Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57
  1. #1
    RDT
    Guest
    In article <[email protected]>,
    Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]> wrote:
    >EDGE is almost certainly going to be the dominant
    >GSM based data standard for most of the world for
    >many years. UMTS deployment is extremely expensive
    >and the market for it is uncertain now that 802.11 hot
    >spots are becoming so ubiquitous.


    As the pre-eminent cellular expert, I'm surprised you haven't
    discussed the possibility that time division synchronous CDMA might be
    another route to bringing 3G to TDMA networks. It is backwards compatible
    with GSM, but provides a CDMA radio link for 3G enabled phones. The
    Chinese appear set to adopt it as their nationwide standard. It is not as
    spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but it is also a cheaper route to 3G
    and you can implement it in the same bandwidth where you have GSM. It can
    actually dynamically allocate timeslots for CDMA or TDMA use depending on
    the handset. It is a very intriguing idea. One other thing it can do
    which gives it an advantage over pure CDMA is that it can control the
    noise floor. In pure CDMA, the number of subscribers increases until the
    noise floor causes voice quality to degrade. With TD-SCDMA, the cell site
    determines precisely how much noise will be tolerated in a given CDMA
    timeslot by determining how many "codes" will simultaneously use it.

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill




    See More: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"




  2. #2
    NYC CellExpert
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"


    [email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:

    > As the pre-eminent cellular expert, I'm surprised you
    > haven't discussed the possibility that time division
    > synchronous CDMA might be another route to bringing
    > 3G to TDMA networks.


    Thank you for acknowledging my status :-).

    I didn't discuss it because AT&T must follow their
    agreement with NTT Docomo for UMTS, and
    Cingular will follow AT&T. The desirableness
    of a technology does not ensure its adoption.

    It is not really relevant in terms of the subjects
    of my sites.

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



  3. #3
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"


    "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    >
    > Tivo vs Scientific Atlanta DVR


    Tivo rules!

    Tom Veldhouse





  4. #4
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"


    "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Tivo rules!

    >
    > and DirecTv Tivo rules absolutely


    That is the one I use! My wife would probably divorce me and keep the
    DirecTivo if I threatened to get rid of it

    Tom Veldhouse.





  5. #5
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

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

    >
    > "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news[email protected]
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]m> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Tivo rules!

    > >
    > > and DirecTv Tivo rules absolutely

    >
    > That is the one I use! My wife would probably divorce me and keep the
    > DirecTivo if I threatened to get rid of it



    I solved that problem, we have to such Tivos.


    You have gone to http://www.weaknees.com and gotten a larger/additional
    Hard Drive ?



  6. #6
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    > We all know about:
    >
    > Beta vs VHS
    >
    > Atari vs Apple
    >
    > Macintosh vs IBM PC
    >
    > Tivo vs Scientific Atlanta DVR


    These are definitely debatable.

    The initial appeal of VHS was that you could record for two
    hours, versus one hour on Beta, not the difference in
    picture quality.

    The Atari 800 certainly was a better price than the Apple II,
    but it had its flaws despite having the same 6502 processor. The
    expansion on the Atari 800 was via the 850 expansion
    module rather than through plug in cards. I guess I'm
    showing my age, but I worked for a company whose second
    product was the first network card for the Apple II (the first
    product was a network card for the Commodore PET). They
    sold tens of thousands of these cards (for very high
    prices (when I see 10/100 Ethernet NICs priced "free after
    rebate," I fondly recall $1500 Apple Arcnet cards and $800
    ISA Arcnet cards). Networking was not a possibility with the
    Atari due to the lack of expansion.

    The appeal of the IBM PC was its open architecture (the Apple
    II was similarly open, but the original Mac was not). Had
    Apple not made the Mac a closed system things might have
    turned out very differently, though of course the reason that
    the Mac was so much more stable was in large part due to
    the fact that it was a closed box.

    Tivo may be more refined than the Scientific Atlanta DVR, but
    digital cable & satellite subscribers prefer one set-top box with
    integrated DVR over two separate boxes. Also, you're
    directly recording digitally on the SA DVR, not encoding an
    analog signal.

    With digital cable (or satellite) Tivo loses a lot of its appeal,
    unless you are getting the DirecTV version of Tivo.

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



  7. #7
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > As the pre-eminent cellular expert, I'm surprised you haven't
    > discussed the possibility that time division synchronous CDMA might be
    > another route to bringing 3G to TDMA networks. It is backwards compatible
    > with GSM, but provides a CDMA radio link for 3G enabled phones. The
    > Chinese appear set to adopt it as their nationwide standard. It is not as
    > spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but it is also a cheaper route to 3G
    > and you can implement it in the same bandwidth where you have GSM. It can
    > actually dynamically allocate timeslots for CDMA or TDMA use depending on
    > the handset. It is a very intriguing idea.


    How big is the performance difference between this TDSCDMA's final stage as
    planned now, and the best that WCDMA can offer down the road? TDSCDMA
    sounds like the best way to go from TDMA to something better with the
    backwards compatibility, but if the end result isn't good enough it will
    only end up delaying a big PITA. Is it only a small difference, or more?

