re: What's the status with the version of 1x rtt which peaks at 307KB?
==========
The 307kbs capability is part of cdma2000 Release "A".
Release "A" was approved at a February 8, 2002 meeting in Seattle:
Message 17187025
So Release A and the 307kbs capability are fully defined, and vendors are developing the technology now. Look for it first in Korea. I'd heard that Korea had 1x 307kbs trials during the World Cup. (For Korea, might evdo lessen its utility?)
The Sync Channel issue is, at most, a peripheral concern regarding Release A 307kbs capability development. The Sync Channel problem was caused by 2 errant vendors who designed non-standard compliant 95A handsets that will not work properly on 1x networks. The issue may have additional impact on specific carriers that have quantities of the defective handsets.
An additional addendum to cdma2000 was initially considered to resolve the problem - to bail the affected carriers and dizzy vendors out - but proponents could never win a vote. Originally, affected carriers and dizzy vendors strove to hold Release A hostage to a solution, but the 3GPP2 Steering Committee crushed this strategy and directed release A to be approved on February 8.
Presently, parties are considering non-standard based solutions that would be applied on an individual carrier basis. I suspect this is where a final solution will be found.
Also, as it is preferred that 95A handsets be replaced with 1x for capacity purposes, it may be most rational to recall or replace the defective ones.
In any event, even if a standardized patch was used, it is my understanding from speaking with an cdma engineer that applying the software patch (designed by Q) appears a simple process, and this prospect is presently no impediment to Release A feature development.
Sprint is one of the affected carriers, and Sprint's timetable could be more influenced by deliberations. Sprint must wait for a conclusion, and may then have to individually resolve issues.
If a patch is so easy, why is there dissent?
Koreans, and additional 3GPP2 members sufficient to block votes for a pro-standard-based patch, believe that the standard - which is not flawed in any way - should not be modified simply to bail out 2 vendors who screwed up.
Is it good judgment to establish this precedent?
No. Not at all. And that's why the issue drags on. |
