CDMA and WCDMA?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:25:41 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

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

Is this "claim" supported by any objective observer?

>constrained by backward compatibility with prior versions of CDMA.

How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow
that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward compatibility?

--
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.
"A walk through the Visitors Center provides you with a close look at the
work being done in Unit 2. Cleanup...decontamination...waste handling...all
are performed with the safety of the workers and the public foremost in
mind. And, weather permitting, you're welcome to have your picnic lunch at
the tables behind the Center. Enjoy your stay. We're here to help you."
- tourist brochure for Three Mile Island nuclear power plant
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <4v5ps0tq05hlim3dv7s22inuqu9kab16dr@4ax.com> on Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:53:36
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:25:41 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>everything:
>
>>In <sf8js0dvqgpr1e04n7fj141j45tm4pfqq5@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:36:11
>>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>Is this "claim" supported by any objective observer?
>
>>constrained by backward compatibility with prior versions of CDMA.
>
>How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow
>that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward compatibility?

See my prior post.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

CDMA and WCDMA are using the same technology. However, Qualcomm has
copyright in CDMA. All CDMA users must pay Qualcomm royalty fee to use CDMA
technology. I believe that WCDMA is royalty free if I am not wrong. All GSM
users try to avoid to pay Qualcomm royalty fee when they will upgrade to
WCDMA technology.


"Scott Ehrlich" <scott@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:41b1091a$0$562$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
> I've read in some of these newsgroups that GSM is moving to, or being
> enhanced with WCDMA technology. What does WCDMA entail, and how does it
> compare with CDMA? Will it permit users of GSM/WCDMA phones to roam to
> CDMA carriers, and/or vice-versa?
>
> I've done some cursory google searching of cdma and wcdma but could not
> find anything that made enough sense to me.
>
> Looking to be educated in these two worlds of CDMA and WCDMA.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Scott
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 07:46:13 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 <4v5ps0tq05hlim3dv7s22inuqu9kab16dr@4ax.com> on Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:53:36
>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:25:41 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>>everything:
>>
>>>In <sf8js0dvqgpr1e04n7fj141j45tm4pfqq5@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:36:11
>>>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>Is this "claim" supported by any objective observer?
>>
>>>constrained by backward compatibility with prior versions of CDMA.
>>
>>How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow
>>that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward compatibility?
>
>See my prior post.

Which one? This was your 39th post in this thread, and most of them said,
"As I said...".

--
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.
"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like
and just give her a house." - Lewis Grizzard
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <umlss0tcobcro1dlpbumj6b9ho7vvpvfuu@4ax.com> on Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:18:35
GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 07:46:13 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>everything:
>
>>In <4v5ps0tq05hlim3dv7s22inuqu9kab16dr@4ax.com> on Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:53:36
>>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>>>How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow
>>>that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward compatibility?
>>
>>See my prior post.
>
>Which one? This was your 39th post in this thread, and most of them said,
>"As I said...".

You'd probably know which one if you'd spent half as much time on actually
checking instead of meaningless statistics and bogus "quotations".
But here you go: <news:mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>
Regardless, the killer advantage of WCDMA over CDMA2000 for GSM carriers is
that it's designed to complement, coexist with, and interoperate with GSM.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:50:07 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 <umlss0tcobcro1dlpbumj6b9ho7vvpvfuu@4ax.com> on Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:18:35
>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 07:46:13 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>>chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
>>everything:
>>
>>>In <4v5ps0tq05hlim3dv7s22inuqu9kab16dr@4ax.com> on Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:53:36
>>>GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow
>>>>that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward compatibility?
>>>
>>>See my prior post.
>>
>>Which one? This was your 39th post in this thread, and most of them said,
>>"As I said...".
>
>You'd probably know which one if you'd spent half as much time on actually
>checking instead of meaningless statistics and bogus "quotations".
>But here you go: <news:mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>
>Regardless, the killer advantage of WCDMA over CDMA2000 for GSM carriers is
>that it's designed to complement, coexist with, and interoperate with GSM.

I never would have found that post because it doesn't answer my questions:
How seriously is it [CDMA2K] constrained [by its backward compatibility]?
What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow that CDMA2K can't *because of* its
backward compatibility?

--
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.
"He's gonna have to overcome quite a height disadvantage and, as you can
see by that lack of stature, in terms of height, quite a height
disadvantage as well." - Rich Marotta, describing a boxer on 'Prime
Championship Boxing'
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In news:b5avs0hla5pmelfqejsvtoic9tma54mf5v@4ax.com,
David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> typed:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:50:07 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 <umlss0tcobcro1dlpbumj6b9ho7vvpvfuu@4ax.com> on Sun, 26 Dec 2004
>> 06:18:35 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 07:46:13 GMT, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> chose to add this to the great
>>> equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>>>
>>>> In <4v5ps0tq05hlim3dv7s22inuqu9kab16dr@4ax.com> on Sat, 25 Dec
>>>> 2004 04:53:36 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> How seriously is it "constrained"? What neat-o functions does
>>>>> WCDMA allow that CDMA2K can't *because of* its backward
>>>>> compatibility?
>>>>
>>>> See my prior post.
>>>
>>> Which one? This was your 39th post in this thread, and most of them
>>> said, "As I said...".
>>
>> You'd probably know which one if you'd spent half as much time on
>> actually checking instead of meaningless statistics and bogus
>> "quotations".
>> But here you go: <news:mmRvd.12091$_3.135094@typhoon.sonic.net>
>> Regardless, the killer advantage of WCDMA over CDMA2000 for GSM
>> carriers is that it's designed to complement, coexist with, and
>> interoperate with GSM.
>
> I never would have found that post because it doesn't answer my
> questions: How seriously is it [CDMA2K] constrained [by its backward
> compatibility]? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow that CDMA2K
> can't *because of* its backward compatibility?

One thing I can think of is that CDMA2k does not do GSM ;-)
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

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

In <HeZzd.28839$F25.12026@okepread07> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:19:03 -0600,
"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>In news:b5avs0hla5pmelfqejsvtoic9tma54mf5v@4ax.com,
>David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> typed:

>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:50:07 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> chose to add this to the great equation
>> of life, the universe, and everything:

>>> Regardless, the killer advantage of WCDMA over CDMA2000 for GSM
>>> carriers is that it's designed to complement, coexist with, and
>>> interoperate with GSM.
>>
>> I never would have found that post because it doesn't answer my
>> questions: How seriously is it [CDMA2K] constrained [by its backward
>> compatibility]? What neat-o functions does WCDMA allow that CDMA2K
>> can't *because of* its backward compatibility?
>
>One thing I can think of is that CDMA2k does not do GSM ;-)

Qualcomm has been claiming and pushing a way to make CDMA2000 interoperable
with GSM, but AFAIK has failed thus far to persuade any GSM carrier that it
actually makes sense, perhaps due to lack of interoperability with WCDMA.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom