CDMA vs 3g in OZ

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:59:36 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
> Wrong. Telstra DOES currently operate 2 VERY different 3G services.
> One is EV-DO with the cdma2000 standard,

Technically even the older 1xRTT part of cdma2000 just scrapes in as
"3G" too.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

---

› See More: CDMA vs 3g in OZ

Paul Day wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:59:36 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
>> Wrong. Telstra DOES currently operate 2 VERY different 3G services.
>> One is EV-DO with the cdma2000 standard,
>
> Technically even the older 1xRTT part of cdma2000 just scrapes in as
> "3G" too.
>
> PD

1xRTT is a 2.5G technology. It is a minor enhancement to the IS-95
standard and has always been clearly defined as 2.5G in every technology
road map issued by the official standards organisations such as the IEEE
and CDG.

John Henderson wrote:
> Kubalister wrote:
>
>> Eh? They won't NEED to be dual band, in fact 850/2100 dual
>> band 3GSM handsets will be very hard if not impossible to
>> source due to the small market. You'll only need to have an
>> 850 capable phone since the 850 band will have coverage
>> everywhere that the current CDMA network has which is pretty
>> much everywhere. What we'll see is common availability and use
>> of currently available dual 850/1900 and yet to be produced
>> tri band 850/1900/2100 handsets (although tri band data cards
>> are now fully available).
>
> Agreed, tri-band makes more sense, and I avoided reference to
> 1900 MHz UMTS (as used in the USA) to simplify things.
>
> But I certainly wasn't aware of the intention to roll out a
> complete 850 MHz network. Are shopping mall and railway tunnel
> microcells included?
>
> John

The published expected total of 5112 3GSM 850 sites indicates that every
current CDMA site will be enabled with 3GSM 850 service. (Space
limitations on each site may be the only limiting factor up until the
CDMA hardware is removed).
This should have been predicted given that Telstra is reluctant to share
any of its networks if it can avoid it and would certainly be the case
with the shared 2100 band network.
Why bother deploying additional 2100 hardware when the propagation
characteristics are far better in the 850 band and you don't give your
competitor (Hutchison) an advantage by improving the network they also use.

Kubalister wrote:

> Why bother deploying additional 2100 hardware when the
> propagation characteristics are far better in the 850 band and
> you don't give your competitor (Hutchison) an advantage by
> improving the network they also use.

To minimize congestion? I realize that 3G UMTS doesn't have the
hard upper limit to the number of simultaneous connections that
GSM has. Instead, call quality will progressively deteriorate
with UMTS. They'll need hell of a lot more cells in urban
areas than CDMA has, and probably more than the CDMA + GSM
combination currently has.

John

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:07:10 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
> 1xRTT is a 2.5G technology. It is a minor enhancement to the IS-95
> standard and has always been clearly defined as 2.5G in every
> technology road map issued by the official standards organisations
> such as the IEEE and CDG.

Seeing you obviously like your acronyms:

The IEEE have nothing to do with defining 3G mobile standards. 802
defines standards such as WiMax (802.16) and the older "Mobile Broadband
Wireless access" (802.20), not 3G.

The FCC defines the term "3G" as anything above 144kb/s while highly
mobile. 1xRTT fits into this definition.

The CDG most definitely consider 1xRTT a 3G standard, as clearly
displayed all over their web-page.

The ITU are the ones that define what most people consider "3G" with
standard IMT-2000. CDMA2000 with 1xRTT (not just EV-Dx) was included as
one of the five 3G standards, IMT-MC, as clearly displayed on their
web-page.

The 3GPP2 treat cdma2000 with 1xRTT as a 3G standard under Technical
Specification Group TSG-2, as clearly displayed on their web-page.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

Paul Day wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:07:10 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
>> 1xRTT is a 2.5G technology. It is a minor enhancement to the IS-95
>> standard and has always been clearly defined as 2.5G in every
>> technology road map issued by the official standards organisations
>> such as the IEEE and CDG.
>
> Seeing you obviously like your acronyms:
>
> The IEEE have nothing to do with defining 3G mobile standards. 802
> defines standards such as WiMax (802.16) and the older "Mobile Broadband
> Wireless access" (802.20), not 3G.

