3G range

Kubalister <[email protected]> may have written:
> They no longer have Korea sewn up:
> http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/May2006/3017.htm

> "This week, mobile operator KTF of Korea also announced that it will
> switch focus from its CDMA network to a new nationwide W-CDMA/ HSDPA
> network covering 84 South Korean cities by the end of the year. KTF
> has cited many compelling reasons for this shift, from simple economic
> efficiencies and global roaming to global handset availability and
> choice, economies of scale and significant potential revenue gains
> from high speed services."

> R.I.P. cdma2000.......

So, when will the CDG offer the cdma2000 -> W-CDMA/UMTS upgrade path as
"theirs? I'm assuming sharing equipment and bandwidth between cdma2000
and W-CDMA is more possible than GSM -> W-CDMA? Well, at least Telstra
seem to indicate as much.

Wouldn't it be nice to have both camps converging on the same technology
in 5 years time...

PD

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

---

› See More: 3G range

Graeme Willox wrote:
> What is the range of 3G?
>
> Telstra is making a big deal out of being able to make data calls at 80
> km on 850 mhz 3G compared to 60 km on CDMA.
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but the main use I have for my mobile is
> voice calls and infrequent texts. I've been able to make voice calls
> on my CDMA phone at 140 km from the base station (as reported on my
> phone bill).
>
> Does anyone have any information on the range which can be expected out
> of this new system?

Aren't you luck, I just recently waded through the Feb senate estimates
committee document where they asked Telstra all about this.

I am paraphrasing, but here goes: Internationally, no-one has tested
UMTS 850 over a long distance, there is a software upgrade in
development to extend current cells from 50-160km.

For CDMA "... if a boomer cell was enabled it was around 180
kilometres." & "we did have calls in excess of 230 kilometres. Those
calls, however, were between an aircraft and a high base station, so
they were not your typical user."

"... has this type of coverage 'the 200 kilometres that was announced
in Telstra's strategic review' ever actually been delivered in a
commercially operating network anywhere in the world?"
"On a UMTS network, no, because the software development needs to be
done before that can be possible."

"When do you envisage being able to test distance? You mentioned you
were testing a video. When is your testing of distance going to start?"
"We expect that will start to occur later this year, and as we get the
new software upgrades for the network we will do additional testing of
coverage."
"But these software upgrades have not been developed yet?"
"They are in the process of being developed."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9089.pdf pp31-32

The above document also has a lot of information on the CDMA - UMTS
upgrade, but it is spread over around half of 100 pages.

Paul Day wrote:
> Kubalister <[email protected]> may have written:
>> They no longer have Korea sewn up:
>> http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/May2006/3017.htm
>
>> "This week, mobile operator KTF of Korea also announced that it will
>> switch focus from its CDMA network to a new nationwide W-CDMA/ HSDPA
>> network covering 84 South Korean cities by the end of the year. KTF
>> has cited many compelling reasons for this shift, from simple economic
>> efficiencies and global roaming to global handset availability and
>> choice, economies of scale and significant potential revenue gains
>> from high speed services."
>
>> R.I.P. cdma2000.......
>
> So, when will the CDG offer the cdma2000 -> W-CDMA/UMTS upgrade path as
> "theirs? I'm assuming sharing equipment and bandwidth between cdma2000
> and W-CDMA is more possible than GSM -> W-CDMA? Well, at least Telstra
> seem to indicate as much.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to have both camps converging on the same technology
> in 5 years time...
>
> PD

Your assumptions seem to show your misunderstanding.
cdma2000 does NOT have an upgrade path to 3GSM (UMTS/W-CDMA) and NEVER will.
W-CDMA is just the radio interface technology for 3GSM (otherwise
identified as UMTS/W-CDMA). 3GSM is an integral part of the GSM group of
standards produced by the GSM Association. It does not have and never
will have anything to do with the CDG which is a competing group that
has a much smaller number of supporting telcos and subscribers worldwide.

The evolution of cdma2000 to 3G is with the EV-DO and EV-DV standards
which are in no way interoperable with the GSM group of standards. About
the only similarity between the CDG and GSMA standards in 3G technology
is that they both use CDMA for the radio interface but that's about it.
Everything else is as different as chalk and cheese.

