Jim, Nils Oman got it wrong!
He wrote: "The article states that cdma2000 is backward-compatible to IS-95 (CDMA). What use is that to 99.9% of the world?s population? If a new worldwide digital standard should be backward-compatible with anything, it should be backward-compatible with GSM, because that?s what the majority of the world uses."
Everybody here knows that W-CDMA is NOT backward compatible to GSM. Neither is cdma2000. Both are backward compatible to cdmaOne, though cdma2000 is totally backward compatible whereas W-CDMA is warbly close to it, but only close.
The W-CDMA chip rate is wrong, the dual synchronisation effort is pointless and maybe other aspects are not right too. Ericy CDMA division is trying to close the gap as much as they can without getting W-CDMA totally identical to cdma2000. They want to be able to pretend that there is some 'product differentiation' which they can tout to their customers to hope that the customer says "Well, guess we better stick with you guys and W-CDMA rather than that less racing-striped cdma2000". A bit like people buy Texaco instead of Castrol or Amoco engine oil or gasoline though they are pretty much fungible.
There is NO merit from a technical point of view in using W-CDMA instead of cdma2000 for GSM network overlays. W-CDMA is no more backward compatible than is cdma2000 for GSM networks.
Yes, I know we've been over this 1000 times, but when people keep coming up with it, we have to keep correcting it. It shows how deeply misinformation gets lodged in heads.
Maurice |
