Verizon wireless - "Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

Author

"Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"

SMS

2006-09-25, 10:33 pm

"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"

Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
costs over a much larger TAM.

Mike M

2006-09-25, 10:33 pm

> http://www.newmobile.nl/eur/en/news.php?news_id=d3f56d

SMS wrote:
> "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"
>
>
> Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
> technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
> market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
> costs over a much larger TAM.

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-09-28, 10:33 pm

Stop cross-posting Troll!

"CDMA is the leading technology in the US?" Maybe in terms of coverage,
but I wonder for how long... GSM is gaining grownd in the US: Cingular
and T-Mobile's current networks are based on GSM, it's their future.
GSM is the standard followed by most of the world, so if you plan to
travel (unless you're making all your trips to Tokyo), a GSM phone with
a GSM provider is a good choice.

Plus look at Verizon (leading CDMA provider) their coverage is the only
thing they have to be proud of, their policies are the worst of the
bunch, their handset selection is horrible compared to Cingular and
T-Mobile. Even in terms of their PDA phone selection, you won't find
anything as nice as the Cingular 8125 or T-Mobile MDA at your Verizon
retailer, instead you'll find their PDA selection equal to Cingular and
T-Mobiles 2005 models, Verizon doesn't care either. Sprint/Nextel
provides proof that when implemented poorly CDMA sucks worse than GSM,
it's all in the implementation not the protocol.

Regarding Nokia, I've read they are focusing on Japanese market and GSM
for international markets. Outside of the US, CDMA is pretty much a
legacy standard as it's largely been replaced with WCDMA in Japan,
which was the the only other signifigant cell market to embrace CDMA
that I am aware of.

if you combine Cingular and T-Mobile's GSM base Wouldn't subscribers
be directly related to
market share?

SMS wrote:
> "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"
>
> Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
> technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
> market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
> costs over a much larger TAM.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-28, 10:33 pm

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> "CDMA is the leading technology in the US?" Maybe in terms of coverage,
> but I wonder for how long... GSM is gaining grownd in the US: Cingular
> and T-Mobile's current networks are based on GSM, it's their future.

GSM is gaining ground at the expense of TDMA. It makes abundant sense to
retire TDMA with GSM.

However, new CDMA networks continue to appear in North America. For
example, the Yukon just went from no cellular service outside of
Whitehorse to having a CDMA network in every major settlement. There is
no GSM in the Canadian north. A huge buildout of CDMA also just occurred
in Alaska, making CDMA competitive with the GSM network in Alaska for the
first time.

> GSM is the standard followed by most of the world, so if you plan to
> travel (unless you're making all your trips to Tokyo), a GSM phone with
> a GSM provider is a good choice.

GSM is the standard in most of the world today, but it's on its way out
with WCDMA (UMTS) replacing it.

Don't let the name fool you: WCDMA is a successor/replacement for GSM, and
not necessarily CDMA. UMTS has appeared in the UK, Australia, and other
countries as the 3G replacement for GSM. UMTS is also (slowly) coming
along in the US. It's the GSM carriers, not the CDMA carriers, which are
deploying UMTS.

Also note that there is no GSM at all in Japan, Saipan, and South Korea.

> Outside of the US, CDMA is pretty much a
> legacy standard as it's largely been replaced with WCDMA in Japan,

Nonsense. Both au and Tu-Ka in Japan use CDMA 2000 1x, although not
compatble with overseas CDMA.

The W-CDMA players in Japan is Softbank (formerly Vodafone Japan) with
UMTS and NTT DoCoMo with FOMA; neither of which had CDMA.

The 3G replacement for CDMA, competing with UMTS, is 1xEV-DO.

For what it's worth, China has its own 3D called TD-SCDMA which is sort of
a mix of TDMA and CDMA spread spectrum synchronous uplinks tossed in, all
in an attempt to avoid paying patent fees to Qualcomm and the 3G
consortioum.

> which was the the only other signifigant cell market to embrace CDMA
> that I am aware of.

The following countries have CDMA: Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, Brazil,
British Virgin Islands, Canada, China, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Guam,
India, Israel, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Saipan, South Korea, St.
Maarten, Taiwan, Thailand, US Virgin Islands, Venezuela.

I'll grant that a number of these are small Carribean islands, but there
are some significant markets besides North America there too.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mutlley

2006-09-28, 10:33 pm

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

>Stop cross-posting Troll!
>
>"CDMA is the leading technology in the US?" Maybe in terms of coverage,
>but I wonder for how long... GSM is gaining grownd in the US: Cingular
>and T-Mobile's current networks are based on GSM, it's their future.
>GSM is the standard followed by most of the world, so if you plan to
>travel (unless you're making all your trips to Tokyo), a GSM phone with
>a GSM provider is a good choice.
>
>
I think you will find that GSM is now being superseded by CDMA in
allot of markets. Hopefully one day both CDMA and GSM will merge into
one standard.... just like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray..

