Verizon leaping ahead with EV-DO

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <PRxdc.2411$k05.480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> > news:i6qdnX9OSLM-L-jd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
> >
> >>Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
> >>a flurry of press releases when that happens.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Steven J. Sobol

With Sprint likely a flurry of press releases long before its released;
kinda like the press releases announcing the release of a Nokia phone
that was no where to be found, (even now, 3 weeks later)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <9mbd70l5rnlui48icu5op05lp2njt02dpg@4ax.com>,
paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:13:02 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> So, they have to replace everyone's phone, re-engineer their entire
> >> data network to give priority to VoIP (thereby potentially knocking
> >> out data users) and up the capacity on their land-side data lines from
> >> each tower.
> >>
> >> I think it will be much cheaper to go EV-DV, and they'll get a larger
> >> voice capacity than your alternative!
> >
> >Who said replace everything with VoIP? They can just add **some** VoIP
> >phones to even out capacity issues.
>
> If you want to do your best to try to get the most voice users through
> during an emergency, you'll have to replace as many phones as you can,
> if you want to use the data carrier (via VoIP) in an emergency.
>
> With your suggestion the re-engineering of the entire data network
> still would have to be done, along with some increase in capacity of
> the land-side data lines.

If the data network takes IP, then its not any re-engineering. IP is IP.

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:21:58 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
wrote:

>In article <9mbd70l5rnlui48icu5op05lp2njt02dpg@4ax.com>,
> paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>

>If the data network takes IP, then its not any re-engineering. IP is IP.

Voice demands more stringent network service than best effort data.
$$$ (These things need to be thought about, beforehand!)

From the customer service side: think of the support nightmare:

Customer: "Hi, my call just droppedl".
Service Rep: "Where were you, and what time was it?"
Customer gives appropriate info.
Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
using our regular voice network?"

The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
to respond.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
> using our regular voice network?"
>
> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
> to respond.

Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.

What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
VoIP.

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
wrote:

>In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
> paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>
>> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
>> using our regular voice network?"
>>
>> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
>> to respond.
>
>Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
>
>What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
>VoIP.

Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
solve the "emergency capacity" problem.

It complicates matters more than it's worth!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com>,
paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
> >
> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
> >> using our regular voice network?"
> >>
> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
> >> to respond.
> >
> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
> >
> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
> >VoIP.
>
> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>
> It complicates matters more than it's worth!

Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
> Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
you have in your whole body.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:BOudndPUlJg73-rdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
> Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>

>
> Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
> got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
> you have in your whole body.
>

I'd say tip of the pinkie.....don't give the troll fool too much credit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

<paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
> >
> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
> >> using our regular voice network?"
> >>
> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
> >> to respond.
> >
> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
> >
> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
> >VoIP.
>
> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>
> It complicates matters more than it's worth!


Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

Bob

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
><paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
>news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
>> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
>> >> using our regular voice network?"
>> >>
>> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
>> >> to respond.
>> >
>> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
>> >
>> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
>> >VoIP.
>>
>> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
>> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>>
>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
>
>Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:37:35 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
wrote:

>In article <ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com>,
> paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
>> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
>> >> using our regular voice network?"
>> >>
>> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
>> >> to respond.
>> >
>> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
>> >
>> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
>> >VoIP.
>>
>> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
>> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
>>
>> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
>
>Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

How so?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

<paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
news:v67g70pq5rt2k7a8cvj0team0kekr2bg8e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
> <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
> >news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
> >> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was
it
> >> >> using our regular voice network?"
> >> >>
> >> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know
how
> >> >> to respond.
> >> >
> >> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
> >> >
> >> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
> >> >VoIP.
> >>
> >> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
> >> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
> >>
> >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
> >
> >
> >Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply
....
>
> Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...

Sorry for the confusion Paul. That comment wasn't direected to you, but our
resident troll, Phillipe ... aka: Robert M. etc.

Bob
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<cr7d70p0hjcjv6er3d4ti9u0e24mp3kte6@4ax.com>...
>
> Hi, Andrew. The difference between the "old" TDMA (regular Mux) and
> EV-DV (stat-Mux) is that if a mobile doesn't have anything "to say"
> TDMA will still reserve the slot. EV-DV doesn't "reserve" the slot.
> There are up to 64 ACTIVE users (not total users) per "frame". So, if
> there aren't 64 active users other mobiles with "more to say" can take
> up those slots within the frame.

Indeed. Like CDMA, the time-division air-interfaces - particularly
GSM - have gotten on-board discontinuous transmission (DTX) to reduce
average RF output for tighter spatial/frequency-reuse hence greater
capacity. However, the TDMA interfaces are simply not nimble enough
to truly recycle those available timeslots for other users when an
active mobile "doesn't have anything 'to say.'"

The beauty of EV-DV is the ability to dynamically apportion bandwidth
from both time-division & code-division standpoints. Imagine that the
time-channel varies the horizontal domain, while the code-channel
fluctuates in the vertical domain. Time can be continuous or slotted,
whereas Walsh code allotment can oscillate from one to very many - all
dependent on the need of the particular user.

On the other hand, EV-DO distributes all traffic Walsh codes - all or
nothing - on a time-division basis. Conversely, 1xRTT assigns
supplemental bandwidth not on a time-division basis but via
variable-length Walsh spreading - shorter Walsh codes for higher data
rates. But EV-DV can aggregate the majority of traffic Walsh codes
for 3G packet-data on a time-division schedule - to maximize the Eb/No
per user, while it can also retain a necessary supply of individual
Walsh codes for continuous low-rate use - voice, CSD, WAP, VoIP, etc.
If there are no low-rate users on the channel, EV-DV is almost
indistinguishable from EV-DO.

Andrew
--
Andrew Shepherd
cinema@ku.edu
cinema@sprintpcs.com
http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/