CDMA and WCDMA?

[Guest]

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

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
>>
>> [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.
>
Actually it does Qualcomm little good. The GSM versions were carefully
spec'd to avoid almost all of the Qualcom patents

 

[Guest]

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

In article <9c5vr01c61l4ifgmuh4cackv35a9ge4dnp@4ax.com>,
matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
>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
>>>
>>> [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.
>>
>Actually it does Qualcomm little good. The GSM versions were carefully
>spec'd to avoid almost all of the Qualcom patents

I thought that they finally gave up and arranged some cross-licensing
aggreements between the Qualcomm CDMA patents and the GSM patents. It
IS true that there are a LOT of gratuitous differences between WDCMA
and CDMA2000 in an effort to avoid Qualcomm's patents, but there were
some which they couldn't work around. But one difference is unrelated
to the patent issue: CDMA2000 depends on all of the cell sites in a
system to have very closely synchronized clocks, which is done using
GPS receivers at the cell site. But it was politically unacceptable
for the GSM Consortium to use a protocol which has dependencies on the
U.S. Department of Defense, who operates the GPS satellites.

 

[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 <BVOvd.42913$6q2.37225@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
04:17:37 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

>I thought that they finally gave up and arranged some cross-licensing
>aggreements between the Qualcomm CDMA patents and the GSM patents. It
>IS true that there are a LOT of gratuitous differences between WDCMA
>and CDMA2000 in an effort to avoid Qualcomm's patents, but there were
>some which they couldn't work around. But one difference is unrelated
>to the patent issue: CDMA2000 depends on all of the cell sites in a
>system to have very closely synchronized clocks, which is done using
>GPS receivers at the cell site. But it was politically unacceptable
>for the GSM Consortium to use a protocol which has dependencies on the
>U.S. Department of Defense, who operates the GPS satellites.

I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
readily available (e.g., underground). Differences between WCDMA and CDMA2000
include:

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

--
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 Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:04:50 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
> Date: Today 2:04 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <BVOvd.42913$6q2.37225@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
> 04:17:37 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>> I thought that they finally gave up and arranged some cross-licensing
>> aggreements between the Qualcomm CDMA patents and the GSM patents. It
>> IS true that there are a LOT of gratuitous differences between WDCMA
>> and CDMA2000 in an effort to avoid Qualcomm's patents, but there were
>> some which they couldn't work around. But one difference is unrelated
>> to the patent issue: CDMA2000 depends on all of the cell sites in a
>> system to have very closely synchronized clocks, which is done using
>> GPS receivers at the cell site. But it was politically unacceptable
>> for the GSM Consortium to use a protocol which has dependencies on the
>> U.S. Department of Defense, who operates the GPS satellites.
>
> I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
> fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
> readily available (e.g., underground). Differences between WCDMA and
CDMA2000
> include:
>
> * Chip rate
> * Frame duration
> * Asynchronous versus synchronous
> * Base station acquisition/detection
> * Forward link pilot
> * Antenna beam form
> * Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
> * Transmit diversity
> * Underlying network


This thread is really an education.

Does anyone know of a reference site (or 2 or 3) that documents all of these
technologies, their similarities, their differences, which ones work with
which, etc? (CDMA, GSM, WCDMA, EDGE, 1X, EV DO, etc.)

Other than google, I'm looking for something that maybe helped you in the
past ....

