Who stole the definition of 3G?

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

I was trying to look up what speeds to network on the Isle of Man in
Europe is running at, but couldn't find anything. To be honest, I don't
know how fast the networks in Italy are currently running at either. If
anyone knows, please speak up!

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

DoCoMo is a complicated issue, but yes they are running FOMA at 64kps
right now. I know that Vodafone in Europe will be launching at 384kps,
whether it stays that way in the future or whether they speed it up
further remains to be seen. I also don't know what speed the Euro
T-Mobile networks will be lauching at, but I would suspect something
along the lines of Vodafone's speed. There evidently still are lots of
questions that remain to be answered with regards to W-CDMA and its
implementations.

> 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.

I would also like to see what speeds EV-DO can offer in real life
situations, since in laboratory conditions most technologies perform
wonderfully.

Julian

---

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:40:10
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

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

On the contrary -- WCDMA is deployed.

>yet you are actively arguing for it and about it!

On the contrary -- I'm not arguing for it, I'm just providing a more balanced
perspective than the propaganda emanating from the CDMA camp.

--
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 Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:43:30
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

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

I think that was pretty clearly a harmless joke.

--
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 Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:04
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

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

Sorry, but I don't see that as proof of anything.

NTT DoCoMo states:

Packet transmission at up to 384Kbps (downlink) / 64Kbps (uplink)

>>>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.

You are misstating the criteria, as I've noted repeatedly.

>>>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?

Take your own advice -- these are your claims, not mine, so it's up to you to
substantiate them.

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

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:12:11 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:40:10
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:19:26 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>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,
>
>On the contrary -- WCDMA is deployed.

Where can YOU play with it? Or does you definition of vaporware change
to only suit your argument? You already acknowleged that the 1x GSM
overlay exists:

>>>addition, the last time Qualcomm tried this, it was a commercial flop, so
>>>skepticism is warranted.


>>yet you are actively arguing for it and about it!
>
>On the contrary -- I'm not arguing for it, I'm just providing a more balanced
>perspective than the propaganda emanating from the CDMA camp.

Come on John, even the UMTS camp acknowleges that it can't do 2 mbps
now, from none other than Karl Heinz Rosenbrock, the head of the
European standards body ETSI (which is in charge of the UMTS
specifications on which some 3G networks are based) .

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-964195.html

I guess your idea of "balance" is anything that supports your ideas,
regardless of the facts!

So we have a John Navas how doesn't treat others as he wants to be
treated, denies the existence of his postings he made a few days
earlier, and argues that his opinions are balanced even when those
more knowlegable than he, who would be arguing for his viewpoint,
acknowlege that the "facts" that John Navas argues for are in truth
not fact!

I'm very worried for you, John! What sort of reputation does that
leave you with???

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:07 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:43:30
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:21:38 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>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!
>
>I think that was pretty clearly a harmless joke.

Think again!

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:32:11 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Hi, Julian. Can you tell me any carrier that claims to be offering 2
>> mbps with their current W-CDMA implementation?
>
>I was trying to look up what speeds to network on the Isle of Man in
>Europe is running at, but couldn't find anything. To be honest, I don't
>know how fast the networks in Italy are currently running at either. If
>anyone knows, please speak up!
>
>> Could DoCoMo claim 3G when they'd clamped their downlink speeds to 64
>> kbps due to operational difficulties?
>
>DoCoMo is a complicated issue, but yes they are running FOMA at 64kps
>right now. I know that Vodafone in Europe will be launching at 384kps,
>whether it stays that way in the future or whether they speed it up
>further remains to be seen. I also don't know what speed the Euro
>T-Mobile networks will be lauching at, but I would suspect something
>along the lines of Vodafone's speed. There evidently still are lots of
>questions that remain to be answered with regards to W-CDMA and its
>implementations.
>
>> 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.
>
>I would also like to see what speeds EV-DO can offer in real life
>situations, since in laboratory conditions most technologies perform
>wonderfully.
>
>Julian

Average speeds 400-600 kbps. Peak speed 2.2 mbps.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:49:35 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:04
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:20:30 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>Sorry, but I don't see that as proof of anything.

