Single chipset supports all major cellular standards

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:34:58 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9784.shtml

I'll bet the licensing fees on that thing will be a *****.

---

› See More: Single chipset supports all major cellular standards

Does this mean we may see cell phones in the future that can handle all
modes of coverage in the US? Sometimes fantasy can become reality.

[email protected] wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9784.shtml

[posted via phonescoop.com]

> Does this mean we may see cell phones in the future that can handle all
> modes of coverage in the US? Sometimes fantasy can become reality.

You mis read the statement.
It is for base stations.

As from the article.
A base station equipped with that technology will be able to support.
"GSM, GPRS, EDGE, IS-95 CDMA, WCDMA, cdma2000, and North American TDMA."

And it can..........
"process multiple 2G, 2.5G, 3G and future wireless standards at the same
time,
within the same footprint as today's single-carrier, narrowband
architectures."

So someone could be using a GSM cell phone, someone else a TDMA
and cdma.....(so on and so forth,) on the same tower at the same time.

Every phone will be able to operate in it's native mode, no mater what
it's native mode is.

Now at I think of it, it is about like the idea I had earlier..

Posted on 4/7/2003 by ME(N9WOS)

.............................................................................
....
What really puzzles me is why they have to have a dedicated mode for a
system.
As a person the works with a lot of radio related communications equipment,
It boggles my mind why a network would be limited to one digital mode.
Every 800meg cell transceiver slot should be occupied with a standard unit.
It can work in AMPS TDMA, CDMA, 800meg GSM and any other digital mode
That a multi mode DSP reviver and transmitter can be made to run.
When a new digital mode comes out for the 800meg band, you just
update the firm ware to handle it.

Every slot will be able to handle any form of communication on demand.
A cell phone that is roaming from another area with a different native
digital mode
will be able to operate in it's native mode irrelevant of the systems native
mode.

The cell phone companies need to learn a lesson from the computer industry.
There is no need to adopt a standard digital mode.
(a computer can interface with all forms of communications channels)
There is no need to obsolete old equipment.
(An old computer will interface with the web just the same as a new one
will.)

Everything is upgradeable.
(via software, you can increase the computers capiblitys without
Changing any hardware.)

Everything is backward compatible.
If you don't have a V90 modem and you dial in to
the service provider, it will default to a legacy mode
without any interruption.
Your computer is still talking to the same node modem but the
node modem can operate in almost any mode.

You can dial in with an old 300bps modem and it will
connect without a hitch.
It works, I have tried

An old computer can interface the new network.
It won't be able to use any of the newer features but
It will be able to operate up to it's original design.

That is the design basses that should be used for the cellular network.

They shouldn't care what types of modes your phone will use.
The network can use all of them.
......................................................................

In article <[email protected]>,
N9WOS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean we may see cell phones in the future that can handle all
>> modes of coverage in the US? Sometimes fantasy can become reality.
>
>You mis read the statement.
>It is for base stations.
>
>As from the article.
>A base station equipped with that technology will be able to support.
>"GSM, GPRS, EDGE, IS-95 CDMA, WCDMA, cdma2000, and North American TDMA."
>
>And it can..........
>"process multiple 2G, 2.5G, 3G and future wireless standards at the same
>time,
>within the same footprint as today's single-carrier, narrowband
>architectures."
>
>So someone could be using a GSM cell phone, someone else a TDMA
>and cdma.....(so on and so forth,) on the same tower at the same time.
>
>Every phone will be able to operate in it's native mode, no mater what
>it's native mode is.
>
>Now at I think of it, it is about like the idea I had earlier..
>
>Posted on 4/7/2003 by ME(N9WOS)
>
>............................................................................
>...
>What really puzzles me is why they have to have a dedicated mode for a
>system.
>As a person the works with a lot of radio related communications equipment,
>It boggles my mind why a network would be limited to one digital mode.
>Every 800meg cell transceiver slot should be occupied with a standard unit.
>It can work in AMPS TDMA, CDMA, 800meg GSM and any other digital mode
>That a multi mode DSP reviver and transmitter can be made to run.
>When a new digital mode comes out for the 800meg band, you just
>update the firm ware to handle it.
>
>Every slot will be able to handle any form of communication on demand.
>A cell phone that is roaming from another area with a different native
>digital mode
>will be able to operate in it's native mode irrelevant of the systems native
>mode.
>
>The cell phone companies need to learn a lesson from the computer industry.
>There is no need to adopt a standard digital mode.
>(a computer can interface with all forms of communications channels)
>There is no need to obsolete old equipment.
>(An old computer will interface with the web just the same as a new one
>will.)
>
>Everything is upgradeable.
>(via software, you can increase the computers capiblitys without
>Changing any hardware.)
>
>Everything is backward compatible.
>If you don't have a V90 modem and you dial in to
>the service provider, it will default to a legacy mode
>without any interruption.
>Your computer is still talking to the same node modem but the
>node modem can operate in almost any mode.
>
>You can dial in with an old 300bps modem and it will
>connect without a hitch.
>It works, I have tried
>
>An old computer can interface the new network.
>It won't be able to use any of the newer features but
>It will be able to operate up to it's original design.
>
>That is the design basses that should be used for the cellular network.
>
>They shouldn't care what types of modes your phone will use.
>The network can use all of them.
>....................................................................

