100,
<< Didn't Dr. J himself say that WCDMA will not have the same capabilities and will not be as efficient as MC CDMA >>
He himself also once said that CDMA-1900 would beat GSM-1900 to market in the US. I have a 100 page, February, 1995 Qualcomm promotional piece sitting beside me called "Economics of PCS: A Tale of Two Networks" (publicity piece for the original PCS-1900 Spectrum Auctions that describes 2 fictitious Chicago networks, one GSM, one CDMA). Time to market was a big Qualcomm selling point of the piece. Data was pooh poohed as was OTA provisioning although they were talked about as near term futures.
GSM-1900 was launched commercially in the US in November 1995 by Sprint Spectrum, followed shortly by Bell South Mobility then Pac Bell.
CDMA-1900 launched in October 1996.
I've heard a lot of Dr. Jacobs statements over the years. At a high level they are essentially accurate. At a lower level, they bear some examination. He is a great salesman for our technology of choice. Salesmen have every intention of delivering on time. Factors sometimes prohibit.
I expect that 3xMC will probably make better use of spectrum than WCDMA but the standardized version of WCDMA (UTRA DS) is pretty far out as is 3xMC, so I'll reserve judgment.
As for capabilities, that could run both ways, as competing technologies often do.
UMTS is expected to fully deliver its envisioned capabilities in about 2007. The 'Release 99' specification builds the base platform. 'Release 2000' builds "services" and expand on the hooks and extensions for the IP network.
<< is it not true that WCDMA will require a huge amount of antenaes/base stations thus making it more expensive to build out >>
Does anybody know? I don't. AT&T hired Strategis to figure out what CDMA really costs under various scenarios across a whole network, taking into account population density, terrain, level of service, QoS, et al. Network costing is darned complex. CDMA base stations have always cost more than GSM. This is partially economies of scale and partially the complexity of CDMA ... but now we have a GSM air interface that is CDMA, and maybe it is more complex than cdma2000 3xMC. Then you get into not just the initial capital outlay but the total cost of ownership over the 7 to 10 year useful life of the network. It is beyond me and it will be debated hotly.
<< Was unaware that cdma2000 was not standardized >>
The initial phase release IS standardized (1xMC phase 0 or IS-2000). Revision A is not. 1xMC/HDR is not. This new 1x beast that is GSM MAP compliant is not. 3xMC is not.
Their is no standardized version of cdma2000 that is fully IMT-2000 3G compliant or that operates in IMT-2000 spectrum that is currently being auctioned (that's 3xMC). This is a handicap for cdma2000.
<< every Post being negative WCDMA >>
FUD or FUDD or FUDSI <g>. Cuts both ways. The message boards we know of have a bias to the home grown technology we invest in. We all hoped cdma2000 would be THE 3G technology, but for many reasons it never had a prayer. Still, every carrier that adopts it is precious, because they continue the hypergrowth of CDMA, which is why we anguish over SK Telecom.
<< WCDMA ... inferior, less efficient, more expensive >>
The beauty of cdmaOne/cdma2000 is that it started life as an IP based protocol, it makes very efficient use of limited spectrum, and has great forward and backward compatability with IS-95, and a neat, easy, seamless migration path.
IS-95, however, is generally considered to be nowhere near as detailed, comprehensive, or "robust" a specification as GSM, particularly as it relates to "services" (data and other). Can't prove it by me, but I have had a lot of wireless execs (who tend to be EE's) tell me this.
WCDMA (UTRA DS), is a component of a very detailed and robust end to end technology called UMTS which builds on the GSM MAP network and will bridge forward to the router based IP network of the future (as will cdma2000). The GSM specification (based on older technology) has evolved through 4 distinct phases since (phase one, phase 2, phase 2+, and GPRS). Make no mistake about it, GSM is a fantastic technology, and it has been data enabled since originally launched in 1991 (or successfully launched in 1993). The focus of the closely knit GSM Association which is by know means just "European" has been interoperability and international roaming.
The focus of ETSI, 3GIG, and 3GPP2 in formulating the UMTS specification was on interoperability, and backwards compatability with GSM and GPRS, and more recently convergence with TDMA. A key objective was roaming anywhere in the world (which is why they have so strongly backed and funded Globalstar and other SAT services) and an eye forward to to incorporation into a router based IP network. It appears they have succeeded.
The Achilles heel of CDMA has always been international roaming. Qualcomm TOP management stubbornly fought the GSM approach and their own operators tooth and nail since they originally launched and only recently have given in. They have incorporated a SIM interface in the (2G) MSM 3100 and an R-UIM in the MSM5100 (2.9G <G>) to facilitate roaming the GSM way. Better late than never, but it has handicapped them. Considerably.
UMTS UTRA inferior? IMT-2000 licensees evidently think otherwise. It appears that 70% to 80% will choose UMTS over cdma2000. Many would say that IS-95 based cdma2000 is inferior. None will make a decision lightly and this goes well beyond the regulatory environment of Europe.
I believe that if Chris Gent wanted to change the EU regulatory environment, he could have it changed tomorrow. He could have had it changed before he made decisions to upgrade or build out 2.5G GPRS or made a decision to build out UMTS in the UK. His partner of choice for these buildouts is Ericsson and they supply CDMA infrastructure and are closely partnered with Qualcomm & CDG in 3GPP2. Nobody knows more about the comparative capabilities of CDMA, GSM, GPRS, and UMTS than Vodafone. In 1997 they trialed (the only) CDMA overlay of a 3G network as proof of concept of 3G and to enable the Globalstar launch.
<< less efficient, more expensive >>
As Cha2 would say, time will tell. As for more expensive, probably not. If Chris Gent implements cdma2000 somewhere outside the US, I might think differently.
BTW: My business hero's are (and have been for some time), in this order: John Chambers, Dr. Jacobs, Chris Gent and Jorma Ollila.
I don't know how much you know about Jorma Ollila, but he is one heck of an impressive individual. He holds several degrees and like Jacobs has played an instrumental role in transforming the way we communicate. He came on board at Nokia while Jacobs was starting Qualcomm. The fundamental difference is that he is fully committed to open standards, Jacobs to proprietary ones. This is why I am currently invested in QCOM & not Nokia, but Nokia is one impressive company and over the long haul will have far greater influence on wireless communications than Qualcomm.
If you have not read Steve Silberman's article called "Just Say Nokia" in the September 1999 "Wired", you should. It is an in-depth look at Nokia, its corporate culture, and its plans for the future of communications. It's a great peak at the "other side". It adds dimension to the cultural clash between Nokia & Qualcomm. Sorry I don't have the URL handy, but it's in the "Wired" archives.
Regards,
- Eric - |
