Well jeez Frank,
I think Toad Run-grunion needs to wander back to his beach on Molokai and take a chill pill. I mean, I like my ISP and I hate whining. I suspect this khat was being tongue-in-cheek or perhaps ironic, but I wasn't getting the signals. Chuck LaVelle was a much kuhler guest on Bill Griffeth's blather session. He talked about his tree farm and how much oxygen he was pumping back into the atmosphere. Or maybe I just like the blues better. I dunno.
I see a blur in your description between the future 2.5/3G offerings and that of HDR. What are the points of commonality between the three? Duh, "look ma, no wires"?
Shucks, as you can plainly see, I represent the common man, the unwashed masses and the fool on the hill. What the heck do I want to care if I'm tethered to a stationary Yagi, a mobile arraycomm internal antennae or some other dis array? Dis array, dat array, whatevuh. What I don't quite have a handle on is whether HDR(TM) is a proprietary copyrighted designation of Qualcomm or if it is a generic expression. I know it's not genomic or geriatric, so I'm ahead of the fools off the hill. And if we're expressing genera is this phycics question or nano-biotic? OK,OK, mindful of the serious nature of this thread, I will digress....
The points of commonality would be these. All RF, all licensed spectrum, all provisioning multiple users on one headend, all still metering minutes of usage, all seeing the distinct advantages of selling a new gizmo built to a new standard every 12-18 months, all hoping to avoid churn by selling up in house to the next great thing.
From my understanding the G stuff is mobile wireless and the HDR is fixed. My reading here is a tad dated, but last fall at the CDMA Development Group presentation on 3G, with Irwin Jacobs among others presenting, 3G was being described as suitable for 2Mbps to fixed locations, and 384Kbps for mobile apps. Thus, 3G is anticipated to serve both markets. I would tend to feel that what I've read anecdotally about HDR that it would have the same dual uses at a somewhat lower bit-rate. The difference in rate being the ability to tune a fixed antenna and maintain a consistent signal at a higher power level***, while the mobile unit would be subject to the normal signal-level seeking and cell base hand-offs etc. that are standard to the cellular industry.
[***Most modern cell phones running now at 500 mW are only at a fraction the allowable FCC mandated max TX levels. A matter of trade-offs for form factor and battery life which are not considerations for a fixed antenna unit. ]
Best, R. |
