Who stole the definition of 3G?

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:56:46 -0000,
[email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:

>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).

Proof?

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

---

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

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:18:38 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:56:46 -0000,
>[email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>Proof?

Proof not?

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:17:30 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>Stop blaming others for your refusal to answer.
>
>I don't do that, so again no problem.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:39:21 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>\[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:45:00 -0500, Andrew
>Shepherd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> As I wrote, I disagree.
>>
>>John, if you disagree, would you care to elucidate as to how & why you
>>disagree?
>
>Not really. As I wrote in an earlier reply, it's a highly complex and
>technical subject, and I really don't have the time to get drawn into a
>long argument here (particularly with someone posting as "Gsm Sux," not
>to mention the ever enchanting "CC"). Such arguments generate much heat
>and little light, and are largely a waste of time and bandwidth.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:20:32 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>Just as in Korea and Japan, it's the urban areas that will provide
>>the ROI for the carriers. Despite the brave face that the UMTS
>>carriers are putting on, they are terrified of what's happened in
>>Japan. They could rationalize away Korea's success with CDMA2000
>>since there was no UMTS alternative; they can't do this with Japan.
>
>A complete misstatement of what's been happening.

We await an explanation from you...

>>Europe, like Asia, is much higher density than the U.S., though this
>>is immaterial since even in the U.S. it's the higher density areas
>>that will get 3G first (or ever!). As Paul correctly stated, "Yet
>>those dense areas are precisely the most challenging radio
>>environments. ...
>
>Actually incorrect.

Here's your chance, John. You can't say that it's me preventing you
from responding, Here's someone who might be convinced.


>Still the CDMA bigot. So much for your claimed objectivity.

John, until you provide information to back up your arguments
your arguments are hollow!
-------

And there's another John Navas behavior: When a commentator agrees
with him, he's not "biased". When a commentator disagrees with him,
the commentator is "biased". Yet, when others exhibit the same
behavior as John, John blames them for being biased because they
disagree with a commentator.

So, John. I don't think others could likewise take you seriously!

It's interesting that the cdma providers publically say what they
expect the average speed their users will experience would be.

I can find no such statistics for W-CDMA.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:58:32 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[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.

I'm talking about your definition of "vaporware". It made no
difference to you that cdma2000 1x was already deployed in the States
(but not yet by Sprint PCS) and that 1x EV-DO was already deployed in
Korea. You still called it vaporware. So by your definition, (you
can't play with it), W-CDMA is still "vaporware". Since you wouldn't
accept other people's information about cdma2000 1x info, since it was
"vaporware", you shouldn't expect us to accept similar, by your
definition, information about W-CDMA.

(Your claim that W-CDMA rev. 5 would do 10 mbps would be both
"vaporware" and "not deployed".)

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:17:30 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[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.
-----

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:13:45
GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Aug 2002 06:16:29 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:58:06 GMT,
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:43:48 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>The Korean environment is actually not very diverse -- most of the
>>>>coverage is in very dense areas. These areas are quite unlike the more
>>>>spread out geography of the USA.
>>>
>>>Yet those dense areas are precisely the most challenging radio
>>>environments. ...
>>
>>In fact just the opposite.
>
>Support your contention, John.

Since I don't think your question is terribly sincere, or that you
mind
is terribly open, I'm not going to waste time repeating myself.

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

>>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.

Then cut and paste just one!

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:00:54
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>I'm talking about your definition of "vaporware". It made no
>difference to you that cdma2000 1x was already deployed in the States
>(but not yet by Sprint PCS) and that 1x EV-DO was already deployed in
>Korea. You still called it vaporware.

You're mixing different issues and misstating my position.

Technology X is vaporware until it's actually commercially available from a
(significant) company in a (significant) market.

Technology X from company Y is vaporware until company Y actually makes it
commercially available.

Technology X from company Y in market Z is vaporware until company Y actually
makes it commercially available in market Z.

