Steven - is this to say that the TD element in W-CDMA is not what, supposedly, makes it the better 3G upgrade option for GSM carriers?
It's possible, however I do not know enough about the GSM hardware to say how much easier including TD in W-CDMA makes the upgrade from GSM. But I can say, with assurity, that TD is a big advantage in frequency planning.
I think that Walt had written in one of his posts that, in fact, CDMA2000 would be the most expedient upgrade path for GSM users, despite E's beating the W-CDMA drum for its GSM customers?
If I remember correctly, Walt was only claiming that CDMA-2000 wouldn't be any more expensive than W-CDMA when upgrading from GSM, and CDMA-2000 will be available sooner. In any case I do not know of any reason why CDMA-2000 will be a cheaper upgrade for a GSM system than W-CDMA other than the usual capacity comparisons etc.
Or to put the question conversely, what is it in (pure) CDMA2000 that E could propagandize is not inherently compatible on an upgrade path?
The only thing that I can think of that they could claim are some of the various services. With the agreement to have GSM-MAP and IS-41 available for all 3g standards, most of the wind is out of this claim, but there may still be some possibility for obfuscation.
Does Europe have frequency constraints, generally?
I assume you mean 'will Europe supply separate bands for forward and reverse links?' If so, I do not know the answer; I've seen some articles on the plan, but didn't really pay attention. Next time I see something, I'll note it.
Clark |