 

[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.BDE5AFE60005E5D6F04075B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
09:09:58 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>This thread is really an education.
>
>Does anyone know of a reference site (or 2 or 3) that documents all of these
>technologies, their similarities, their differences, which ones work with
>which, etc? (CDMA, GSM, WCDMA, EDGE, 1X, EV DO, etc.)
>
>Other than google, I'm looking for something that maybe helped you in the
>past ....

http://gsmworld.com/technology/
http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g.asp
http://www.itu.int/home/imt.html
http://www.3g.co.uk/
http://www.3gpp.org/
http://www.3g-generation.com/
http://www.3gamericas.org/
http://www.3gtoday.com/
http://www.umts-forum.org/
http://www.umtsworld.com/
http://www.umtscongress.com/
http://www.cellular.co.za/

--
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 Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:01:25 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <pdZvd.12242$_3.135752@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> http://gsmworld.com/technology/
> http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g.asp
> http://www.itu.int/home/imt.html
> http://www.3g.co.uk/
> http://www.3gpp.org/
> http://www.3g-generation.com/
> http://www.3gamericas.org/
> http://www.3gtoday.com/
> http://www.umts-forum.org/
> http://www.umtsworld.com/
> http://www.umtscongress.com/
> http://www.cellular.co.za/

I have some reading to do. I am in your debt.

🙂

 

[Guest]

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

In article <mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <BVOvd.42913$6q2.37225@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
>04:17:37 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>>I thought that they finally gave up and arranged some cross-licensing
>>aggreements between the Qualcomm CDMA patents and the GSM patents. It
>>IS true that there are a LOT of gratuitous differences between WDCMA
>>and CDMA2000 in an effort to avoid Qualcomm's patents, but there were
>>some which they couldn't work around. But one difference is unrelated
>>to the patent issue: CDMA2000 depends on all of the cell sites in a
>>system to have very closely synchronized clocks, which is done using
>>GPS receivers at the cell site. But it was politically unacceptable
>>for the GSM Consortium to use a protocol which has dependencies on the
>>U.S. Department of Defense, who operates the GPS satellites.
>
>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
>readily available (e.g., underground).

It's the cell sites that have to be tightly synchronized with GPS,
and I think at least part of them (the antenna) is always above ground
🙂. The phones get the timing info from the cell site(s) they are
registered on. BTW, this use of GPS for synchronizing cell sites (from
the beginning of CDMA) is completely unrelated to the GPS E-911 location
functionality in some newer phones.

> Differences between WCDMA and CDMA2000 include:
>
>* Chip rate
>* Frame duration
>* Asynchronous versus synchronous

So this is how they avoid the clock synchronization requirement.
I was wondering about that.

>* Base station acquisition/detection
>* Forward link pilot
>* Antenna beam form
>* Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
>* Transmit diversity
>* Underlying network

The WCDMA network is essentially extending the current GSM network to
support high speed data and such, isn't it?

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

Thanks for the list of differences. Some of these are indeed non-trivial.

 

[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 <JH8wd.43193$6q2.13677@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004
05:04:41 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:

>In article <mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
>>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
>>readily available (e.g., underground).
>
>It's the cell sites that have to be tightly synchronized with GPS,
>and I think at least part of them (the antenna) is always above ground
>🙂. ...

Not for underground service; e.g., subways, underground shopping malls.

>>* Underlying network
>
>The WCDMA network is essentially extending the current GSM network to
>support high speed data and such, isn't it?

UMTS (which uses WCDMA) is based on extensions to GSM infrastructure.

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

 

[Charles]

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

In article <IXiwd.12495$_3.138034@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
> >>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
> >>readily available (e.g., underground).
> >
> >It's the cell sites that have to be tightly synchronized with GPS,
> >and I think at least part of them (the antenna) is always above ground
> >🙂. ...
>
> Not for underground service; e.g., subways, underground shopping malls.

There doesn't seem to cause a problem with Verzion having very good
underground service. They are the only cell service available
underground on the Washington DC Metro, and the NEC rail tunnels under
the Hudson River into New York City.

--
Charles

 

[Joseph]

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:36:59 -0500, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>There doesn't seem to cause a problem with Verzion having very good
>underground service. They are the only cell service available
>underground on the Washington DC Metro, and the NEC rail tunnels under
>the Hudson River into New York City.

Sure, you make exclusive deals with the Port Authority and DC Metro so
you're the only one and of course you'll have it to the exclusion of
anyone else. What's so new or odd about that?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Guest]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:IXiwd.12495$_3.138034@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <JH8wd.43193$6q2.13677@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004
> 05:04:41 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>>In article <mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is
>>>the
>>>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals
>>>aren't
>>>readily available (e.g., underground).
>>
>>It's the cell sites that have to be tightly synchronized with GPS,
>>and I think at least part of them (the antenna) is always above ground
>>🙂. ...
>
> Not for underground service; e.g., subways, underground shopping malls.
>

Couldn't you remote an antenna for the GPS and allow for any timing
issues with software? Or remote the antenna for the underground location?


--
Thomas M. Goethe

 

[Charles]

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

In article <l784s0dcn6oe2v8b37231kg5fpg49ac2jn@4ax.com>, Joseph
<JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sure, you make exclusive deals with the Port Authority and DC Metro so
> you're the only one and of course you'll have it to the exclusion of
> anyone else. What's so new or odd about that?

Who said it was odd? I just mentioned that it worked underground. If
they have exclusive agreements that may explain why they have service
and the others don't, but it does not negate the fact that Verizion
works undergound with the GPS synced CDMA.

I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
if there is a national emergency. I wonder how that would effect the
CDMA service? I'd guess that would disrupt it?

--
Charles

 

[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 <161220041736594929%fort514@mac.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:36:59 -0500,
Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <IXiwd.12495$_3.138034@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
>> >>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
>> >>readily available (e.g., underground).
>> >
>> >It's the cell sites that have to be tightly synchronized with GPS,
>> >and I think at least part of them (the antenna) is always above ground
>> >🙂. ...
>>
>> Not for underground service; e.g., subways, underground shopping malls.
>
>There doesn't seem to cause a problem with Verzion having very good
>underground service. ...

It is a problem, just not an insurmountable problem.

--
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 <161220041949377388%fort514@mac.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:49:37 -0500,
Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <l784s0dcn6oe2v8b37231kg5fpg49ac2jn@4ax.com>, Joseph
><JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure, you make exclusive deals with the Port Authority and DC Metro so
>> you're the only one and of course you'll have it to the exclusion of
>> anyone else. What's so new or odd about that?
>
>Who said it was odd? I just mentioned that it worked underground. If
>they have exclusive agreements that may explain why they have service
>and the others don't, but it does not negate the fact that Verizion
>works undergound with the GPS synced CDMA.

There are ways other than GPS to provide time reference for CDMA.

>I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
>if there is a national emergency. ...

And another silly Internet Myth takes wing.

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

 

[Charles]

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

In article <cZqwd.12598$_3.139148@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
> >if there is a national emergency. ...
>
> And another silly Internet Myth takes wing.

It was reported in an article in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4326-2004Dec16.html

I don't doubt it. I don't think it is a myth.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cZqwd.12598$_3.139148@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <161220041949377388%fort514@mac.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004
> 19:49:37 -0500,
> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <l784s0dcn6oe2v8b37231kg5fpg49ac2jn@4ax.com>, Joseph
>><JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, you make exclusive deals with the Port Authority and DC Metro so
>>> you're the only one and of course you'll have it to the exclusion of
>>> anyone else. What's so new or odd about that?
>>
>>Who said it was odd? I just mentioned that it worked underground. If
>>they have exclusive agreements that may explain why they have service
>>and the others don't, but it does not negate the fact that Verizion
>>works undergound with the GPS synced CDMA.
>
> There are ways other than GPS to provide time reference for CDMA.
>
>>I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
>>if there is a national emergency. ...
>
> And another silly Internet Myth takes wing.
>

I believe that was reported by some reputable news organization and
since GPS has always been a US military system, there have always been
contingency plans to control its use by non-US military users. That's not an
Internet myth. The flip side is that shutting it down would have such a
tremendous effect that it is unlikely to be done.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

 

[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 <161220042105330786%fort514@mac.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:05:33 -0500,
Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <cZqwd.12598$_3.139148@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
>> >if there is a national emergency. ...
>>
>> And another silly Internet Myth takes wing.
>
>It was reported in an article in today's Washington Post.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4326-2004Dec16.html

Registration required -- no thanks.