The communications society of the IEEE is the single largest group of
communications industry professionals and as a member I haven't seen a
single paper published in any journal that has described 1xRTT as
anything but a 2.5G technology. It's widely accepted within the industry
(outside of marketing fluff by the CDG which couldn't develop a decent
standard if their lives depended on it) that 1xRTT is 2.5G

> The FCC defines the term "3G" as anything above 144kb/s while highly
> mobile. 1xRTT fits into this definition.

Yep, exactly, anything ABOVE 144kbs which doesn't include 1xRTT

> The CDG most definitely consider 1xRTT a 3G standard, as clearly
> displayed all over their web-page.

The CDG would proclaim that cdmaONE was a 3G standard if they could get
away with it so more telcos or manufacturers would consider using their
standards.

> The ITU are the ones that define what most people consider "3G" with
> standard IMT-2000. CDMA2000 with 1xRTT (not just EV-Dx) was included as
> one of the five 3G standards, IMT-MC, as clearly displayed on their
> web-page.

Eh? Every ITU conference presentation I've seen clearly labels GPRS and
1xRTT as 2.5G tech.
The only mob that is claiming 1xRTT to be 3G are the marketing loonies
at the CDG. Gee, I wonder why?????? Could it possibly be that their
1xEV-DV standard has been the biggest flop since the BetaMax?

> The 3GPP2 treat cdma2000 with 1xRTT as a 3G standard under Technical
> Specification Group TSG-2, as clearly displayed on their web-page.
>
> PD
>

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:40:52 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
> The communications society of the IEEE is the single largest group of
> communications industry professionals and as a member I haven't seen a
> single paper published in any journal that has described 1xRTT as
> anything but a 2.5G technology. It's widely accepted within the
> industry (outside of marketing fluff by the CDG which couldn't develop
> a decent standard if their lives depended on it) that 1xRTT is 2.5G

Doesn't mean they've defined what 3G is or any of the standards
considerred 3G by the ITU.

Note my use of the word "technically". I also think 1xRTT is better
considerred 2.5G and on par with GPRS. However, as I claimed above
_technically_ it is a 3G standard.

> > The FCC defines the term "3G" as anything above 144kb/s while highly
> > mobile. 1xRTT fits into this definition.
>
> Yep, exactly, anything ABOVE 144kbs which doesn't include 1xRTT

Well, if we're going to cut hairs, their exact requirement was: equal to
or between 144kb/s and 2Mb/s. That includes 1xRTT.

> > The CDG most definitely consider 1xRTT a 3G standard, as clearly
> > displayed all over their web-page.
>
> The CDG would proclaim that cdmaONE was a 3G standard if they could
> get away with it so more telcos or manufacturers would consider using
> their standards.

Indeed, but the fact remains taht they put the "3G" bar at 1xRTT, not
furhter up the ladder at 1xRTT EV.

> > The ITU are the ones that define what most people consider "3G" with
> > standard IMT-2000. CDMA2000 with 1xRTT (not just EV-Dx) was included as
> > one of the five 3G standards, IMT-MC, as clearly displayed on their
> > web-page.
>
> Eh? Every ITU conference presentation I've seen clearly labels GPRS and
> 1xRTT as 2.5G tech.

Not too sure what presentations you've been looking at. As an example,
see the ITU presentation at:
http://www.three-g.net/3g_what_is_imt2000.pdf - it clearly shows 1xRTT
_and_ 1xEV listed as 3G.

> The only mob that is claiming 1xRTT to be 3G are the marketing loonies
> at the CDG.

Nope and the ITU. And the 3GPP2.

> Gee, I wonder why?????? Could it possibly be that their 1xEV-DV
> standard has been the biggest flop since the BetaMax?

See above.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.enigma.id.au/

"Kubalister" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
> > "Emjaye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Graeme said....
> >>
> >>> I wonder whether they'll use 850 mhz in areas where they already have
> >>> 2100 mhz established.
> >> This is oh so confusing.
> >>
> >> So, will we have two separate and distinct 3G services? When CDMA
closes
> >
> > No. 3G is 3G
>
> Wrong. Telstra DOES currently operate 2 VERY different 3G services. One
> is EV-DO with the cdma2000 standard, and the other is the 3GSM

Without you getting too much into a technical wank, EVDO is EVDO, and 3G is
3G.

Thats the way the punters see it, and I'm happy with that definition

"Kubalister" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Day wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:07:10 +1000 Kubalister may have written:
> >> 1xRTT is a 2.5G technology. It is a minor enhancement to the IS-95
> >> standard and has always been clearly defined as 2.5G in every
> >> technology road map issued by the official standards organisations
> >> such as the IEEE and CDG.
> >
> > Seeing you obviously like your acronyms:
> >
> > The IEEE have nothing to do with defining 3G mobile standards. 802
> > defines standards such as WiMax (802.16) and the older "Mobile Broadband
> > Wireless access" (802.20), not 3G.
>
> The communications society of the IEEE is the single largest group of
> communications industry professionals and as a member I haven't seen a

And they dont define mobile standards

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Emjaye wrote:
>
> > So, will we have two separate and distinct 3G services? When
> > CDMA closes down, I get one of these 850 meg jobs.
>
> Just to clear up one possible source of confusion, the new 850
> MHz phones will need to be dual-band, and cover 2100 MHZ as

No, they dont need to be dual band, they can certainly be 3G 850 and fall
back to GSM. It would be highly advantageous to do 3G 850 / 3G 2100 and
GSM900 (and 1800 even) on the one handset

> well. Almost all GSM handsets sold here in the last 7 years or
> so have been multi-band, seemlessly switching between 900 MHz
> and 1800 MHz as required during a call.

900 + 1800 = dual band

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kubalister wrote:
>
> > Eh? They won't NEED to be dual band, in fact 850/2100 dual
> > band 3GSM handsets will be very hard if not impossible to
> > source due to the small market. You'll only need to have an
> > 850 capable phone since the 850 band will have coverage
> > everywhere that the current CDMA network has which is pretty
> > much everywhere. What we'll see is common availability and use
> > of currently available dual 850/1900 and yet to be produced
> > tri band 850/1900/2100 handsets (although tri band data cards
> > are now fully available).
>
> Agreed, tri-band makes more sense, and I avoided reference to
> 1900 MHz UMTS (as used in the USA) to simplify things.
>
> But I certainly wasn't aware of the intention to roll out a
> complete 850 MHz network. Are shopping mall and railway tunnel
> microcells included?

What is your definition of a complete 850 network?

Do you consider the current CDMA "complete" - all those bases will be
converted to 3G 850, thus making 3G 850 complete?

Michael wrote:

> What is your definition of a complete 850 network?

An 850 MHz UMTS network in which there'd be no real benefit by
phones' being able to use 2100 MHz cells as well.

John

Michael wrote:

> No, they dont need to be dual band, they can certainly be 3G
> 850 and fall back to GSM.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this involves a disconnection and
redial rather than a handover - not the end of the world, but
inconvenient.

> It would be highly advantageous to do 3G 850 / 3G 2100 and
> GSM900 (and 1800 even) on the one handset.

Plus 1900 MHz UMTS for those trips to the Americas.

John

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this involves a disconnection and
> redial rather than a handover - not the end of the world, but
> inconvenient.

Handover from 3G to GSM is possible and completely functional- and the
vice versa is also true.

You may be thinking of the case of "3" and then dropping before
reselecting to Telstra (or Voda previously). This was because it was a
roaming partner issue - not a technical issue.

There are several phone coming out soon that will operate at 850, 1900
and 2100 for 3G as well as 900, 1800 and 1900 for GSM and allow for
seamless handoffs between all bands. There is little doubt that this
will be norm in phones in a couple of years (just was the case with
dualband and triband phones for GSM in recent years).

Fred

Kubalister wrote:

>> Just to clear up one possible source of confusion, the new 850
>> MHz phones will need to be dual-band, and cover 2100 MHZ as
>> well. Almost all GSM handsets sold here in the last 7 years or
>
> Eh? They won't NEED to be dual band, in fact 850/2100 dual band 3GSM

And a double eh, on that, too...

As I posted in my previous note, I was questioning the use of different
frequencies, Now this 2100 Mhz is being thrown about.

I've not heard that being mentioned in respect to the CDMA replacement
3G service, nor have I seen it refered to in the current GSM service.
So, where DOES this 2100 Mhz frequency come from?