But you cannot, in general, have different protocols in the same frequency
range at the same time. GSM and US-TDMA are narrow-band, time-sliced
protocols, and CDMA and WCDMA are wide-band with many users on the same
"carrier" frequency at the same time. Furthermore, CDMA (IS-95 and CDMA2000)
WCDMA use different bandwidths. The provider with
the generic equipment described above would have to partition their
frequency allocations among the different protocols (like US Cellular
currently does to support both TDMA and CDMA).

> But you cannot, in general, have different protocols in the same frequency
> range at the same time. GSM and US-TDMA are narrow-band, time-sliced
> protocols, and CDMA and WCDMA are wide-band with many users on the same
> "carrier" frequency at the same time. Furthermore, CDMA (IS-95 and
CDMA2000)
> WCDMA use different bandwidths. The provider with
> the generic equipment described above would have to partition their
> frequency allocations among the different protocols (like US Cellular
> currently does to support both TDMA and CDMA).

I know that you can't have two different modes on the same frequency.
I never clamed that it was possible, nor did the article.

The primary benefit of the equipment mentioned by the article is
that you would no longer requires static partitions, like normal
systems do now.

If no one is using cdma phones at the time, then you could
use the whole band for gsm or tdma calls, or vice versa.
You can dynamically partition the bandwidth for what
modes are being used the most at that time.

If only a few TDMA customers using the phones at that time
and one or two amps customers operating, but you
have a large influx of cdma customers for some reason,
you can leave two or three tdma channels and three amps channels
and fill the rest of your spectrum with cdma carriers spaced at normal
intervals.

If you have only a few cdma customers and a bunch of GSM customers
the second day, then you can cut it down to one cdma carrier and
fill the rest off the spectrum with gsm carriers at their normal intervals.
And you can fit the stray tdma and amps users in the unused space
in-between the other blocks.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:55:25 GMT, "N9WOS"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>If only a few TDMA customers using the phones at that time
>and one or two amps customers operating, but you
>have a large influx of cdma customers for some reason,
>you can leave two or three tdma channels and three amps channels
>and fill the rest of your spectrum with cdma carriers spaced at normal
>intervals.
>
>If you have only a few cdma customers and a bunch of GSM customers
>the second day, then you can cut it down to one cdma carrier and
>fill the rest off the spectrum with gsm carriers at their normal intervals.
>And you can fit the stray tdma and amps users in the unused space
>in-between the other blocks.

The base station would have to be much more dynamic to meet traffic
loads. This would be a nightmare for the carrier owning the cell base
station. If the demand was up on the GSM side do you anger the TDMA
users by kicking them off that particular frequency segment?

Trying also to plan for demand peaks would add to the nightmare!

"William Bray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does this mean we may see cell phones in the future that can handle all
> modes of coverage in the US? Sometimes fantasy can become reality.
>
> [email protected] wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9784.shtml
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

If that is the case, roaming would certainly be *interesting*.

