Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
  1. #16
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Jul 2003
    16:52:38 -0400, An Metet <[email protected][127.1]> wrote:

    >1. Your SNIPped quotes had NO URLs or reference to back them up.


    As you implying I made them up? On what basis? I've actually posted
    references before, and they are easily found in any event. But I don't see
    much point in doing it again, since CDMA2000 fans just dismiss them out of
    hand in any event. ;-)

    >2. Your SNIPped quotes, if legit, came from BIASed sources (companies that
    >use GSM).


    All sources are biased.

    >I'm sure Verizon, Sprint or other CDMA companies would paint the
    >picture differently.


    Of course. Which is why advocacy debates are a waste of time.

    >3G is WCDMA aka UMTS, BUT
    >It is NOT largely based on GSM infrastructure which uses narrowband
    >**TDMA**. It is based on CDMA infrastructure.


    No, it's based on (1) a type of basic CDMA air interface that's quite
    different from cdmaOne and CDMA2000, and (2) GSM infrastructure. You
    apparently misunderstand what is meant by infrastructure.

    >And it is very similar to current CDMA


    The two CDMAs are substantially different. Convergence efforts between CDMA
    and W-CDMA failed due to irreconcilable radio differences. Overall
    differences include:

    * Chip rate
    * Frame duration
    * Asynchronous versus synchronous
    * Base station acquisition/detection
    * Forward link pilot
    * Antenna beam form
    * Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
    * Transmit diversity
    * Underlying network

    >and TOTALLY DIFFERENT from current
    >GSM which uses narrowband **TDMA**..


    As I wrote, it's based on GSM infrastructure. The air interface is only a
    part of a total cellular system.

    p.s. Please note that the foregoing is just technical clarification, not the
    silly and pointless "X is better than Y!"

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



    See More: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update




  2. #17
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Comparison Web Site Update

    An Metet <[email protected][127.1]> wrote in article
    >You GSM troll comments notwithstanding...
    >
    >1. Your SNIPped quotes had NO URLs or reference to back them up.
    >2. Your SNIPped quotes, if legit, came from BIASed sources (companies that
    >use GSM). I'm sure Verizon, Sprint or other CDMA companies would paint the
    >picture differently.


    Well stated. One thing I always do is to NOT use
    sources like the CDMA or GSM trade organizations,
    or statements from the carriers themselves.

    You know no one at AT&T Wireless is going to come out
    and admit how they were about to go CDMA but for the
    NTT Docomo investment--duh. You have to look at what
    the independent analysts and reporters say:

    I.e.

    "http://www.redherring.com/investor/2000/1212/inv-qualcomm121200.html"
    stated:

    "Late last month, Japan's NTT DoCoMo (OTC : NTDMY) agreed to
    acquire 16 percent of AT&T Wireless (NYSE : AWE). As part of
    the deal, AT&T decided to spurn Qualcomm's CDMA technology in
    the near term and build out a GSM network in the U.S."

    Could it _possibly_ be any clearer?

    Other sources put did not put quite so bluntly, using
    some weasel words, but saying the same thing:

    "http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,20524,00.html"
    stated:

    "AT&T Wireless' new partner, NTT DoCoMo, likely had
    something to do with the decision."


    "http://www.thestreet.com/comment/wirelesswiz/1193961.html"
    stated:

    "Until Thursday, both were thought to be considering a new
    third-generation-based technology standard known as 1xRTT
    as their upgrade technology of choice."

    I'm not sure why anyone is upset over the fact that AT&T's
    decision was a direct result of the NTT Docomo investment.
    Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, just not a decision that
    would have been made if not for that $9.8 billion. Not sure
    why all of a sudden the CTO of AT&T feels that he needs to
    try to justify the decision; why the insecurity? I never see
    Sprint or Verizon trying to explain or justify their decision to
    go with CDMA.

    I did see a good article in Wireless Week that explained why
    two non-AT&T affiliated TDMA carriers chose to move to
    CDMA,

    "http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=CA216790"
    states:

    "Forrester Research senior analyst Charles Golvin says that
    for small carriers, the switch to CDMA makes sense because
    the technology path will give them better overall voice
    capacity than the GSM migration path. In addition, Golvin
    says that from a spectrum management point of view, it's
    much more difficult to evolve along the GSM/GPRS path.
    "The spectrum argument plus the capacity argument are
    definitely selling points for a CDMA conversion," Golvin
    says."

    Wow, four references, none of them from the CDMA industry
    trade group!

    Steve
    http://sfbacell.com
    [email protected]





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12