Mika,
Pretty slippery but not very accurate. First off the data that I sight is not taken from the CDG "white paper". If you would have read my post and the "white paper" you would know this. It's taken from the proposals themselves, hence I <gg> said that both ETSI UTRA W-CDMA and CDMA-2000 both agree on this. <gg> means "giggle". But seriously, when the ITU asks...what is your spectral efficiency...the W-CDMA proposal says "this much" and the CDMA-2000 proposal says "this much" and when you compare the two the CDMA-2000 proposal is a more spectrally efficient system. My calculations produce different numbers than the CDG which are actually a little more favorable to W-CDMA than the CDG numbers. But the outcome is the same. It's a fact ETSI UTRA W-CDMA is not as spectrally efficient as CDMA-2000. Read the proposals, ask someone who knows..someone impartial(very important)..someone who understands this kind of technology(very important). BTW, I have been trying to get you to read the proposals for months but you won't do it. I gave several reasons to support the conclusions I reached. These things have not been refuted nor can they be. They are facts. I know you don't like it I know you don't think it's so but we both can't help that. The ETSI UTRA W-CDMA proposal makes several choices in their approach that they are paying certain performance penalties for. There's nothing else to say about it. I repeat, this has not been refuted and the data in the proposals support this, I'm not making it up. You can even read in the ETSI UTRA W-CDMA proposal where they acknowledge the superiority of Turbo coding and they say they are studying this but haven't implemented it yet. This was as of last June 1998. They claim to be state of the art...they aren't. Anyone who says they are is wrong and doesn't know what they are talking about or is intentionally misrepresenting the truth. And there are many other things, written right there in the proposal, that would support this.
If you want to know about the "Chinese group" involved in a separate verification of the claims....check with the CDG. I don't need the "Chinese group" I have the proposals themselves, I can read. But who knows, the "Chinese group" could be from Taiwan!
Mika, please, stop reading the Ericsson press releases and blindly believing until you know what the facts are. I know the logic of all of what is playing out is getting past you but it's really like this. The W-CDMA crowd is trying to take CDMA technology from the people who brought it to mobile. They want you to believe that they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and spent years in the development of W-CDMA and that it is new and superior. This is PR and if you read the press they have done an excellent job with the spin. But please get somebody who understands to read the proposals. The W-CDMA crowd hasn't spent years or hundreds of millions...they're really just getting into it. The proof is in the proposals. I know you want to believe otherwise but I'm sorry...the evidence of otherwise is just not there. Mika, the real question you should be asking yourself is why doesn't the W-CDMA crowd step up to the plate and go head to head in tests with CDMA-2000? After reading the proposals I understand why. Do you? Qualcomm has put the GSM world into a very difficult position and they are doing everything they can to get out of it. But the technology? W-CDMA? Sorry, they haven't got anything superior there...they just haven't spent the time or the money.
Regards
Walt
P.S. Don't forget. The points I raised have yet to be refuted. Do you understand that? |