Tom Veldhouse

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I know that you can't have two different modes on the same frequency.
> I never clamed that it was possible, nor did the article.
>

Actually, you can. GSM and CDMA can share the same frequencies, but one
will cause *noise* with the other, effectively reducing bandwidth. CDMA
could compensate, but I am not sure how well GSM could. I think such a
scheme would work best when the majority of calls are CDMA with only the
occassional call being GSM or another carrier type that appears as noise to
CDMA.

Tom Veldhouse

> The base station would have to be much more dynamic to meet traffic
> loads. This would be a nightmare for the carrier owning the cell base
> station.

AKA, a good engineering challenge. :-)

> If the demand was up on the GSM side do you anger the TDMA
> users by kicking them off that particular frequency segment?

That is up to the person that sets up the operating limits of the system.

> Trying also to plan for demand peaks would add to the nightmare!

The computers can handle that.
That is the point of a dynamic system.
The computers can allocate space and
channels on a real time basses as the loading occurs.
There is no need for planning. :-)

I can't even imagine the possible billing issues.
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "William Bray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Does this mean we may see cell phones in the future that can handle all
> > modes of coverage in the US? Sometimes fantasy can become reality.
> >
> > [email protected] wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9784.shtml
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> If that is the case, roaming would certainly be *interesting*.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:09:36 GMT, "N9WOS"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>> The base station would have to be much more dynamic to meet traffic
>> loads. This would be a nightmare for the carrier owning the cell base
>> station.
>
>AKA, a good engineering challenge. :-)

Worth the money for the carrier?

>
>> If the demand was up on the GSM side do you anger the TDMA
>> users by kicking them off that particular frequency segment?
>
>That is up to the person that sets up the operating limits of the system.

Bad service means that the people you're selling your service to will
not pay you nor program their consumer's phones to use your system.

>> Trying also to plan for demand peaks would add to the nightmare!
>
>The computers can handle that.
>That is the point of a dynamic system.
>The computers can allocate space and
>channels on a real time basses as the loading occurs.
>There is no need for planning. :-)


So, how does the system get the message down to the consumer's cell
phone that the PRL needs to be upgraded dynamically, in real time,
just before you make the call?

Now, if the base station power amps are over-engineered to handle any
RF peak power (expensive) and passband bandwidths (expensive), and all
the antennae are tunable (expensive) so that they radiate the pattern
you want without a nasty SWR (expensive), AND the mobiles are
frequency agile and have the protocol to understand what the base
station is trying to tell them, then you've got a system!

> So, how does the system get the message down to the consumer's cell
> phone that the PRL needs to be upgraded dynamically, in real time,
> just before you make the call?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the PRL.
The system would just be listed in the PRL as a digital system
with the proper system ID.
The current flux of the system wouldn't affect the PRL.

> Now, if the base station power amps are over-engineered to handle any
> RF peak power (expensive)

Cheaper that a bunch of small amps for each carrier.

and passband bandwidths (expensive), and all

Standard old broad band, no tune, monolithic amp technology.
The monolithic amps in the old 3W analog cell phones can
operate across the entire A and B bands with no tuning.
And since they are class A, they can amplify multiple carriers
at the same time in the pass band with no distortion.
As long as the resultant additive peak power is less than the peak
capability of the amp.

> the antennae are tunable (expensive) so that they radiate the pattern
> you want without a nasty SWR (expensive),

The last thing you would want is an electrically steered antenna,
or point tuned antenna.

You want the plain old panel antenna that you aim to
get the radiation pattern you want.
They already sell them that will operate across the entire
transmit or receive portions of the A and B band with no
tuning required by the installers.
They have a useable SWR across the entire bandwidth.


> AND the mobiles are
> frequency agile
There is no more agility needed by that system than
what is used today.
as long as the phone can operate on any cellular channel
or pcs channel, it is perfectly suited for the application.

>and have the protocol to understand what the base
> station is trying to tell them, then you've got a system!

The base station will talk to them with their normal protocol.
There is no need for you to have any new multimode protocol.
Most phones don't support any cross cdma/gsm "or the like".
so there is no need for a new protocol.
the phone just thinks it's talking to a native gsm or cdma system.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:16:03 -0500, [email protected] posted in
alt.cellular.verizon:

>Now, if the base station power amps are over-engineered to handle any
>RF peak power (expensive)

No, just the peak power needed by the system that needs the highest
peak power. Controlling it down from there is cheap.

