CDMA and WCDMA?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <1102447847.684377@sj-nntpcache-5> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:33:31 -0800,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS*) serves both
>> TDMA and GSM users.
>>
>> * Cells are typically served by more than one BTS.
>
>That is not what I've gathered to be the point here. Let's simply
>focus on the air interface and network and user equipment.

That doesn't make sense (absent a technology agenda, as I've explained.
What matters is whether or not there's a real and significant difference to
subscribers.

>I can be using one of the first digital StarTacs on CDMA.
>VZW can add 1xRTT and my phone still does what it
>used to do and I don't see a difference.

Likewise you can be using a TDMA phone and your carrier can add GSM overlay,
and your TDMA phone still does what it used to do and you don't see a
difference

>VZW can go
>to true 3g or CDMA2000 and my phone still does what
>it used to and I don't see a difference.

Likewise with WCDMA (UMTS) overlay; i.e., subscribers in markets where ATTWS
deployed UMTS don't see a difference.

>VZW is using all
>their spectrum efficiently

Likewise GSM and UMTS -- overlay is tuned to match subscriber demand.

>and only maintaining (for each cell)
>1 technology and the equipment for it.

That's an oversimplification that isn't really true. "The devil is in the
details."

>I get the impression that this will not be true for TDMA -> GSM
>and GSM -> WCDMA. The carrier will have to partition their
>spectrum

True, but that's not a big deal, especially from the subscriber point of view.

>and maintain separate equipment for each technology.

The equipment is actually largely common.

>At some point users will have to be told "tough luck, you have to
>get different equipment".

"At some point" any technology becomes obsolete and unusable, but that's not a
real issue here, since even ancient AMPS still has years to run, TDMA
likewise. The great majority of all customers will replace their handsets
before then, and have been migrated to more current technology in the process.
It's not a big deal.

>There will be some transitional period
>where the carrier will be using their spectrum inefficiently and
>incur the cost of maintaining "duplicate" equipment for dual or
>triple air interfaces.

Again, that's not a big deal, particularly from the subscriber point of view
-- overlay is relatively efficient.

>I still haven't heard if WCDMA will scale to the same bandwidth
>and/or user density that CDMA2000 will.

The answer depends of course on who you ask, the CDMA2000 camp or the WCDMA
camp. ;-)

This has been argued over and over, so why bring it up yet again?
Notwithstanding intense marketing (arguing) by Qualcomm, both national
carriers and most smaller TDMA carriers have and are opting for migration to
GSM over CDMA. It's a bit silly to suggest that they've all been fooled into
doing the wrong thing. ;-)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <1102448072.346926@sj-nntpcache-5> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:37:15 -0800,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <Sactd.85814$EZ.28099@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:35:28
>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:lKbtd.9866$_3.116267@typhoon.sonic.net,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>
>>>> As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing. AMPS
>>>> handsets still work just fine. TDMA handsets still work just fine.
>>>> GSM handsets still work just fine. As do old CDMA handsets. In
>>>> *all* cases you need a new handset to take advantage of new
>>>> technology. Old CDMA handsets don't magically get better any more
>>>> than do old TDMA handsets.

>No. I disagree.

That's your privilege.

>It is a very big something if user equipment has to change
>with the network.

It doesn't have to change, as I've explained, so it's not a "very big
something."

>It's not a matter of old equipment being able to use
>new features, etc.

That is actually a major factor, since many subscribers upgrade their handsets
to get newer, more desirable features.

>It is a matter of old equipment continuing to do what
>it did before. Don't lose sight of the fact that you have an existing
>customer
>base numbering in the millions.

"At some point" any technology becomes obsolete and unusable, but that's not a
real issue here, since even ancient AMPS still has years to run, TDMA
likewise. The great majority of all customers will replace their handsets
before then, and have been migrated to more current technology in the process.
It's not a big deal.

This has been argued over and over, so why bring it up yet again?
Notwithstanding intense marketing (arguing) by Qualcomm, both national
carriers and most smaller TDMA carriers have and are opting for migration to
GSM over CDMA. It's a bit silly to suggest that they've all been fooled into
doing the wrong thing. ;-)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> chose to add this to the great equation
of life, the universe, and everything:

>David S wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> chose
>> to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>> everything:
>>
>>> TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
>>> equipment.
>>>
>>> CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to
>>> users.
>>
>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
>> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.
>
>Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from CDMA2000 to
>WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>
>Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily STUPID and
>insane to even consider it!

Maybe some idealistic idiot might think the public would benefit if all
cell phones in the world used the same standard...

(Yeah, I know, different frequency bands, but that's a trivial thing to
manage in the handset.)

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things.
More I cannot say." - The Ruler of the Universe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:11:36 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>In <1102447847.684377@sj-nntpcache-5> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:33:31 -0800,
>"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS*) serves both
>>> TDMA and GSM users.
>>>
>>> * Cells are typically served by more than one BTS.

I probably should know, but what's a BTS?

>>VZW is using all
>>their spectrum efficiently
>
>Likewise GSM and UMTS -- overlay is tuned to match subscriber demand.

Ah, but with CDMA, it's not overlay, it's co-use.

>>and only maintaining (for each cell)
>>1 technology and the equipment for it.
>
>That's an oversimplification that isn't really true. "The devil is in the
>details."

Explain.

>>I get the impression that this will not be true for TDMA -> GSM
>>and GSM -> WCDMA. The carrier will have to partition their
>>spectrum
>
>True, but that's not a big deal, especially from the subscriber point of view.
>
>>and maintain separate equipment for each technology.
>
>The equipment is actually largely common.
>
>>At some point users will have to be told "tough luck, you have to
>>get different equipment".
>
>"At some point" any technology becomes obsolete and unusable, but that's not a
>real issue here, since even ancient AMPS still has years to run, TDMA
>likewise. The great majority of all customers will replace their handsets
>before then, and have been migrated to more current technology in the process.
>It's not a big deal.

Most, but not all. Some will eventually be forced to get new phones when
the old infrastructure is turned off. With the CDMA upgrade path, the very
first CDMA phone ever sold will work on a CDMA2000 cell (or BTS?), and the
very first CDMA cell ever installed can support the latest and greatest
phones, all without partitioning any spectrum.

>>There will be some transitional period
>>where the carrier will be using their spectrum inefficiently and
>>incur the cost of maintaining "duplicate" equipment for dual or
>>triple air interfaces.
>
>Again, that's not a big deal, particularly from the subscriber point of view
>-- overlay is relatively efficient.

It is statistically improbable, but definitely possible, that at any given
moment, the proportion of users within range of a given cell will be so
skewed in favor of one system or the other (TDMA or GSM (or WCDMA)) that
they will fill the equipment for that particular system to capacity under
circumstances where a single system, or a backwards-compatible system such
as CDMA, would not overload.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I could end up being the music industry's worst nightmare: a smart gal
with a fat bank account who is unafraid to go down in flames fighting for a
principle." - Courtney Love, in the Los Angeles Times, on her legal fight
against Universal Music Group challenging the business practices of major
record labels

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:45 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <hEjtd.9895$_3.117025@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> In other words, if you'd spent as much time actually looking as being a s-a,
> you would have gotten your answer. ;-)

What the heck is an a-s-a?

Sorry I missed the link .... sheesh.


Would typing "Foreign phone company" have been that much harder than "go look
up a link and figure out which one applies".

Sorry to take up so much of your time with a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <DSatd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26 -0600, "IMHO"
><nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when not in
>>Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were areas on VZW &
>>Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then
>>after a while all the "D" areas changed to "1X". With CDMA the carriers
>>just upgrade the cell sites with compatible newer ones. There is no
>>difference in the Over-The-Air interface. ...
>
>In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences are
>transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is transparent to older
>TDMA handsets.

The various CDMA protocols can co-exist on the same frequency band. Don't
the TDMA-GSM-WCDMA carriers have to partition their bandwidth among
the various protocols? Specifically, I've heard that TDMA (IS-136)
service on the (former) AT&T Wireless network in the San Francisco Bay
Area is really getting bad (fast busies) as more and more of the band is
reassigned to GSM. Similar to trying to use AMPS on any of the cellular
providers; not many AMPS channels left.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <0001HW.BDDD5FC70003E9B8F04075B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Thu, 9 Dec 2004
01:49:59 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:45 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <hEjtd.9895$_3.117025@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> In other words, if you'd spent as much time actually looking as being a s-a,
>> you would have gotten your answer. ;-)
>
>What the heck is an a-s-a?
>
>Sorry I missed the link .... sheesh.
>
>
>Would typing "Foreign phone company" have been that much harder than "go look
>up a link and figure out which one applies".
>
>Sorry to take up so much of your time with a question.

Sorry to have wasted time trying to help you.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <520dr0919tmue8eva5hqhocq2skjelrebp@4ax.com> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:21:24
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
><Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> chose to add this to the great equation
>of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>>David S wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> chose
>>> to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>>> everything:
>>>
>>>> TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
>>>> equipment.
>>>>
>>>> CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to
>>>> users.
>>>
>>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
>>> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.
>>
>>Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from CDMA2000 to
>>WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>>
>>Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily STUPID and
>>insane to even consider it!
>
>Maybe some idealistic idiot might think the public would benefit if all
>cell phones in the world used the same standard...
>
>(Yeah, I know, different frequency bands, but that's a trivial thing to
>manage in the handset.)

Manageable, but not trivial.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <520dr0919tmue8eva5hqhocq2skjelrebp@4ax.com> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004
> 04:21:24 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
>> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> chose to add this to the great
>> equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>>> David S wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> chose
>>>> to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>>>> everything:
>>>>
>>>>> TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring
>>>>> different equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>> CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to
>>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>>>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but
>>>> would require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.
>>>
>>> Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from
>>> CDMA2000 to WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>>>
>>> Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily
>>> STUPID and insane to even consider it!
>>
>> Maybe some idealistic idiot might think the public would benefit if
>> all cell phones in the world used the same standard...
>>
>> (Yeah, I know, different frequency bands, but that's a trivial thing
>> to manage in the handset.)
>
> Manageable, but not trivial.

First off (from about the middle of this one), no one said anything
about transitioning from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. The discussion
is about getting to 3G and beyond. The CDMA migration is parrallel
and independent from the GSM migration.

Now about a single standard. Europe has traditionally gone this route.
They do it by government regulation. The governments own most of the public
networks and tightly control most everything else.

....Europe has always been a leader in deploying cutting edge networking
technology and public networks... (<- smiley in case you didn't catch the
drift)

there are tradeoffs

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

Quick wrote:
>
> First off (from about the middle of this one), no one said anything
> about transitioning from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. The discussion
> is about getting to 3G and beyond. The CDMA migration is parrallel
> and independent from the GSM migration.
>
>
> -Quick

Actually Quick, that exact question *WAS* asked and answered (okay.. made
fun of).... While the later discussion was about something else, the
original question was:
>
> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.

Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from CDMA2000 to
WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

Peter Pan wrote:
>
> Actually Quick, that exact question *WAS* asked and answered (okay..
> made fun of).... While the later discussion was about something else,
> the original question was:
>>
>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
>> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.

Ok... I'm not going to look back through it. The above makes reference
to "..but other posts...". I didn't remember any "other posts" making a
reference to a transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. I certainly
could have missed it since John says the whole thing is about convergence
of the two. -- you think he just substituted "transition" for
"convergence"?

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

Quick wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
>>
>> Actually Quick, that exact question *WAS* asked and answered (okay..
>> made fun of).... While the later discussion was about something else,
>> the original question was:
>>>
>>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
>>> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.
>
> Ok... I'm not going to look back through it. The above makes reference
> to "..but other posts...". I didn't remember any "other posts" making
> a reference to a transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. I certainly
> could have missed it since John says the whole thing is about
> convergence of the two. -- you think he just substituted
> "transition" for "convergence"?
>
> -Quick

Beats me, and you and others gave good info that the above Q was NOT
correct, and that CDMA2000 and WCDMA where NEVER going to be implemented
together on the same cell. I just saw my reply being pasted in posts without
the original question and thought I'd correct the record.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <jt0dr0le70q5jge42p78vdugc21e1pvft6@4ax.com> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:49:22
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:11:36 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>everything:
>
>>In <1102447847.684377@sj-nntpcache-5> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:33:31 -0800,
>>"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS*) serves both
>>>> TDMA and GSM users.
>>>>
>>>> * Cells are typically served by more than one BTS.
>
>I probably should know, but what's a BTS?