>So by your definition, (you
>can't play with it), W-CDMA is still "vaporware".

As I explain above:

WCDMA is not vaporware because WCDMA is actually commercially available from a
(significant) company in a (significant) market.

WCDMA from (say) ATTWS is vaporware because ATTWS hasn't actually made WCDMA
commercially available anywhere.

WCDMA from (say) ATTWS in (say) California is vaporware because ATTWS hasn't
actually made WCDMA commercially available in California.

>Since you wouldn't
>accept other people's information about cdma2000 1x info, since it was
>"vaporware",

I accepted supported facts, but not unsupported contentions, and not misstated
facts. In the case of Sprint PCS Vision, it was vaporware until Sprint
actually made PCS Vision commercially available.

>you shouldn't expect us

"Us?" Whom else do you presume to speak for?

>to accept similar, by your
>definition, information about W-CDMA.

I'm not interested in this kind of semantic game, and I really don't care what
you accept or not.

--
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 Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:56:49
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>>>Just as in Korea and Japan, it's the urban areas that will provide
>>>the ROI for the carriers. Despite the brave face that the UMTS
>>>carriers are putting on, they are terrified of what's happened in
>>>Japan. They could rationalize away Korea's success with CDMA2000
>>>since there was no UMTS alternative; they can't do this with Japan.
>>
>>A complete misstatement of what's been happening.
>
>We

"We?" Again, whom else do you presume to speak for? Do you think your
nebulous "we" makes your statement more impressive? :-O

>await an explanation from you...

I've actually explained this a number of times (e.g.,
<news:[email protected]>), as I suspect you know.

>[SNIP ad hominem]

>It's interesting that the cdma providers publically say what they
>expect the average speed their users will experience would be.

Citations?

>I can find no such statistics for W-CDMA.

In other words, you've failed to come up with any substantiation for your
claim that "DoCoMo clamped W-CDMA at 64 kbps"
<news:[email protected]>.

--
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 Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:01:47
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:17:30 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>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.
>
>Then cut and paste just one!

Originally posted by me in <news:[email protected]>:

DoCoMo spotlights wireless success
CEO shows off popular Japanese DoCoMo products
June 20, 2003
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/....html?wireless>

The linchpin of NTT DoCoMo's strategy for future growth is its third
generation (3G) network and the Foma service that taps it. Introduced
in 2001, Foma has attracted customers more slowly than anticipated,
but has recently begun turning the corner and meeting NTT DoCoMo's
expectations, Ono said. Many of the technical issues that initially
inhibited adoption -- including the network's scant coverage, and the
problems of clunkiness and low battery life that plagued
Foma-compatible devices -- are fading, he said.

Despite early setbacks, NTT DoCoMo remains bullish on the promise of
Foma and 3G. Today, 20 percent of the company's revenue comes from
data services. By 2010, 70 percent to 80 percent of NTT DoCoMo's
revenue will be drawn from such services, Ono predicted.

NTT DoCoMo to Introduce FOMA N2701 Handset for 2G/3G Networks
May 29, 2003
<http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/ma...ews_3431.shtml>

NTT DoCoMo announced the FOMA N2701, the first dual-network handset
that works both with DoCoMo's mova 2G and FOMA 3G networks. The N2701
goes on sale nationwide on June 11, 2003.

The phone can be set to operate in 2G or 3G mode, or set to switch
automatically between the two networks according to available signal
strength. Currently, the FOMA network area extends to approximately
91% of Japan, while the mova 2G network covers approx. 100 % of the
nation. As the dual handset realizes a vast service area, FOMA users
can be assured of nationwide access, including such vicinities as
mountainous regions.

Hutchison 3G going strong in Australia
July 17, 2003
<http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/ju...ews_3606.shtml>

Hutchison 3G Australia, the second 3G operator in Australia said the
start of its 3G business has gone well.

