Colleagues: Thanks for wCeDucation
Mr. Moderator,RSU, Engin', EricL -- sincere thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience with this Board, and I see that soem of these posts have been patched over to TMF, the board where I normally dine
I cannot absorb all the tech info in one shot so will hang these posts like intravenous bottles to drip into the blood stream over time.
I am surprised that I have not heard the wCDMA case articulated by anyone yet. I thought,Eric especially, might give us some NOK or ERICY links and tell us whether their claims are propaganda or not. As I said in my first post, I often read GSMafia making broad assertions of superiority but after an introductory sentence it usually falls back to the huge numerical superiority of GSM population over cdma population (uncontroverted) with the assertion that wCDMA is the "natural" or "logical" extension of GSM to 3G.
1. Will anyone take up the challenge to make the case for superiority of wCDMA -- when stabilized, optimized and whatever -- over cdma2000?
2. Can anyone explain why wCDMA is the "natural" extension of GSM; it is my understanding that the change from GSM to wCDMA is a "forklkift" transition with new radio tech, new spectrum (Eric's note on downbanding wCDMA was the first I had heard of its potential in existing spectrum rather than 2+ghz), new handsets so that in e.g. Malaysia for 3G there is no "technical efficiency" for the GSM carriers seeking 2ghz licenses for 3G to prefer wCDMA over cdma2000 -- as apparently they do.
The sense of the meeting to date seems to be (no surprise on a Q board) that cdma2000 has technical advantages over wCDMA and that in at least two respects, synchronous operation and HDR via data only, w would be well advised to emulate her sister.
If we are so-minded we may be put back to further inquiry along the lines of the hot thread started by Eric in telling us of the "lost opportunity" of QCOM to effect a rapprochement with the Euro crowd. It is, of course, a trusim -- and the thing about truisms is that often they are true -- that carriers do not adopt the most best technology; they adopt the most used technology. If you are a carrier and are isolated in your market, you are (usually) toast.
The genius of the evolution of GSM was not the technology; it was the formation of a "carrier treaty" with two important principles, backed by government law or decree in the Euro nations at least: (i) Thou shalll use GSM and as a condition of your license you will provide border to border GSM coverage within your license area; and (ii) Thou shall sign a roaming contract with the GSM authority gaining roaming access and granting roaming access with all other GSM carriers.
These principles provided an assured basis for the swift and universal rollout of GSM within the treaty area and for the termination of analog service because even remote rural areas were brought within GSM coverage. It worked beautifully for GSM. Unfortunately times -- competition, technology and politics -- have changed and the trasnition to 3G is not going the same smooth way and will not.
We should explore some of the differences because the 3G game we will watch over the next couple of years will make some investment fortunes (and break some others).
propitious |