    > One other thing it can do
    > which gives it an advantage over pure CDMA is that it can control the
    > noise floor. In pure CDMA, the number of subscribers increases until the
    > noise floor causes voice quality to degrade. With TD-SCDMA, the cell site
    > determines precisely how much noise will be tolerated in a given CDMA
    > timeslot by determining how many "codes" will simultaneously use it.


    It sounds like better quality is only acheived by limiting the number of
    users. Is this just a hypothetical situation where they choose to have
    incomplete calls in exchange for better quality when you can finally dial
    through 5 minutes later?


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003





  8. #8
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "Steven Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > We all know about:
    > >
    > > Beta vs VHS
    > >
    > > Atari vs Apple
    > >
    > > Macintosh vs IBM PC
    > >
    > > Tivo vs Scientific Atlanta DVR

    >
    > These are definitely debatable.
    >
    > The initial appeal of VHS was that you could record for two
    > hours, versus one hour on Beta, not the difference in
    > picture quality.


    Yeah, I grow tired of the Beta vs VHS legend as well. Face it, picture
    quality on ANY analog videocassette sucked (especially after 2 or 3
    viewings, and on top of the fact that anything you recorded on TV would look
    like crap too), so the "better" quality of Beta did little to change the
    fact that the end result was still crap. Then add the PITA of the time
    limit, and we have a loser product.

    If a new car company came along and made the most reliable car ever, but
    nobody bought it because the doors opened inwards, people would yap for 50
    years about how the "better" product was not adopted, oh how profound.


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003





  9. #9
    RDT
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Carl. <[email protected]> wrote:
    >How big is the performance difference between this TDSCDMA's final stage as
    >planned now, and the best that WCDMA can offer down the road?


    Siemens, which is working with China to get this technology going,
    has been pretty mum about how much spectrum efficiency is lost by using
    timeslots and CDMA together. One article I read implied that there is a
    built-in loss (although I don't recall the figure) because it is using
    time division. The upside is the actual reuse (number of people using the
    same frequency at the same time) can be accurately calculated -- in pure
    CDMA, it is a "soft" limit.

    >TDSCDMA
    >sounds like the best way to go from TDMA to something better with the
    >backwards compatibility, but if the end result isn't good enough it will
    >only end up delaying a big PITA. Is it only a small difference, or more?


    I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.

    >> noise floor. In pure CDMA, the number of subscribers increases until the
    >> noise floor causes voice quality to degrade. With TD-SCDMA, the cell site
    >> determines precisely how much noise will be tolerated in a given CDMA
    >> timeslot by determining how many "codes" will simultaneously use it.

    >
    >It sounds like better quality is only acheived by limiting the number of
    >users. Is this just a hypothetical situation where they choose to have
    >incomplete calls in exchange for better quality when you can finally dial
    >through 5 minutes later?


    I think that's an accurate statement. TD-SCDMA has a hard limit on
    the number of subscribers that can use the cell based on the number who
    are using voice services vs. data services and how much bandwidth each
    user is using. But the voice quality of each call is constant unlike CDMA
    where it can vary widely. However, unlike GSM, TD-SCDMA can handle up to
    2Mb/s data transmissions as well as many more subscribers in the same
    bandwidth.

    RDT

    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill




  10. #10
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

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

    In <[email protected]> on 13 Aug 2003 18:43:18 -0400,
    [email protected] ("RDT") wrote:

    > I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    >have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    >house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    >per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    >per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    >According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    >spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    >30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    >spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.


    [sigh] Qualcomm propaganda again. Here's the GSM side:

    <http://www.3gsmamericas.com/pdfs/pea...t_want_not.pdf>:

    Although CDMA operators and vendors always touted their 2G technology
    as being almost exponentially more spectrally efficient than Advanced
    Mobile Phone System (AMPS), GSM and TDMA, that promise did not always
    hold up in the real world. An example is the bold claim made by CDMA
    vendors in the mid 1990s that their technology has 20 to 30 times
    more capacity than AMPS. When CDMA systems started to be deployed a
    few years later, the gain turned out to be only five to six times
    better than AMPS. When EVRC was eventually added, the gain increased
    again - but still nowhere near the original claim of 20 to 30 times.

    Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT, an
    interim step towards 3G that promises to use spectrum more
    efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is
    that, based on BEST-CASE DATA from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC
    handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with
    AMR handles 142 Erlangs, IT IS A GREAT STRETCH TO ARGUE THAT 1XRTT
    HAS A MAJOR ADVANTAGE OVER GSM.... [emphasis added]

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



  11. #11
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Carl. <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >How big is the performance difference between this TDSCDMA's final stage

    as
    > >planned now, and the best that WCDMA can offer down the road?

    >
    > Siemens, which is working with China to get this technology going,
    > has been pretty mum about how much spectrum efficiency is lost by using
    > timeslots and CDMA together. One article I read implied that there is a
    > built-in loss (although I don't recall the figure) because it is using
    > time division. The upside is the actual reuse (number of people using the
    > same frequency at the same time) can be accurately calculated -- in pure
    > CDMA, it is a "soft" limit.