Kevin Russell, Hutchison chief executive, told the press that the
number of new customers joining the 3G service has been faster than
expected.

FOMA to go even faster by 2005
July 17, 2003
<http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/ju...ews_3601.shtml>

Japan's Kyodo News International reported that NTT DoCoMo plans to
adopt a communications method in 2005 to raise the data transmission
speed of its FOMA 3G mobile phone service by more than five times,
President Keiji Tachikawa said Thursday.

At the moment, FOMA service offers a maximum communications speed of
384 kbps and the it want to use the method called high-speed downlink
packet access (HSDPA) that will give an average speed of 2 Mbps and a
maximum rate of 14 Mbps, Tachikawa said to the press.

The HSDPA method ia an upgraded version of the W-CDMA 3G standard
format. NTT DoCoMo will be able to make the FOMA service as fast as
asymmetric digital subscriber line services in 2005, Tachikawa said.

DoCoMo hopes to begin piloting the service in autumn of next year but
has not indicated when they will launch the service.

DoCoMo to reach 1.46 million users by year end
July 10, 2003

The President and Chief Executive of NTT DoCoMo, Keiji Tachikawa, on
Thursday said the company expects to reach its full-year target of
1.46 million subscribers to its 3G FOMA wireless service, reported by
Dow Jones.

Tachikawa told the press, "Since March, the progress of FOMA
(subscription) has been smooth. As of yesterday, we had 560,000
subscribers. If this continues, I think the 1.46 million (goal) is
achievable."

Since introducing new 3G handsets earlier this year, DoCoMo has
enjoyed a healthy pickup in subscribers to its FOMA service after
suffering sluggish growth last year, mainly because the new 3G
handsets are lighter, cheaper and have a longer battery life than
previous 3G handsets.

DoCoMo is Japan's dominant mobile phone operator with more than 50
percent of the domestic market.

Nokia said to year-end there will be 20 commercial 3G networks
June 19, 2003
<http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/ju...ews_3497.shtml>

Nokia anticipates by the end of 2003 there will be twenty commercial
3G UMTS mobile networks in place and operational worldwide.

Rene Svendsen, marketing and sales manager of Nokia, said to the
world press that there are already seven live UMTS networks in Europe
alone.

He also expects by the end of 2003 there will be 10 different UMTS
handsets launched in the market by different manufacturers.

At the present time there are altogether 113 UMTS licenses in 35
countries assigned.

<http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/ju...ews_3557.shtml>
IDC Japan forecasts that WCDMA revenue will exceed CDMA2000 and cdmaOne
revenue in Japan by 2004.

--
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 Tue, 05 Aug 2003 07:31:12
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 22:18:38 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:56:46 -0000,
>>[email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:
>>
>>>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).
>>
>>Proof?
>
>Proof not?

The burden of proof is on the person that made the claim, particularly when
(as in this case) the claim is way out there.

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

[email protected] wrote in article

> >I've done that many times, as I'm sure you know.
>
> Then cut and paste just one!

Paul:

The reason I stopped responding to John's
posts is because he doesn't provides citations
on anything, and when challenged he always
posts the same lie all the time, that he's posted
the citations many times, even though he didn't.
Once in a while he'll post a URL from the GSM
lobbying organization, but that's about it.

Why do you bother?

Steve
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.socalcell.com
Southern California Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------

[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 Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:27:14 -0000,
[email protected] (Socal Cell) wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in article
>
>> >I've done that many times, as I'm sure you know.
>>
>> Then cut and paste just one!

>The reason I stopped responding to John's
>posts is because he doesn't provides citations
>on anything, and when challenged he always
>posts the same lie all the time, that he's posted
>the citations many times, even though he didn't.
>Once in a while he'll post a URL from the GSM
>lobbying organization, but that's about it.

I actually responded with seven citations. True, I've posted them before, but
he apparently missed them.

My guess is that you stopped responding because you've been shown to be wrong
so many times. But perhaps you're just being childish.