<http://www.mobileguru.co.uk/Mobile_Technology_globe.html>:

Base Station Sub-system (BSS)

The Base Station function is divided into two main functional
elements, the Base Station Controller (BSC) which also includes the
Transcoder Unit (TCU), and the Base Transceiver System (BTS).

The BSC can control several BTS units. Each BTS will consist of a
number of transceivers (TRX) and will serve a cell or a number of
cells. The BSC unit also performs transcoding functions to convert
between 64Kbps channel rate used in the Switching System and the
16Kbps channel rate for GSM traffic.

>>>VZW is using all
>>>their spectrum efficiently
>>
>>Likewise GSM and UMTS -- overlay is tuned to match subscriber demand.
>
>Ah, but with CDMA, it's not overlay, it's co-use.

In general, that's not a substantial difference.

>>>and only maintaining (for each cell)
>>>1 technology and the equipment for it.
>>
>>That's an oversimplification that isn't really true. "The devil is in the
>>details."
>
>Explain.

Both GSM and CDMA are evolving technologies, with upgrades needed to
incorporate improvements.

>>"At some point" any technology becomes obsolete and unusable, but that's not a
>>real issue here, since even ancient AMPS still has years to run, TDMA
>>likewise. The great majority of all customers will replace their handsets
>>before then, and have been migrated to more current technology in the process.
>>It's not a big deal.
>
>Most, but not all. Some will eventually be forced to get new phones when
>the old infrastructure is turned off. With the CDMA upgrade path, the very
>first CDMA phone ever sold will work on a CDMA2000 cell (or BTS?), and the
>very first CDMA cell ever installed can support the latest and greatest
>phones, all without partitioning any spectrum.

As I wrote, that's not a real issue.

>>>There will be some transitional period
>>>where the carrier will be using their spectrum inefficiently and
>>>incur the cost of maintaining "duplicate" equipment for dual or
>>>triple air interfaces.
>>
>>Again, that's not a big deal, particularly from the subscriber point of view
>>-- overlay is relatively efficient.
>
>It is statistically improbable, but definitely possible, that at any given
>moment, the proportion of users within range of a given cell will be so
>skewed in favor of one system or the other (TDMA or GSM (or WCDMA)) that
>they will fill the equipment for that particular system to capacity under
>circumstances where a single system, or a backwards-compatible system such
>as CDMA, would not overload.

There are worst case conditions for any technology, and I could easily attack
CDMA for such weaknesses as poor call quality due to overload, dropped calls
due to cell "shrinkage," etc. I don't, because squabbling over such small
details is silly -- in general, GSM and CDMA are comparably "good," and
differences in technology are usually overwhelmed by other issues (e.g.,
coverage, system loading).

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <eWRtd.31068$zx1.22245@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 09 Dec 2004
06:04:58 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

>In article <DSatd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26 -0600, "IMHO"
>><nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when not in
>>>Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were areas on VZW &
>>>Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then
>>>after a while all the "D" areas changed to "1X". With CDMA the carriers
>>>just upgrade the cell sites with compatible newer ones. There is no
>>>difference in the Over-The-Air interface. ...
>>
>>In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences are
>>transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is transparent to older
>>TDMA handsets.
>
>The various CDMA protocols can co-exist on the same frequency band. Don't
>the TDMA-GSM-WCDMA carriers have to partition their bandwidth among
>the various protocols? Specifically, I've heard that TDMA (IS-136)
>service on the (former) AT&T Wireless network in the San Francisco Bay
>Area is really getting bad (fast busies) as more and more of the band is
>reassigned to GSM. Similar to trying to use AMPS on any of the cellular
>providers; not many AMPS channels left.