>I don't doubt it. I don't think it is a myth.

What's a silly myth (no matter what the source) is the notion that GPS would
ever be "turned off". The military already has the (classified) ability to
deny access to GPS from non-military receivers in given regional area(s), but
that would only be used in actual theaters of military conflict. In other
words, it would take an actual serious attack for it to be used in the USA.
In that case, the least of your worries would be CDMA cell phone service ,
particularly since cellular base stations are designed to maintain time sync
during limited periods of external time reference outage.

<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Positioning-Satellites.html>:

Any shutdown of the network inside the United States would come under
only the most remarkable circumstances, said a Bush administration
official who spoke to a small group of reporters at the White House
on condition of anonymity.

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

 

[Charles]

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

In article <WLLwd.13001$_3.143242@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Registration required -- no thanks.

The link you posted to the same AP article in the New York Times also
requires registration

> What's a silly myth (no matter what the source) is the notion that
> GPS would ever be "turned off". The military already has the
> (classified) ability to

You posted that it was another "silly Internet Myth". It did appear in
the national press. I read it on newsprint. It may be a bunch of bull
or disinformation, but the story has other life than the internet.

--
Charles

 

[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 <32g2d8F3mf0fuU1@individual.net> on Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:40:06 -0500,
"Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:cZqwd.12598$_3.139148@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <161220041949377388%fort514@mac.com> on Thu, 16 Dec 2004
>> 19:49:37 -0500,
>> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>>>I was reading today that the Bush administration plans to turn off GPS
>>>if there is a national emergency. ...
>>
>> And another silly Internet Myth takes wing.
>
> I believe that was reported by some reputable news organization and
>since GPS has always been a US military system, there have always been
>contingency plans to control its use by non-US military users. That's not an
>Internet myth. The flip side is that shutting it down would have such a
>tremendous effect that it is unlikely to be done.

See my prior post for the facts. This AP story is probably spin intended to
persuade wannabe terrorists that using GPS would be a bad idea, much like the
silly advice from DHS to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to guard
against a CBW attack.

--
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 <171220042140487273%fort514@mac.com> on Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:40:48 -0500,
Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <WLLwd.13001$_3.143242@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Registration required -- no thanks.
>
>The link you posted to the same AP article in the New York Times also
>requires registration

Indeed -- I wasn't suggesting you go there, only giving the citation for an
actual quote, which you didn't provide.

>> What's a silly myth (no matter what the source) is the notion that
>> GPS would ever be "turned off". The military already has the
>> (classified) ability to
>
>You posted that it was another "silly Internet Myth". It did appear in
>the national press. I read it on newsprint. It may be a bunch of bull
>or disinformation, but the story has other life than the internet.

Is all this because you want me to say just "silly myth?" OK, now I've done
that. My earlier comment was in reference to starting an Internet myth,
which I think is true, regardless of the original source.

--
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 Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:04:50 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <BVOvd.42913$6q2.37225@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Wed, 15 Dec 2004
>04:17:37 GMT, hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH) wrote:
>
>>I thought that they finally gave up and arranged some cross-licensing
>>aggreements between the Qualcomm CDMA patents and the GSM patents. It
>>IS true that there are a LOT of gratuitous differences between WDCMA
>>and CDMA2000 in an effort to avoid Qualcomm's patents, but there were
>>some which they couldn't work around. But one difference is unrelated
>>to the patent issue: CDMA2000 depends on all of the cell sites in a
>>system to have very closely synchronized clocks, which is done using
>>GPS receivers at the cell site. But it was politically unacceptable
>>for the GSM Consortium to use a protocol which has dependencies on the
>>U.S. Department of Defense, who operates the GPS satellites.
>
>I seriously doubt that was actually a consideration. More likely is the
>fact that it's hard to maintain such close timing where GPS signals aren't
>readily available (e.g., underground). Differences between WCDMA and CDMA2000
>include:
>
>* Chip rate
>* Frame duration
>* Asynchronous versus synchronous
>* Base station acquisition/detection
>* Forward link pilot
>* Antenna beam form
>* Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
>* Transmit diversity
>* Underlying network

Let me ask this: is there any good reason why there are so many differences
between CDMA and WCDMA, or is it just because they wanted to avoid as many
Qualcomm patents as possible? Or worse yet, is it just because they
*wanted* to be different?

