Clark, Thanks for the intelligent and technical analysis of the
so-called chip rate dispute.
I must say that I suspect that Ericsson's offer to lower
their chip rate was a tacit admission that --
their original "rate" was either not technically feasible,
or did not really result in an appreciable improvement in
their 3G system's maximum data rate.
However -- I believe the designers of a "harmonized system"
should be willing and ready to jointly prove the their chip
rate "choice" is truly in the best interests of their
potential customers. (IE, Not to just make it easier or cheaper
to impliment )
This should also take into account "whether or not" any
necessary active (or passive) filters would appreciably
reduce standby, or talk time.
(Seems to me that the designers would assure that most of
the required circuitry would be in "sleep mode" when data or
voice is not actually being transmitted.)
While I have a high respect for the good "Q folks" who
sometimes post here ( and speaking as one who is "in love"
with neither company), ---
I must reject the pseudo-religous assertions that Ericsson
is a company of 100,000 thieves, liars, and incompetent
engineers. (Just don't make no darn sense)
I have read some of Q's white papers, but I do not
necessarily believe that each and every one of their 3G
specifications is the "only", and "absolutely best"
choice for a harmonized system.
( That don't make no bloody sense either)
Finally, I am disappointed that I have been unable to find
similar documents on the Ericsson site.
I look forward to the day that they are available to
potential investors.
Best,
Mardy.
|