You mentioned sharing equipment and bandwidth which is true to an
extent. Telstra has 20MHz of spectrum available in the 870-890MHz band
(10MHz in capital cities) which it uses currently for the cdma2000
network (marketed as 'CDMA'). Since each cdma2000 channel is 1.25MHz
wide it can have a maximum of 16 channels in that band. In reality they
have only deployed 2 to 3 channels for use as voice and 1xRTT packet
data and 1 channel for 3G EV-DO data only use. So with only 5MHz used
out of the 20MHz available it is quite easy to use the rest of their
allocated band to supply 3GSM (UMTS/W-CDMA) services which have a
channel bandwidth of 5MHz each.

The equipment that will be shared is the racks, antennas, feed lines and
existing network interface with GSM hardware.

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael <[email protected]> may have written:
> > Im not sure. It did happen for Voda, for about 12-15 cells, which are
> > listed on their web site. Basically a fart in the bath in the size of
> > even their overall small net. You dont get GPRS on those cells
>
> Due to the change in the timing of the underlying radio layer?

Some **** like that

> > > Hm, I thought due to technical constraints of Telstra's CDMA
> > > deployment, the range was 57km?
>
> > Nope. They deployed "Boomer" cells not long after CDMA was first
> > implemented. I can guarantee that 57km is more than possible. Ive used
> > Yea (Vic) cell while over Bass Strait.
>
> I assume you matched it up against your bill? Or did you use some other
> method to ID it?

Against the bill.

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Day wrote:
>
> > Michael <[email protected]> may have written:
> >> Im not sure. It did happen for Voda, for about 12-15 cells,
> >> which are listed on their web site. Basically a fart in the
> >> bath in the size of even their overall small net. You dont
> >> get GPRS on those cells
> >
> > Due to the change in the timing of the underlying radio layer?
>
> GPRS uses multiple timeslots on-demand. Extended range cells
> group the available timeslots into pairs (halving the cell's
> traffic capacity). Given the complexity of catering for
> different multislot classes and the size of the ER market,
> extended range GPRS is in the too hard basket.

Not too hard, just not necessary.

These 12-13 cells on Voda are mainly in Woop Woop.

Woop Woop customers dont need or deserve GPRS. They should be grateful for
the coverage to start with

"Paul Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thegoons <[email protected]> may have written:
> > DOubt the CDG really ever gave a **** about Telstra. They have
> > America, Korea and Japan sewn up. Telstra never pushed CDMA as they
> > should have. Like, they could have had roaming agreements in place to
> > many more places.
>
> But they've had inbound roaming agreements for quite a long time. Who
> are those networks going to roam to in .au once CDMA dies?

Who cares? its a tiny market

they can bring a GSM or buy a prepaid over here

the bars on a CDMA phone are more about signal quality, not strength

"Al Foyle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Graeme said....
>
> > I don't know about anyone else, but the main use I have for my mobile is
> > voice calls and infrequent texts. I've been able to make voice calls
> > on my CDMA phone at 140 km from the base station (as reported on my
> > phone bill).
>
> Can you or someone please explain then the following:
>
> Tintaldra - 23km as the crow flies from Corryong, in Victoria's NE. I
> can get a full signal in Corryong, but ride out to Tintaldra, and
> there's nothing. Oh, maybe one flickering bar if I stand out in the
> middle of the road outside of the pub. Even then, it cuts in and out.
> Only sure method is to send an SMS which will get out when the signal
> presents an opportunity.
>
> Phillip Island - at the race track, can receive a full signal. 3.5 km as
> the crow flies, in Cowes, it's bouncing between one and two bars and
> sometimes cuts out.
>
> Now, in both cases, the landscape between the two locales is probably
> best described as a bit undulating. No real hills or mountains to block
> signals.
>
> Then there's home. In the house the signal bar is on probably 2-3 bars.
> Put the handset in the car kit cradle (CARK-126) and it may pop up to
> 3-4 bars, but never full strength. The tower is located at the highest
> point in town, or just outside of town. Where I live it's halfway up a
> hill that faces towards the general direction of the mobile tower. So
> I'm not really being blocked by hills or any major structures. At the
> most, it's 4 km away.
>
> All the above mentioned distances are measured according to my GPS.
>
>

Michael <[email protected]> may have written:
> Woop Woop customers dont need or deserve GPRS. They should be grateful
> for the coverage to start with

But Telstra's promising them streaming porn now with 850MHz UMTS!

