Raymond,
Sorry I wasn't clear. But I did state "you have bought into the propaganda being made public." which was my point. We both agree that W-CDMA was intentionally made to be non backward compatible with any previous standard. But I don't agree with the propaganda which says "This is the whole point what the WCDMA camp is trying to get across.They don't want to have any backwardcompability.Everytime you have to think about backwardcompability you will not get the most optimal system." I point out that IS-95 is the most nascent standard. It was developed with 3G in mind. It's readily upgradeable/expandable right into 3G. It is cost effective, current IS-95 infrastructure/services can be "seemlessly" (Tero's words) blended with 3G infrastructure/services as needed. This is good for IS-95 networks who already have a leg up on 3G, but bad for GSM/TDMA networks who must sell more new infrastructure. Protecting your current client base is a good reason for propaganda in this area hence the argument backward compatibility is bad(yes bad for GSM,no not bad for IS-95). Now, to your idea if W-CDMA is so bad why not just let the competition go their way and Qualcomm will go their way. As a stockholder I say fine go your own way but not with my IPR. More propaganda here. Qualcomm wants a converged standard. They say lets field test the differences and go with what works best. Fair??
You said "Can you pls enlighten us how you came up with that CDMA-2000
is more spectral efficient than WCDMA.Don't just point to the proposals give us some clues why. You talk about the chip-rate as that is the only difference between the proposals.If you have really has read them you know that are a lot of differences between the proposals except the chiprate." Raymond, the details are in the proposals so I have to point to them, sorry. Here's a clue...these are the proposals submitted to ITU right? As such they are saying they satisfy ITU requirements for 3G right? Voila! CDMA-2000 is more spectrally efficient. That didn't do it for you? Ok, how about this. Go to page 232 of the CDMA-2000 proposal. You will be at the beginning of a section which describes in explicit detail the spectral efficiency to be expected of CDMA-2000. Take a look at the UTRA(SMG2) proposal (W-CDMA) from ETSI starting page 131. Go ahead and plow into it the info is right there. Now, go to UTRA page 114 and CDMA-2000 page 193. These are sections dealing with directly answering performance specifications set forth by ITU. Look for a line that says something like "Meet spectral efficiency and radio channel performance requirements of M.1079". You will find that both UTRA and CDMA-2000 answer yes to this. CDMA-2000 must be more spectrally efficient! BTW, One thing that struck me about these two proposals is how detailed and complete the one proposal is, while the other does not offer a lot of supporting information. For instance the UTRA proposal says in several places that Turbo coding is being considered...they are still studying it. The CDMA-2000 proposal not only states Turbo coding is being used but with what parameters and what the system impact will be. Why isn't UTRA a complete proposal? And this is from the group who has been studying CDMA for years and knows exactly what they are doing with it? Note CDMA-2000 runs 311 pages and UTRA runs 135 pages.
About Tero. Tero is no shrinking violet. When I say he shouldn't talk about things..... and I get a kick out him.....these are jabs he has proven to be able to take. Tero is a very intelligent and clever man and I would not want to see him go......and I don't think anything I could say would cause him to do that. He usually just ignores me anyway.
Raymond, read these proposals. Mqurice is right when he talks about SETI VW-CDMA. There is vapor wear and propaganda and there is reality. W-CDMA is part of a bad attempt to steal the future from those who developed it. This debate is not about who is most backward compatible. Nope, it's about where the telecomm business is going and who will dominate. Compatibility is just another of a myriad of political footballs being bandied about in the press and I think the arguments reveal their motivations(if you look for the truth). Don't buy into the propaganda. I suggest reading these ITU proposals because this is where the rubber starts meeting the road.
Best Regards
Walt |