> and passband bandwidths (expensive)

Again, only the bandwidth needed by the system needing the highest
bandwidth. A wideband amplifier can amplify a narrow signal.

>and all the antennae are tunable (expensive)

We're either talking about an 800 MHz system or a 1900 MHz system,
right? Antennas for either system cover the entire band.

>so that they radiate the pattern you want without a nasty SWR (expensive)

SWR and pattern aren't really related.

>AND the mobiles are frequency agile

Any cell phone can hop frequency.

>and have the protocol to understand what the base
>station is trying to tell them

Bingo! And that, supposedly, is the new chip set.

I know I'm getting on in years so I may have overlooked something
obvious. Feel free to point it out.

> The computers can handle that.
> That is the point of a dynamic system.
> The computers can allocate space and
> channels on a real time basses as the loading occurs.
> There is no need for planning. :-)

Hmmmmmmmmm.........
That gives me an idea for a network forecast.
Something that you could get from the 611 menu.

.......................................
Welcome to the N9 dynamic cellular network.
Current network weather for the day of September 27.

12.5 megahertz currently in use.
2.5 megahertz currently available.
5 megahertz unallocated.

Operating spectrum is as follows.
3 CDMA carriers.
152 TDMA carriers
33 GSM carriers
8 analog carriers.

There has been 3 unsuccessful calls and
21 dropped calls within the last hour.

To go back to the main menu, hit 1,
Or hit end to finish the call at any time.
......................................................
Kinda makes me think of the solar forecast on WWV. :-)

"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> You are thinking in terms of a static cellular system.
> where channels have to be arranged in blocks for
> The band pass networks and everything to work.
> those factors are not relevant in this system.

Actually, no, I hypothesized just such an amorphous beast at the
conclusion of my previous post:

"...for FDMA air-interfaces like IS-136 TDMA or GSM, flexible
channel-allocation technologies are currently being used to
dynamically optimize frequency re-use patterns according to spatial
network loading w/in a single air-interface. So, while it would open
a Pandora's box of immense complexity, perhaps in the future such
allocation technologies could be expanded to incorporate
interface-allocation into the mix."

However, a bare minimum level of air-interface stability, equivalent
to at least one permanently deployed channel per air-interface at each
cell/sector, must be maintained. Pilots & control channels simply
cannot be ephemerally flitting in & out as the system dynamically
optimizes its interface equilibrium. For the sake of idle mobiles &
system acquisition, at least one CDMA pilot & sync pair plus one GSM
BCCH plus one IS-136 TDMA DCCH must be statically deployed at a known
invariable frequency at each cell/sector to serve as a beacon for
mobiles.

For example, in a hypothetical 10 MHz block of spectrum, a coincident
1.25 MHz would have to be dedicated at every cell/sector for a single
consistent CDMA carrier. For the FDMA interfaces, a frequency re-use
pattern of N=4*3 would be assumed for the beacon "place-holder"
channels. Thus, w/in each given re-use cluster, 2.4 MHz (200 KHz *
12) & 360 KHz (30 KHz * 12) must be reserved at every sector/cell for
GSM & IS-136 TDMA control channels, respectively, for a total (CDMA +
GSM + TDMA) aggregation of 4.01 MHz. Thus, only 990 KHz paired would
be remaining out of 5 MHz paired in each cellular cluster for flexible
interface-allocation. The situation improves significantly, however,
w/ licensed bandwidths of 20 MHz or 30 MHz, as the dynamic
interface-allocation spectrum pool would rise to a maximum of 5.99 MHz
or 10.99 MHz, respectively.

All of the above, of course, assumes a great deal of presupposition
that is typically not the case in wireless network deployment,
creating numerous potential conflicts, notably the interleaved rather
than contiguous nature of FDMA spatial re-use (e.g. sector #1:
channels 1, 11, 21, etc.; sector #2: channels 2, 12, 22, etc.), MACA
(mobile-assisted channel-allocation) across multiple fluctuating
air-interfaces, and GSM SFH (slow frequency-hopping).

Solve those problems and you may have something...

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/