Anything more than rumors? I've not seen reliable reports of such problems.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <1102616530.242801@sj-nntpcache-5> on Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:24:53 -0800,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>First off (from about the middle of this one), no one said anything
>about transitioning from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. The discussion
>is about getting to 3G and beyond. The CDMA migration is parrallel
>and independent from the GSM migration.

The actual issue is convergence of CDMA2000 and WCDMA. Unfortunately, such
efforts have gone nowhere.

>Now about a single standard. Europe has traditionally gone this route.
>They do it by government regulation. The governments own most of the public
>networks and tightly control most everything else.
>
>...Europe has always been a leader in deploying cutting edge networking
>technology and public networks... (<- smiley in case you didn't catch the
>drift)
>
>there are tradeoffs

By any measure, Europe (and Asia) got it right in mobile -- the US has paid a
stiff price for chaos.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <31s3aoF3did3oU1@individual.net> on Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:53:07 -0800, "Peter
Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>Quick wrote:
>> Peter Pan wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually Quick, that exact question *WAS* asked and answered (okay..
>>> made fun of).... While the later discussion was about something else,
>>> the original question was:
>>>>
>>>> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
>>>> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
>>>> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.
>>
>> Ok... I'm not going to look back through it. The above makes reference
>> to "..but other posts...". I didn't remember any "other posts" making
>> a reference to a transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA. I certainly
>> could have missed it since John says the whole thing is about
>> convergence of the two. -- you think he just substituted
>> "transition" for "convergence"?

>Beats me, and you and others gave good info that the above Q was NOT
>correct, and that CDMA2000 and WCDMA where NEVER going to be implemented
>together on the same cell. I just saw my reply being pasted in posts without
>the original question and thought I'd correct the record.


<http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/3G/3g.htm>

But what about the differences between CDMA2000 and WCDMA? If the
goal of IMT-2000 is a single worldwide standard, can these two
versions of CDMA be harmonized into a single standard? That is the
very question being addressed by the CDMA Operators Harmonization
Group that is developing the Global 3G CDMA standard (G3G). Since
there are some irreconcilable differences between CDMA2000 and WCDMA
in the radio portion, the approach is a modular architecture as shown
in Figure 4. This approach allows any of three airlink technologies
to be used in a network, including WCDMA, 3XRTT, and a time-division
duplex form of spread spectrum. In addition to the three types of
airlinks, the architecture recognizes that network infrastructures
may be based on either GSM-MAP protocols or ANSI-41 protocols. G3G
will give operators flexibility in choosing the airlink and network
infrastructure that best addresses their particular needs.

One issue in harmonizing CDMA data is that WCDMA is based on GPRS
protocols, which use the GPRS tunneling protocol (GTP) to forward IP
packets to the mobile station. Mobility management is also handled by
specific GPRS protocols. CDMA2000, however, is based on the Mobile IP
standard. Any harmonized CDMA standard should ideally be based on the
same set of tunneling and mobility standards. For this reason, the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), responsible
for GSM and GPRS, has started an investigation of how GPRS/EDGE could
integrate Mobile IP.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
>
> <http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/3G/3g.htm>
>
> But what about the differences between CDMA2000 and WCDMA? If the
> goal of IMT-2000 is a single worldwide standard, can these two
> versions of CDMA be harmonized into a single standard?
[snip]
Wow, this was a post? on alt. ?

> For this reason, the European Telecommunications
> Standards Institute (ETSI), responsible for GSM and GPRS, has
> started an investigation of how GPRS/EDGE could integrate Mobile
> IP.

see, see, what did I tell you... ETSI... blew it with GSM... had to
try to patch it up with GPRS/EDGE and now they're going to try
to wedge mobile IP into it to save their bacon. They should give
it up, scrap everything, do without for a few years and start fresh
with CDMA2000.


-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <Nd2ud.10506$_3.121483@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <eWRtd.31068$zx1.22245@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 09 Dec 2004
>06:04:58 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>>In article <DSatd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The various CDMA protocols can co-exist on the same frequency band. Don't
>>the TDMA-GSM-WCDMA carriers have to partition their bandwidth among
>>the various protocols? Specifically, I've heard that TDMA (IS-136)
>>service on the (former) AT&T Wireless network in the San Francisco Bay
>>Area is really getting bad (fast busies) as more and more of the band is
>>reassigned to GSM. Similar to trying to use AMPS on any of the cellular
>>providers; not many AMPS channels left.
>
>Anything more than rumors? I've not seen reliable reports of such problems.

