>That's partly why I posted yesterday, that the ITU press release
>was not bad for Qcom. No decision leaves it up to the market.
>Qcom can go forward with a TDMA-compatible 3G; carriers will
>gravitate to cdma and Ericy is left out in the cold without a
>3G option that can be implemented. The market will move forward
>and determine the standard.
Agree that ITU announcement is good for QCOM. I think it is poor
for NTT DoCoMo, and hopefully, their response will be a positive
one: one of trying to bring about a converged standard.
Also, CDMA2000 1X can proceed unabated, giving CDMA operators
additional capacity gain over GSM based operators. With multi carrier
overlay options, the upgrade path for CDMA operators is excellent.
Would like to also say that Ericcson's "concession" on chip-rate
was at once completely bogus and frighteningly real. It was
bogus because, as Clark has pointed out before, 4.096Mcps is not
a viable technical solution, and it had been widely
understood that Ericcson would at some point change the chip rate
to a lower number. That they chose 3.84Mcps instead of 3.68Mcps is
a clear indication that it was bogus "concession" and still fails
to meet the fairness criteria. As for chip-rate reduction causing
proportianate decrease in capacity, Clark has again pointed out the
flaw in the argument. It is too simple, and not accurate given the
complexity of the system.
But the concession is frighteningly real for the blind supporters of
Ericcson. They have been sold a bill of goods about how 4.096Mcps
was untouchable, and now a complete turn-about!
I believe Mika is hinting at a third TDMA based standard emerging
in light of the CDMA IPR issues. Would be interesting to see how
that pans out and how it compares with the CMDA2000 alternative.
Certainly by choosing W-CDMA over TDMA, Ericcson, Nokia and NTT
have admitted the superiority of the CDMA solution for 3G. |
