Verizon leaping ahead with EV-DO

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
> >> using our regular voice network?"
> >>
> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
> >> to respond.
> >
> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
> >
> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
> >VoIP.
>
> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>
> It complicates matters more than it's worth!


Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

Bob

---

› See More: Verizon leaping ahead with EV-DO

Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:

>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
> Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
you have in your whole body.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robert M. <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>
> Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
> got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
> you have in your whole body.
>

I'd say tip of the pinkie.....don't give the troll fool too much credit.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
>> >> using our regular voice network?"
>> >>
>> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
>> >> to respond.
>> >
>> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
>> >
>> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
>> >VoIP.
>>
>> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
>> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>>
>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
>
>Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:37:35 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
>> >> using our regular voice network?"
>> >>
>> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
>> >> to respond.
>> >
>> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
>> >
>> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
>> >VoIP.
>>
>> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
>> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>>
>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
>Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

How so?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was
it
> >> >> using our regular voice network?"
> >> >>
> >> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know
how
> >> >> to respond.
> >> >
> >> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
> >> >
> >> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
> >> >VoIP.
> >>
> >> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
> >> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
> >>
> >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
> >
> >
> >Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply
....
>
> Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...

Sorry for the confusion Paul. That comment wasn't direected to you, but our
resident troll, Phillipe ... aka: Robert M. etc.

Bob
>

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Hi, Andrew. The difference between the "old" TDMA (regular Mux) and
> EV-DV (stat-Mux) is that if a mobile doesn't have anything "to say"
> TDMA will still reserve the slot. EV-DV doesn't "reserve" the slot.
> There are up to 64 ACTIVE users (not total users) per "frame". So, if
> there aren't 64 active users other mobiles with "more to say" can take
> up those slots within the frame.

Indeed. Like CDMA, the time-division air-interfaces - particularly
GSM - have gotten on-board discontinuous transmission (DTX) to reduce
average RF output for tighter spatial/frequency-reuse hence greater
capacity. However, the TDMA interfaces are simply not nimble enough
to truly recycle those available timeslots for other users when an
active mobile "doesn't have anything 'to say.'"

The beauty of EV-DV is the ability to dynamically apportion bandwidth
from both time-division & code-division standpoints. Imagine that the
time-channel varies the horizontal domain, while the code-channel
fluctuates in the vertical domain. Time can be continuous or slotted,
whereas Walsh code allotment can oscillate from one to very many - all
dependent on the need of the particular user.

On the other hand, EV-DO distributes all traffic Walsh codes - all or
nothing - on a time-division basis. Conversely, 1xRTT assigns
supplemental bandwidth not on a time-division basis but via
variable-length Walsh spreading - shorter Walsh codes for higher data
rates. But EV-DV can aggregate the majority of traffic Walsh codes
for 3G packet-data on a time-division schedule - to maximize the Eb/No
per user, while it can also retain a necessary supply of individual
Walsh codes for continuous low-rate use - voice, CSD, WAP, VoIP, etc.
If there are no low-rate users on the channel, EV-DV is almost
indistinguishable from EV-DO.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/