I cannot point to a scientific measurement; I only have anecdotal
evidence from *all* of my coworkers who still have IS-136 ("TDMA") AT&T
phones. Respectable signal strength, but fast busies when placing calls,
incoming calls going directly to VM, calls dropped when travelling
between cells. Obviously, at most, this only says something about the
San Francisco Bay Area system.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 04:00:29 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <NuUtd.10365$_3.119730@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
> Date: Thursday 4:00 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <0001HW.BDDD5FC70003E9B8F04075B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Thu, 9 Dec 2004
> 01:49:59 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:45 -0500, John Navas wrote
>> (in article <hEjtd.9895$_3.117025@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>>
>>> In other words, if you'd spent as much time actually looking as being a
>>> s-a,
>>> you would have gotten your answer. ;-)
>>
>> What the heck is an a-s-a?
>>
>> Sorry I missed the link .... sheesh.
>>
>>
>> Would typing "Foreign phone company" have been that much harder than "go
>> look
>> up a link and figure out which one applies".
>>
>> Sorry to take up so much of your time with a question.
>
> Sorry to have wasted time trying to help you.

Insult a person and try to cloak it in philanthropy. Nice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:09:25 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <Vh2ud.10509$_3.121392@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Actually you don't, as I've explained.
>
> With all due respect, this is the same kind of CDMA "FUD" that Qualcomm has
> been spreading for years, but which the real world has shown to not be a real
> issue.

What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <0001HW.BDE2AA0B001F7F04F02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
02:08:11 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:09:25 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <Vh2ud.10509$_3.121392@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> Actually you don't, as I've explained.
>>
>> With all due respect, this is the same kind of CDMA "FUD" that Qualcomm has
>> been spreading for years, but which the real world has shown to not be a real
>> issue.
>
>What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?

Patent licensing.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:09:51 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <PVkvd.11698$_3.130167@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
> Date: Today 1:09 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <0001HW.BDE2AA0B001F7F04F02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
> 02:08:11 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:09:25 -0500, John Navas wrote
>> (in article <Vh2ud.10509$_3.121392@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>>
>>> Actually you don't, as I've explained.
>>>
>>> With all due respect, this is the same kind of CDMA "FUD" that Qualcomm has
>>> been spreading for years, but which the real world has shown to not be a
>>> real
>>> issue.
>>
>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>
> Patent licensing.

Thank you.

So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
point in the future ....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <0001HW.BDE3B11B00014E2FF02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
20:50:35 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>>
>> Patent licensing.
>
>Thank you.

You're welcome.

>So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
>point in the future ....

I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:27:27 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <PYtvd.11795$_3.131773@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
> Date: Yesterday 11:27 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <0001HW.BDE3B11B00014E2FF02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
> 20:50:35 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>>>
>>> Patent licensing.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> You're welcome.
>
>> So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
>> point in the future ....
>
> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

Just a little bit ..... 🙂 But you get the idea .... capturing the market
of both CDMA networks and GSM networks ... kinda nice from Qualcomm's
perspective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <0001HW.BDE3E9FB000EA2D5F03055B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Tue, 14 Dec 2004
00:53:15 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:27:27 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <PYtvd.11795$_3.131773@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>> Date: Yesterday 11:27 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>>
>> In <0001HW.BDE3B11B00014E2FF02845B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
>> 20:50:35 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> What involvement (if any) does Qualcomm have with WCDMA?
>>>>
>>>> Patent licensing.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>>> So in essence ... the entire world will be at Qualcomm's doorstep at some
>>> point in the future ....
>>
>> I think that's a bit of an overstatement.
>
>Just a little bit ..... 🙂 But you get the idea .... capturing the market
>of both CDMA networks and GSM networks ... kinda nice from Qualcomm's
>perspective.

Except it didn't capture the market -- Qualcomm is pushing CDMA2000, not
WCDMA, which is considerably different.

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