    I am wondering if, in the future when all customers finally have the newer
    phones, TDSCDMA will have anywhere to go to make up for whatever their
    disadvantage is. If Siemens is vague at all on exactly how that system will
    stack up against WCDMA 10 years from now, my guess is that carriers are
    worried about that.


    > I think that's an accurate statement. TD-SCDMA has a hard limit on
    > the number of subscribers that can use the cell based on the number who
    > are using voice services vs. data services and how much bandwidth each
    > user is using. But the voice quality of each call is constant unlike CDMA
    > where it can vary widely. However, unlike GSM, TD-SCDMA can handle up to
    > 2Mb/s data transmissions as well as many more subscribers in the same
    > bandwidth.


    OK, so it's a nice compromise between the other two.


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003





  12. #12
    CCCC1 1CCCC
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    Hope so..... hmmm what would a vealot say about this? bet vzn is
    running scared at this news.....

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/31758.html>
    >
    > When Nokia repeated its prediction that the global GSM standard could
    > grab half of the US cellphone market, we were skeptical. Thanks to
    > adoption by Verizon and SprintPCS networks, CDMA phones grabbed a
    > seemingly impregnable lead in the United States. But the latest
    > prediction from ABI Research suggests that the GSM family of
    > standards, which includes GPRS, could overtake CDMA in a couple of
    > years.
    >
    > ABI pegs this year's numbers as 73 million CDMA handsets , or a 44
    > per cent share, versus 58 million, or a 35 per cent share. The latter
    > is a dramatic increase from 11 per cent last year, thanks to AT&T
    > Wireless moving from TDMA to GSM/GPRS.
    >
    > According to the analyst company, GSM will draw level next year, 45
    > to 44 per cent, and nudge ahead in 2005. The share of others, which
    > includes Nextel's iDEN will fall to 8 per cent. For the rest of the
    > period for which ABI has made forecasts, GSM and CDMA technologies
    > duke it out with scarcely a per centage point of difference between
    > them.
    >
    > [MORE]
    >
    > Previously:
    >
    > "GSM heads for 50pc of US phones"
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/30831.html>
    >
    > While the battle to set Iraq's mobile phone standard may be over,
    > Nokia thinks that GSM can grab 50 per cent of the market back in the
    > Homeland. And analysts seem to agree it's far from impossible. You
    > might be as skeptical as we are, but the global GSM standard and its
    > variants are indisputably on the rise in the United States.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > The others have been nibbling at each other's market share without
    > dramatic shifts in power between the camps. The new GSM player
    > T-Mobile has gained at the expense of old Cingular, and Verizon has
    > gained at the expense of Sprint PCS. AT&T is making strides
    > converting its TDMA network to GSM/GPRS, and the market share of the
    > GSM players combined (38 per cent) is larger than the two CDMA
    > flagbearers at 34 per cent.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > However, come the churn, one factor will play into the GSM operators
    > favor - if they're shrewd enough to realize it. The SIM card model
    > already allows you to take your phone number and address book with
    > you and use it in another handset, while CDMA handsets are closed.
    > And number portability allows you to change the network entirely.
    > This puts more pressure on the carriers to offer more attractive
    > handsets (which the model was designed to do, as much as it was
    > intended to increase competition between network operators). And
    > competing on features and style plays into the GSM operators hands,
    > as the coolest kit and the widest variety of models have always come
    > from the GSM boys, serving a far larger global market.
    >
    > [MORE]
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


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



  13. #13
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    [email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:

    >I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    > have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    > house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    > per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    > per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    > According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    > spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    > 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    > spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.


    You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    51 at:

    "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessComm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"

    I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    you can go directly there:
    "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"

    Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    side.

    TD-SCDMA may be a good technology to work around the
    spectral efficiency issues of GSM, but as you stated, it will
    not be as good as pure CDMA.


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



  14. #14
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:34:40 -0000,
    [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:

    >[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    >> have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    >> house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    >> per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    >> per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    >> According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    >> spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    >> 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    >> spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.

    >
    >You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    >not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    >51 at:
    >
    >"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessComm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"
    >
    >I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    >you can go directly there:
    >"http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"
    >
    >Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    >groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    >side.


    Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind, as
    is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."

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



  15. #15
    Giambi
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:34:40 -0000,
    > [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    > ><[email protected]>:
    > >
    > >>I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    > >> have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    > >> house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45

    users
    > >> per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    > >> per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    > >> According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    > >> spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    > >> 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    > >> spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.

    > >
    > >You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    > >not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    > >51 at:
    > >

    >
    >"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessC

    omm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"
    > >
    > >I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    > >you can go directly there:
    > >"http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"
    > >
    > >Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    > >groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    > >side.

    >
    > Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind,

    as
    > is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."


    Ah the irony.. does that advice apply to your posts too, John? Or just
    everyone else? Pot.. kettle, etc.

    Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the technology-neutral
    voice again? That one cracks me up every time.
    --
    Jason G
    2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too!





  • Similar Threads

    1. ATT
    2. alt.cellular.verizon
    3. alt.cellular.cingular
    4. alt.cellular.cingular
    5. alt.cellular.verizon



  • Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast