoMo claim 3G when they'd clamped their downlink speeds to 64
>kbps due to operational difficulties?

Proof?

>As John Navas pointed out in the FCC web site, max throughput of 2
>mbps indoors is part of the requirement for something to be 3G.

Nope.

>I'd be happy to call something 3G if it can deliver, in its commercial
>offerings, 2 mbps to a stationary mobile terminal. Currently only
>cdma2000 1x EV-DO offers that.

Nope.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:09:59 -0000,
SELF-PROCLAIMED [email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in article
><[email protected]>:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:18:53 GMT, Julian
>
>> Hi, Julian. Can you tell me any carrier that claims to be offering 2
>> mbps with their current W-CDMA implementation?
>
>I read an article from Europe that claimed 2Mb/s
>in a laboratory with W-CDMA (and rats that had been
>fed copious amounts of artificial sweetener).

And here I thought the sweetener was being fed to you. ;-)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:19:58
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:20:03 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>One pamphlet is not all that ATTWS is saying. (This really is silly and
>>pointless.)
>
>John, think! ...

Been there; done that. But thanks for your concern. :-]

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:19:26 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:35:34
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:06:59 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I didn't mean to imply that migrating from EDGE to W-CDMA is easy, I was
>>>only trying to point out that the migration will be easier to W-CDMA
>>>than to CDMA2000, should any carriers chose to do so, since the core
>>>network can be largely reused.
>>
>>Qualcomm does offer 1x GSM overlay, which allows the GSM land side
>>switching infrastructure to be used with a cdma2000 1x air interface.
>
>No, Qualcomm claims, but has yet to actually demonstrate, 1x GSM overlay. At
>best, that won't happen for several months. In other words, vaporware. In
>addition, the last time Qualcomm tried this, it was a commercial flop, so
>skepticism is warranted.

John, by your definition ("If I can't play with it, it's vaporware"),
W-CDMA is vaporware, yet you are actively arguing for it and about it!

Every product starts out with an undeveloped market. It means nothing
about its future potential.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:20:30 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:29:20
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Could DoCoMo claim 3G when they'd clamped their downlink speeds to 64
>>kbps due to operational difficulties?
>
>Proof?

User in Japan.

>
>>As John Navas pointed out in the FCC web site, max throughput of 2
>>mbps indoors is part of the requirement for something to be 3G.
>
>Nope.

Look at the site you quoted, you even noted that the 2 mbps was
indoors.

>>I'd be happy to call something 3G if it can deliver, in its commercial
>>offerings, 2 mbps to a stationary mobile terminal. Currently only
>>cdma2000 1x EV-DO offers that.
>
>Nope.

Citation?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:21:38 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:09:59 -0000,
>SELF-PROCLAIMED [email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote in article
>><[email protected]>:
>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:18:53 GMT, Julian
>>
>>> Hi, Julian. Can you tell me any carrier that claims to be offering 2
>>> mbps with their current W-CDMA implementation?
>>
>>I read an article from Europe that claimed 2Mb/s
>>in a laboratory with W-CDMA (and rats that had been
>>fed copious amounts of artificial sweetener).
>
>And here I thought the sweetener was being fed to you. ;-)

John, you've terminated threads when someone called you names, yet you
are doing what you don't like done to you!