--
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.
"Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it." - Arthur Dent

 

[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 <32qvg3F3q99auU1@individual.net> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:57:52 -0500,
"Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:b0Oxd.13517$_3.152770@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> Take out Russian GPS without starting MAJOR trouble? Not bloody likely!
>> This whole thing is truly absurd.
>
> Er, we wouldn't and they wouldn't unless there were already major
>trouble. If there is major trouble, then the plans come out (on both sides)
>and things get done. What part of this do you not get?

Your point (assuming you have one). It's not going to happen. Ever.

Regardless, it wouldn't matter to cellular if it did happen, and if it did
happen, cellular service would be way down the list of our real concerns.

--
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" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:Y1Eyd.13946$_3.156952@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <32qvg3F3q99auU1@individual.net> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:57:52 -0500,
> "Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:b0Oxd.13517$_3.152770@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>>> Take out Russian GPS without starting MAJOR trouble? Not bloody likely!
>>> This whole thing is truly absurd.
>>
>> Er, we wouldn't and they wouldn't unless there were already major
>>trouble. If there is major trouble, then the plans come out (on both
>>sides)
>>and things get done. What part of this do you not get?
>
> Your point (assuming you have one). It's not going to happen. Ever.
>
> Regardless, it wouldn't matter to cellular if it did happen, and if it did
> happen, cellular service would be way down the list of our real concerns.
>

Thank you for the guarantee that there will never be a war between major
powers and that if there is it won't matter with cellular. I am greatly
reassured as I suspect everyone in the group is. Thank you again.


--
Thomas M. Goethe

 

[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 <sf8js0dvqgpr1e04n7fj141j45tm4pfqq5@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:36:11
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>... Differences between WCDMA and CDMA2000
>>include:
>>
>>* Chip rate
>>* Frame duration
>>* Asynchronous versus synchronous
>>* Base station acquisition/detection
>>* Forward link pilot
>>* Antenna beam form
>>* Single carrier versus multicarrier spreading
>>* Transmit diversity
>>* Underlying network
>
>Let me ask this: is there any good reason why there are so many differences
>between CDMA and WCDMA, or is it just because they wanted to avoid as many
>Qualcomm patents as possible? Or worse yet, is it just because they
>*wanted* to be different?

WCDMA is claimed to be substantially better than CDMA2000, which is
constrained by backward compatibility with prior versions of CDMA.

--
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 <330mhdF3regbjU1@individual.net> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:01:46 -0500,
"Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:Y1Eyd.13946$_3.156952@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <32qvg3F3q99auU1@individual.net> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:57:52 -0500,
>> "Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b0Oxd.13517$_3.152770@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>>>> Take out Russian GPS without starting MAJOR trouble? Not bloody likely!
>>>> This whole thing is truly absurd.
>>>
>>> Er, we wouldn't and they wouldn't unless there were already major
>>>trouble. If there is major trouble, then the plans come out (on both
>>>sides)
>>>and things get done. What part of this do you not get?
>>
>> Your point (assuming you have one). It's not going to happen. Ever.
>>
>> Regardless, it wouldn't matter to cellular if it did happen, and if it did
>> happen, cellular service would be way down the list of our real concerns.
>
> Thank you for the guarantee that there will never be a war between major
>powers and that if there is it won't matter with cellular. I am greatly
>reassured as I suspect everyone in the group is. Thank you again.

You're very welcome.

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