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

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:37:15 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 05 Aug 2003 08:00:54
>-0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>I'm talking about your definition of "vaporware". It made no
>>difference to you that cdma2000 1x was already deployed in the States
>>(but not yet by Sprint PCS) and that 1x EV-DO was already deployed in
>>Korea. You still called it vaporware.
>
>You're mixing different issues and misstating my position.
>
>Technology X is vaporware until it's actually commercially available from a
>(significant) company in a (significant) market.
>
>Technology X from company Y is vaporware until company Y actually makes it
>commercially available.
>
>Technology X from company Y in market Z is vaporware until company Y actually
>makes it commercially available in market Z.
>
>>So by your definition, (you
>>can't play with it), W-CDMA is still "vaporware".
>
>As I explain above:
>
>WCDMA is not vaporware because WCDMA is actually commercially available from a
>(significant) company in a (significant) market.
>
>WCDMA from (say) ATTWS is vaporware because ATTWS hasn't actually made WCDMA
>commercially available anywhere.
>
>WCDMA from (say) ATTWS in (say) California is vaporware because ATTWS hasn't
>actually made WCDMA commercially available in California.
>
>>Since you wouldn't
>>accept other people's information about cdma2000 1x info, since it was
>>"vaporware",
>
>I accepted supported facts, but not unsupported contentions, and not misstated
>facts. In the case of Sprint PCS Vision, it was vaporware until Sprint
>actually made PCS Vision commercially available.
>
>>you shouldn't expect us
>
>"Us?" Whom else do you presume to speak for?

Others reading this newsgroup who have experienced similar treatment
by you.

>>to accept similar, by your
>>definition, information about W-CDMA.
>
>I'm not interested in this kind of semantic game, and I really don't care what
>you accept or not.

Even when I've quoted GSM sites to you and given you their text you've
rejected them because you didn't like what they contained, so quoting
any URL about anything is pointless.

And if someone were to play your game back to you you'd reject it.

I'm going to summarize multiple posts here.

I've echoed back your own more than year old postings the shows you
behaving in ways that you deny. Many of us in the newsgroup are here
to learn, not to say "Nope", "In fact it's just the opposite", "He's
biased", and "vaporware" and then not justify your answer.

The kind of person you are has been demonstrated by your own words.
Go play your games elsewhere and let us have informed discussions
without you!

I want to use his own words (old posts that he denies making) and
methods to expose, clearly, what kind of person he is, for all to see.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:27:14 -0000, [email protected]
(Socal Cell) wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in article
>
>> >I've done that many times, as I'm sure you know.
>>
>> Then cut and paste just one!
>
>Paul:
>
>The reason I stopped responding to John's
>posts is because he doesn't provides citations
>on anything, and when challenged he always
>posts the same lie all the time, that he's posted
>the citations many times, even though he didn't.
>Once in a while he'll post a URL from the GSM
>lobbying organization, but that's about it.
>
>Why do you bother?
>
>Steve
>--------------------------------------------------
>http://www.socalcell.com
>Southern California Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
>[email protected]
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I want to use his own words (old posts that he denies making) and
> methods to expose, clearly, what kind of person he is, for all to see.

This is already well known by the readers of the relevant newgroups
and does not require any more exposure.

Steve

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 06 Aug 2003 06:20:47
-0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:37:15 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>"Us?" Whom else do you presume to speak for?
>
>Others reading this newsgroup who have experienced similar treatment
>by you.

So you're not only rude and argumentative, you're arrogant as well. How nice.

>>I'm not interested in this kind of semantic game, and I really don't care what
>>you accept or not.
>
>Even when I've quoted GSM sites to you and given you their text you've
>rejected them because you didn't like what they contained,

I only reject your mischaracterizations.

>so quoting
>any URL about anything is pointless.

I can only assume this means you weren't able to find anything to back up your
contentions about DoCoMo's WCDMA.

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