You'll note in a further posting in this threat that Julian
acknowleges that DoCoMo is running FOMA at 64kpbs.

I'd be happy to share that correspondence with the user in Japan,
which highlights DoCoMo's public announcements of their speed
reductions, with the net, but I want some committments from John
Navas, first:

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Acknowlege that you said that 2 mbps peak is a requisite for 3G and
that you posted such.

Stop blaming others for your refusal to answer. (It was strange to see
you quote documents as supporting you and then contradict what was in
them! This regards urban environments being more difficult for mobiles
than countryside! But you blamed your lack of proof on others! Shame!)

Stop giving terse answers to justify something.

If you are willing to promise to do these things I'd be happy to post.


>NTT DoCoMo states:
>
> Packet transmission at up to 384Kbps (downlink) / 64Kbps (uplink)

See the post by the other poster in this thread, and above.

>>>>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.
>
>You are misstating the criteria, as I've noted repeatedly.

And what criteria is that? You never elaborate! Just cut and paste
your justification, that will save you some effort.

>>>>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?
>
>Take your own advice -- these are your claims, not mine, so it's up to you to
>substantiate them.

I already have, including in a post made this morning, and even quoted
the head of ETSI, who doesn't dispute that current W-CDMA can't attain
a 2 mpbs speed.

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

> I would also like to see what speeds EV-DO can offer in real life
> situations, since in laboratory conditions most technologies perform
> wonderfully.

600-1200 Kb/s on a system with a theoretical max
of 2500 kb/s. (I assume that this is for stationary use).

I know that when I see 600-1200Kb/s statements
that it's probably 600 Kb/s a lot more than it's
1200 Kb/s. Only one commercial EV-DO system is
in operation so that's all the real data that's available.

Steve

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

[email protected] wrote:
>>>John, by your definition ("If I can't play with it, it's vaporware"),
>>>W-CDMA is vaporware,
>>
>>On the contrary -- WCDMA is deployed.
>
>
> Where can YOU play with it? Or does you definition of vaporware change
> to only suit your argument?

W-CDMA may not be deployed in the US, but you know that its running in
Japan, on the Isle of Man, in Italy, and they are currently lauching the
networks in the UK, Germany and throughout Scandinavia.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:52:35
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:12:11 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>On the contrary -- WCDMA is deployed.
>
>Where can YOU play with it?

Japan or Europe.

>Or does you definition of vaporware change
>to only suit your argument?

No -- vaporware is vaporware. WCDMA is not vaporware -- it's actually
deployed.

>You already acknowleged that the 1x GSM
>overlay exists:

Nope. GSM1X is vaporware.

>>>>addition, the last time Qualcomm tried this, it was a commercial flop, so
>>>>skepticism is warranted.

That was: (1) not so-called GSM1X, (2) just a field trial, not a deployment;
and (3) a commercial flop.

>>On the contrary -- I'm not arguing for it, I'm just providing a more balanced
>>perspective than the propaganda emanating from the CDMA camp.
>
>Come on John, even the UMTS camp acknowleges that it can't do 2 mbps
>now, from none other than Karl Heinz Rosenbrock, the head of the
>European standards body ETSI (which is in charge of the UMTS
>specifications on which some 3G networks are based)

>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-964195.html

In fact those were remarks by Marty Cooper, and Rosenbrock was "indignant."
UMTS is 3G. UMTS is real. UMTS continues to improve.

>I guess your idea of "balance" is anything that supports your ideas,
>regardless of the facts!

Think what you wish.

>[SNIP derogatory remarks]
>I'm very worried for you, John! What sort of reputation does that
>leave you with???

It's just fine, but thanks for your concern.

--
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 Mon, 04 Aug 2003
15:35:14 GMT, Julian <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:

>>>>John, by your definition ("If I can't play with it, it's vaporware"),
>>>>W-CDMA is vaporware,
>>>
>>>On the contrary -- WCDMA is deployed.
>>
>> Where can YOU play with it? Or does you definition of vaporware change
>> to only suit your argument?
>
>W-CDMA may not be deployed in the US, but you know that its running in
>Japan, on the Isle of Man, in Italy, and they are currently lauching the
>networks in the UK, Germany and throughout Scandinavia.

Please be careful -- posting actual facts might give Usenet a good name.

--
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 Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:53:20
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:14:07 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>I think that was pretty clearly a harmless joke.
>
>Think again!

OK. ... I still think so.

--
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 Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:09:10
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:49:35 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:04
>>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:20:30 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Sorry, but I don't see that as proof of anything.
>
>You'll note in a further posting in this threat that Julian
>acknowleges that DoCoMo is running FOMA at 64kpbs.

Sorry, but I don't see that as proof of anything either. Julian may be right,
but then again he may not -- I don't know him, and thus have no way to judge.

>I'd be happy to share that correspondence with the user in Japan,
>which highlights DoCoMo's public announcements of their speed
>reductions, with the net,

I'd be very interested in actual, verbatim public statements by DoCoMo. Do
you actually have any? I'm not interested in interpretation by some unknown
user. FWIW, I spent some time searching the Internet, and could find no
substantiation for your claim. What I found by DoCoMo was:

Packet transmission at up to 384Kbps (downlink) / 64Kbps (uplink)

>but I want some committments from John
>Navas, first:
>
>Treat others as you would like to be treated.

No problem. Does that mean you'll act the same way, and refrain from pro-CDMA
anti-GSM trolling? ;-)

>Acknowlege that you said that 2 mbps peak is a requisite for 3G and
>that you posted such.

I didn't, as you know, so I guess that's your escape clause. ;-)

>Stop blaming others for your refusal to answer.

I don't do that, so again no problem.

>(It was strange to see
>you quote documents as supporting you and then contradict what was in
>them! This regards urban environments being more difficult for mobiles
>than countryside! ...

That's pure fantasy.

>Stop giving terse answers to justify something.

I respond in kind, and will continue to do so. Another escape clause?
I happen to think this entire thread is pretty silly, arguing the semantics of
a relatively meaningless term ("3G").

>If you are willing to promise to do these things I'd be happy to post.

I'm not willing to have you dictate my conduct (which seems more than a bit
arrogant to me), so you'll have to take it or leave it based on what I've said
above.

>>NTT DoCoMo states:
>>
>> Packet transmission at up to 384Kbps (downlink) / 64Kbps (uplink)
>
>See the post by the other poster in this thread, and above.

I see nothing that either refutes that, or that supports your contention.
You'll have to do a lot better than that.

>>You are misstating the criteria, as I've noted repeatedly.
>
>And what criteria is that?

The criteria for 3G.

>You never elaborate! Just cut and paste
>your justification, that will save you some effort.

I've done that many times, as I'm sure you know.

>>Take your own advice -- these are your claims, not mine, so it's up to you to
>>substantiate them.
>
>I already have,

I disagree.

>including in a post made this morning, and even quoted
>the head of ETSI, who doesn't dispute that current W-CDMA can't attain
>a 2 mpbs speed.

That wasn't a quote, as I note above. Whether he disputed something or not is
a silly debating tactic, and it doesn't go to the essence of your claim in any
event. If you're going to claim a quote, it should be a real quote, not
innuendo. Stick to what people actually say if you want your arguments to be
taken seriously (by me at least).

--
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 Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:54:58
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>>I would also like to see what speeds EV-DO can offer in real life
>>situations, since in laboratory conditions most technologies perform
>>wonderfully.

>Average speeds 400-600 kbps. Peak speed 2.2 mbps.

Anything solid to back that up? URL please.

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