Raymond,
I know this is going round and round but I challenge you to support the following statement: "But what I know is that none of this companies want to degrade the 3:rd generation system by doing it
backwardcompatible to a system that they don't have in the first place.You can say what you want on this thread but simple logic says that if you have to limit the scope of a new system by having to do it backwardcompatible then you will not get an optimal system for the operators that don't have IS-95 in the first place." Raymond, I work as an engineer, I understand the technology. I know that W-CDMA made several choices in their standard that guarantee performance inferior to CDMA-2000. I've read the ITU proposals...you can too, if you do you will see, for instance, that CDMA-2000 cells can support more capacity than a W-CDMA cell. I have explained why this is. I don't deduce things from press releases. I don't use "logic" .. I use the information submitted to the ITU and my knowledge of such systems. Now, with that in mind, please explain the above statement.
W-CDMA has a TDMA mode to be sort of compatible with TDMA based systems. This mode has 1/2 the capacity of the CDMA mode....please explain your logic about "backwardcompatiblity" and how that's horrible with 3G systems. Please explain how being backwardcompatible to a 2G technology "limits the scope" of a new system. Explain this please, I'm all ears?
Raymond, if you understood what's going on....the technology, the politics, you would understand that W-CDMA does exactly what you say it doesn't do. You would understand why it won't and can't work as well as CDMA-2000. One thing you are right about though, there is logic in why W-CDMA wouldn't want to be backward compatible with IS-95. Because, there wouldn't be as slick an upgrade path for GSM as there is for IS-95. Don't you understand why Ericsson offers 3.84MCPS as a so called "compromise" chip rate? Because they know it isn't a compromise at all. And Raymond, if W-CDMA has less capacity at 4.096MCPS than CDMA-2000 at 3.6864MCPS how degraded do you think it will be at 3.84MCPS. Logic?????? Come on Raymond, logic doesn't say these things about backwardcompatibility....it's PR and spin. Where's the beef?? Please explain...the technology.
Raymond, you're right, we can say what we want on this thread, we often do. But tell me something I can take to the bank. Don't repeat someone elses rhetoric, tell me the facts. When you analyze the ITU proposals what do you see? What do you really know?
Walt |