PD

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

Michael wrote:

> the bars on a CDMA phone are more about signal quality, not strength

So, what's the difference, technically, between signal "quality" versus
signal "strength"?

It seems to me that the further away from civilisation that I get, the
lower the quality of the signal, which to me sounds a lot like its
signal strength is getting lower.

Al Foyle wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> the bars on a CDMA phone are more about signal quality, not strength
>
> So, what's the difference, technically, between signal "quality" versus
> signal "strength"?

Signal strength is usually expressed as the signal voltage at the
receiver (designated by a voltage value in volts or as a ratio
expression as dBV or dBu). The signal strength is not influenced by
interference or other users. It is in effect an absolute value.

Signal quality is expressed as a ratio (typically in dB's) of the
desired signal compared to either the background noise levels (sourced
from cosmic radiation and other wideband interference sources) or other
channel users, i.e. in CDMA systems whereby multiple users share the
same channel at the same time and use codes to differentiate each other.
As more users occupy the same channel the signal to noise ratio reduces
and the quality is said to be lower.
Signal quality is thus a relative value that is dependant not only by
the distance from the base station(s) but also by how many other
simultaneous users are occupying that channel.

Michael wrote:

> Nope. They deployed "Boomer" cells not long after CDMA was first
> implemented. I can guarantee that 57km is more than possible. Ive used
> Yea (Vic) cell while over Bass Strait.

How can you tell what cell you're latched onto? None of my CDMA phones
had the ability to display the cell like what a GSM phone can do.

"Al Foyle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Nope. They deployed "Boomer" cells not long after CDMA was first
> > implemented. I can guarantee that 57km is more than possible. Ive used
> > Yea (Vic) cell while over Bass Strait.
>
> How can you tell what cell you're latched onto? None of my CDMA phones
> had the ability to display the cell like what a GSM phone can do.

I made some calls up in the air, and compared the cell id from the bill.

RoT wrote:
> "Kubalister" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The equipment that will be shared is the racks, antennas, feed lines and
>> existing network interface with GSM hardware.
>
> actually CDMA, GSM and UMTS hardware is completely seperate and in the case
> of CDMA, ironwork is also elecrically segregated.
> CDMA uses Nortel racks, and GSM and UMTS are ericsson RBS2206 and RBS3206
> respectively.
> A few sites are using diplexers for the new 850 but in most cases seperate
> feeders and antenna are utilised.

Those Ericsson snobs! If they're getting away with that then they're
really screwing Telstra for every dollar they can get. What's next?
Getting Telstra to buy special Ericsson screws?
I can understand that a separate feed and antenna is required if the
additional RF output exceeds the power rating on the existing antennas
but any other reason is just plain ridiculous. (Unless Ericsson added
the hardware as a bonus in the contract).

"Kubalister" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The equipment that will be shared is the racks, antennas, feed lines and
> existing network interface with GSM hardware.

actually CDMA, GSM and UMTS hardware is completely seperate and in the case
of CDMA, ironwork is also elecrically segregated.
CDMA uses Nortel racks, and GSM and UMTS are ericsson RBS2206 and RBS3206
respectively.
A few sites are using diplexers for the new 850 but in most cases seperate
feeders and antenna are utilised.

RoT <rot@*.com> may have written:
> actually CDMA, GSM and UMTS hardware is completely seperate and in the
> case of CDMA, ironwork is also elecrically segregated. CDMA uses
> Nortel racks, and GSM and UMTS are ericsson RBS2206 and RBS3206
> respectively. A few sites are using diplexers for the new 850 but in
> most cases seperate feeders and antenna are utilised.

Interesting. That's quite a bit different to what Telstra told the
government in Feburary.

So, about the only reasons left for _not_ operating the two networks
side-by-side is (by, for example, flogging CDMAone to a third party) is:
- They need the space in each BS hut for the UMTS gear
- They want the CDMAone spectrum for UMTS

However, considering they're running the two networks side-by-side until
Jan 2008, those are obviously far from an insumountable problem.

And finally, what about the statement that they can't sell the CDMA gear
because they require 80% of it for the new network?

PD

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