SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>

There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

---

› See More: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

On 4 Feb 2008 17:37:31 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>but not anytime soon.
>>
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>
>Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
>Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.

>But I defer to you
>... you know best.

Discourtesy only serves to make your case less persuasive. Likewise
your lack of anything to support your argument.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 4 Feb 2008 17:44:51 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>
>There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
>Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
>W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
>Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
>patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
>truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
>technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.


Apology accepted.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <[email protected]>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
> >
>
> There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name!

The important thing is that they are not compatible, they are
incompatible, not that they have similar names. You can't use a CDMA
phone on a W-CDMA network or vice versa. It is silly to say they are
the same when you can't use one on a network that uses the other.

--
Charles

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>> but not anytime soon.
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>
>
> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
> ... you know best.
>

GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
misguided.

But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...

g

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>> but not anytime soon.
>>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>>
>> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
>> ... you know best.
>
>GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
>American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
>To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
>technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
>misguided.
>
>But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...

Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
(infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.

Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800, g <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>>> but not anytime soon.
>>>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>>>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>>>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>>>
>>> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>>>
>>> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>>> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>>> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
>>> ... you know best.
>> GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
>> American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
>> To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
>> technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
>> misguided.
>>
>> But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...
>
> Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
> totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
> interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
> (infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.
>
> Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
> a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.
>
Claiming that a TDMA technology is more similar to a CDMA technology
than is another CDMA technology would perhaps be like saying a milkshake
is more like a T-Bone steak than is hamburger.

Oh well...

g

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:59:01 -0800, g <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800, g <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>>>> but not anytime soon.
>>>>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>>>>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>>>>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>>>>
>>>> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>>>>
>>>> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>>>> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>>>> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
>>>> ... you know best.
>>> GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
>>> American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
>>> To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
>>> technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
>>> misguided.
>>>
>>> But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...
>>
>> Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
>> totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
>> interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
>> (infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.
>>
>> Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
>> a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.
>>
>Claiming that a TDMA technology is more similar to a CDMA technology
>than is another CDMA technology would perhaps be like saying a milkshake
>is more like a T-Bone steak than is hamburger.

I've done nothing of the sort. Read more carefully.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

At 04 Feb 2008 19:10:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
> totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (

So? It's different and "incompatible" with the original GSM spec as well-
it's an addition to the original standard.

>b) the UMTS air
> interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
> (infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.


Again, it's an otherwise incompatible standard bolted onto the original,
much like AM/FM radios combine two incompatible standards into one device.
(Obviously the same can be said of CDMA-2000 and it's 3G successor, so this
whole pissing match is sort of silly.)


> Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
> a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.


Very good analogy. Like CDMA and UMTS, they both come from the same
source, in your example, milk. Claiming UMTS is GSM, however, is like
saying ice cream is the same as a popsicle. Completely different products,
but sold by the same vendor. ;-)

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:10:42 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
>totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
>interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
>(infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.

That should have been "GSM". :Q

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:25:17 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 04 Feb 2008 19:10:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
>> totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (
>
>So? It's different and "incompatible" with the original GSM spec as well-
>it's an addition to the original standard.

So it's meaningless to claim it's "CDMA" like, and as some sort of
endorsement of, CDMA2000, as CDMA2000 proponents try to do over and
over.

>>b) the UMTS air
>> interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
>> (infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.
>
>Again, it's an otherwise incompatible standard bolted onto the original,
>much like AM/FM radios combine two incompatible standards into one device.

Not really a good analogy. Take a hard look at what makes up the UMTS
system, and see how much is based on GSM. UMTS is clearly an evolution
of GSM, albeit with a different air interface, but one totally different
from and incompatible with CDMA as promulgated by Qualcomm.

>(Obviously the same can be said of CDMA-2000 and it's 3G successor, so this
>whole pissing match is sort of silly.)

It is indeed silly, quite silly. It would be nice if the proponents and
trollers would it a rest.

>> Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
>> a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.
>
>Very good analogy. Like CDMA and UMTS, they both come from the same
>source, in your example, milk.

It's *not* CMDA (basic technology) -- it's CDMA2000 (complex product).

That said: Both use radios. Both fit in your hand. Both make calls.
On and on. That doesn't make them the same.

>Claiming UMTS is GSM, however, is like
>saying ice cream is the same as a popsicle. Completely different products,
>but sold by the same vendor. ;-)

I disagree. UMTS is like GSM in the same way that chocolate ice cream
is like rocky road -- both are ice cream, but still different.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:10:42 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
>totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
>interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
>(infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.
>
>Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
>a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.

A closer analogy is like trying to claim that GSM and D-AMPS
(IS-54/IS-136) are the same just because both use a TDMA type air
interface, when in fact the systems are quite different.

W-CDMA and cdmaOne(IS-95)/CDMA2000 are even more unlike than GSM and
D-AMPS.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>