To: axial who wrote (9923 ) 12/24/2000 7:36:12 PM From: Lance Bredvold Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12823 Jim; Thank you for your considered response to my post of last night. I contains several interesting points and that old article certainly sounds authoritative as John Major was, I believe, president of QCOM for a short period before being reassigned to the MSFT-QCOM joint venture called Wireless Knowledge. Yet the paragraph which you quote sounds very much like a description of the TDMA problem which I did not think applied to CDMA. Your first sentence also sounds a bit peculiar to me in the CDMA world. In fact there is something roughly equivalent to a channel, but it is one tenth the size that you say, to wit: 1.25 mhz. There is, to my knowledge, no limit to how many of those channels may be put together for more capacity except the FCC licensed spectrum which a company controls. The need for 1.25 is not exact. It is actually 1.2268 mhz but there are guard bands necessary on either side so that only 3 of these channels can be used in 5 mhz of spectrum and 7 in 10 mhz. One of the major conflicts between the current promoters of W-CDMA and 1X is that W-CDMA specifies a 5 mhz channel as more efficient. Irwin Jacobs original plan for CDMA-2000 was also that wide, but in a recent statement, Dr. Jacobs indicated he had been surprised to find that the efficiency advantages of going to 5 mhz chunks of spectrum did not adequately make up for the additional flexibility of the narrower channels and so QCOM felt most operators who simply choose to bypass that version of Multi-carrier CDMA choosing instead to install 1X technology which could also meet the requirement for speed of the 3G standards. As I said, I need to do more research on what rates are actually being achieved at SK Freetel in Korea with IS95B. Meantime a PR from 3COM posted on the moderated QCOM thread this morning tells me that 1X (IS95 C) has already been installed in the Seoul market. Thus we are well beyond the characteristics displayed by IS95B in the newest installs. Most of the rest of your post seemed more sophisticated than my own understanding and that appearance causes me to question my own statements on the matters above. Take my assertions with a grain of salt. I might tell you that I first picked up on the possibility that 5mhz might not be necessary was when, at the 97 annual meeting of QCOM in Mar. 98, Irwin Jacobs carefully said "if and when adopted" on referring to 3 G in the 5 mhz format. My reaction to Ray's assertions were largely due to his understandable questions about the expected performance of mobile wireless systems when my own belief is that the performance standards he questioned have been exceeded already. To me there is no doubt that the last mile shall evolve to several competing access methods including fixed wireless (including satellite), twisted pair, fiber, HFC, and mobile wireless. Mobile wireless does not compete with the others (except to some extent satellite) in that it provides something none of the others can but some things (like that poorly used term, bandwidth) for which it is apt to remain relatively weak. Best wishes, Lance