Lakers,
<< I think your copy should be fine. >>
So you are saying that Revision A as originally published and accepted by the ITU as an IMT-2000 standard can as a practical matter, support 625 kbps on the forward link, or failing that supports 614 kbps (one way or another)?
Is that what you are saying?
Backtracking here:
<< Looks like you are taking exception with that 1x 614 kbps right? >>
That is one matter. The Qualcomm Ovum whitepaper refers to 614 kbps as a commercial deliverable in 2003, and I have been assuming that this would be as a result of standardization resulting in Revision B (not Revision A but possibly shadowed back to it) as changes to Revision A occur parallel with Revision B evolution.
The more interesting one, however, is the 625 kbps "forward peak rate per standard" that translates into 450 kbps (stationary /fixed) and 350 kbps (vehicular and pedestrian) average throughput per RF carrier per sector with 1.25 MHz carrier (per Qualcomm simulations) that sets up the throughput per 5 MHz per sector which purports to show that when applied to 5 MHz of available spectrum that 1xRTT is almost as fast as WCDMA (stationary /fixed & pedestrian) and (theoretically) faster than WCDMA in a vehicular environment ....
... all of which, of course sets up the "Cost per Megabyte" comparisons in Qualcomm's "Economics of Wireless Data" whitepaper.
<< I will not give you the exact page as a little symbolic punishment> >>
Paraphrasing Number 53:
Message 15952307
Lazy Lakers, you are the Weakest (Tech) Link! Goodbye!
... for now.
FTS: Its almost Tee Time.
While I golf, I'll forget about all this stuff and just presume you are working on a response to your statement "it seems to me what IJ said in Cannes is looking more and more accurate now" in light of my question, Cannes, or London, or both? Perhaps, you might list the things he said that are looking "more and more" accurate now ... after he kind of changed the "commercial" suffix word from "availability" to "viability".
- Eric - |
