All that is involved in the synch/asynch debacle, as I appreciate it, is the manner in which time reference is done. QCDMA uses the same PN code and a universal time reference while UMTS uses a different PN sequence. An UMTS phone needs to determine which PN code it need to correlates to from the get-go. It's part and parcel of the acquisition procedure and during hand-off, so how it's done is critical.
In addition to additional multiple (complicating) steps during acquisition, asynch of course complicates handoff. In sum, a very complex way to do things with only political benefits (no technical ones) because (1) it doesn't rely on GPS and (2) it was thought that it would avoid Q's IPR.
It is high time that the complexities associated with asynch be dealt with by eliminating it in the interests of time. And billions of dollars of possibly wasted money.
See how well proprietary standards can work? Invent the technology, make it work, then draft the standard, instead of the stumbling, bumbling other way around.
... we would have strategic control of something other than our niche market.
Why shouldn't the inventor and the force behind a new technology be allowed to have architectural control? Why should the innovator allow a bastardization of his invention so that his patents are avoided? Seems fair to let the innovator enjoy the fruits of his labor. I'm sure it didn't seem fair to Nokia and the Cabalistas, who saw another Microsoft raining on their parade. The result was predictible. They took the industry on a ruinous ride in order to not cede architectural control. That's life. But it may haunt them in the end.
Life is funny. The Cabal has had tremendous problems with simple CDMA. Its efforts to complicate 3G in order to avoid patents are falling flat. The irony is rich. If it has serious problems handling CDMAOne, why think it can do the much more complex asynch it created?
I am indebted to mightylakers' explanation of the synch/asynch business. It can be found at the TMF Q board. |