Mutlley

2006-09-28, 10:33 pm

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>
>The following countries have CDMA: Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, Brazil,
>British Virgin Islands, Canada, China, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Guam,
>India, Israel, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Saipan, South Korea, St.
>Maarten, Taiwan, Thailand, US Virgin Islands, Venezuela.
>
>I'll grant that a number of these are small Carribean islands, but there
>are some significant markets besides North America there too.
>

Add Australia to that group..

SMS

2006-09-28, 10:33 pm

Mark Crispin wrote:

> However, new CDMA networks continue to appear in North America. For
> example, the Yukon just went from no cellular service outside of
> Whitehorse to having a CDMA network in every major settlement. There is
> no GSM in the Canadian north. A huge buildout of CDMA also just
> occurred in Alaska, making CDMA competitive with the GSM network in
> Alaska for the first time.

Huh? When I was last in Alaska, there was CDMA in the major towns, but
there was no GSM at all. GSM began in Alaska in about 2004, but adoption
has been slow because so much of Alaska is AMPS only, and there are not
GSM/AMPS handsets. A lot of Alaskans switched from TDMA/AMPS to
CDMA/AMPS, rather than give up AMPS for GSM.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-29, 4:33 am

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mutlley wrote:
> Add Australia to that group..

Are you certain that you're thinking about WCDMA (a.k.a. UTMS) which is
quite different from CDMA? Australia definitely has WCDMA, which is the
3G successor to GSM. As I explained in my posting, the 3G successor to
CDMA is EV-DO.

Many people are confused by the similarity in names and mistakenly believe
that WCDMA == CMDA. It doesn't.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-29, 4:33 am

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mutlley wrote:
> I think you will find that GSM is now being superseded by CDMA in
> allot of markets. Hopefully one day both CDMA and GSM will merge into
> one standard.... just like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray..

I haven't heard of any GSM network being replaced by CDMA. GSM is being
replaced by WCDMA (a.k.a. UTMS) just as CDMA is being replaced by EV-DO.
In spite of the similarity in names, the transition from GSM to WCDMA does
not mean that GSM is being replaced by CDMA.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-29, 4:33 am

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
> Huh? When I was last in Alaska, there was CDMA in the major towns, but there
> was no GSM at all. GSM began in Alaska in about 2004, but adoption has been
> slow because so much of Alaska is AMPS only, and there are not GSM/AMPS
> handsets. A lot of Alaskans switched from TDMA/AMPS to CDMA/AMPS, rather than
> give up AMPS for GSM.

I'm quite familiar with the cellular situation in Alaska, being a property
owner there and constantly monitoring the choices.

In mainland Alaska, CDMA was only available in Anchorage and Palmer prior
to this year (it was also available in Juneau, but I said *mainland*
Alaska).

Dobson Cellular One's GSM network did indeed start in 2004, and became
usable by 2005. I was unable to find any location covered by TDMA that
was not also covered by GSM.

In 2006, there was a substantial increase in both the GSM networks. I had
solid GSM reception throughout the entire Glenn Highway and in all of
Anchorage. GSM still fades out in Copper Center on the Richardson
Highway, but that's because it's in a bowl that shadows the town and
there's no cell tower down there.

Also in 2006 was a significant expansion of CDMA coverage. For the very
first time, I found no area that had analog coverage that did not also
have CDMA coverage. In 2005, there was no CDMA in the Copper River
Valley; in 2006, CDMA service in the valley rivalled GSM. I found solid
CDMA receiption through the entire Glenn Highway.

Tok is still GSM and analog only, but the way things are going I expect
Tok to get CDMA shortly.

Prior to 2006, I would not have considered CDMA to be a serious choice for
anyone in Alaska, especially with a digital-only phone. GSM (and, a few
years earlier, TDMA) was THE choice if you wanted digital service outside
of urban Anchorage.

Now, GSM and CDMA are neck-and-neck in Alaska. There are probably still a
few places where you may need analog -- e.g., Barrow, McCarthy, etc. --
but Alaska is going digital just as the rest of the world.

In northern Canada, CDMA is the ONLY choice. There is no GSM service
north of Fort St. John on the Alaska Highway until you reach Tok. As of
last July, Latitude Wireless did not have roaming agreements with US
carriers so even though your Verizon phone would roam there, you couldn't
make or receive calls. However, a Telus Mobility (Canadian CDMA carrier)
phone worked fine.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

SMS

2006-09-29, 12:33 pm

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:

> In mainland Alaska, CDMA was only available in Anchorage and Palmer
> prior to this year (it was also available in Juneau, but I said
> *mainland* Alaska).

I was in Alaska in 2003. I used my Verizon CDMA/AMPS phone on CDMA in
Seward, Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the tourist area near Denali (I forget
the name of the town). In Talkeetna, and along most of the Alaskan
Railroad, the phone worked on AMPS, but the people with TDMA phones also
had to use AMPS (except in Talkeetna where there was TDMA), as the train
traveled in areas that were outside the range of digital from the cities.

The tourists with GSM and iDEN phones had no service at all in Alaska,
and were quite upset about it.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-29, 3:33 pm

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:
> I was in Alaska in 2003. I used my Verizon CDMA/AMPS phone on CDMA in Seward,
> Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the tourist area near Denali (I forget the name of
> the town).

In 2003, that was the limit of the CDMA network.

> In Talkeetna, and along most of the Alaskan Railroad, the phone
> worked on AMPS, but the people with TDMA phones also had to use AMPS (except
> in Talkeetna where there was TDMA), as the train traveled in areas that were
> outside the range of digital from the cities.

The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular.

> The tourists with GSM and iDEN phones had no service at all in Alaska, and
> were quite upset about it.

That is not surprising, since GSM wasn't switched on until a year later,
and didn't become really usable until 2005.

Things have changed quite a bit in Alaska in three years. 2005 was the
big expansion of the GSM network, and 2006 was the big expansion of the
CDMA network.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

SMS

2006-09-30, 4:33 am

Mark Crispin wrote:

> The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
> Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular.

I had AMPS coverage for much of the train trip between Anchorage and
Fairbanks, but I had to eventually turn off the phone because the train
was so slow and the AMPS coverage was draining the battery.

The only place where I had a big period of no service was inside Denali.

Mark Crispin

2006-09-30, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:
> I had AMPS coverage for much of the train trip between Anchorage and
> Fairbanks, but I had to eventually turn off the phone because the train was
> so slow and the AMPS coverage was draining the battery.

And this contradicts what I said in what way?

Did you try placing a call? AMPS can be picked up a long way from the
tower. That doesn't mean that the tower can pick up your handheld.

The same tower broadcasting the AMPS signal that your phone (barely) hears
is also broadcasting digital (GSM and/or CMDA, possibly TDMA too). It's
just that the phone can recognize a fainter and noisier AMPS signal than
it can digital.

I found many places in Alaska where I picked up an unusable AMPS signal.
However, there were only a few places in which there was a usable AMPS
signal but not a digital signal. McCarthy was AMPS only the last time I
was there, but now that Copper Valley Wireless has gone CDMA that's
probably changed by now.

> The only place where I had a big period of no service was inside Denali.

Again, try placing a call in those areas along the railroad which seem to
be AMPS-only.

I would definitely recommend disabling AMPS while in Alaska, simply
because there are so many no-service zones. Otherwise, your phone will be
transmitting AMPS at full power trying to get the attention of a tower
that it can hear but which won't hear your phone. If you're in a village
and there's no service, then try turning on AMPS.

I personally found AMPS capability to be useless in Alaska and the Yukon
these days. If need phone service in an area where there isn't a good
digital signal, I'll use a satellite phone.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

SMS

2006-10-01, 10:33 am

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, SMS wrote:
>
> And this contradicts what I said in what way?

"The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular."

> Did you try placing a call?

Actually yes, as well as receiving an AMPS call. My sister-in-law called
Verizon on her phone, from the train, on AMPS, because she didn't
believe me that a flashing triangle meant on-extended network, while a
solid triangle mean off-network roaming. I told her to wait until she
had digital coverage because I didn't think that AMPS roaming was
included, but she didn't get charged for the call, and I didn't get
charged for an AMPS call in Talkeetna. Anyway, she had to call Verizon
twice to get a good answer. The first person she talked to told her
'Verizon has no coverage in Alaska, it's our 49th state you know.'
Besides not knowing her history, the Verizon customer service rep was
incorrect. At least at the time, Alaska was included in Americas Choice
extended network.

Mark Crispin

2006-10-01, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, SMS wrote:
> "The Alaska railroad more or less follows the line of the George Parks
> Highway, which is not covered much by any cellular."
> Actually yes, as well as receiving an AMPS call. My sister-in-law called
> Verizon on her phone, from the train, on AMPS, because she didn't believe me
> that a flashing triangle meant on-extended network, while a solid triangle
> mean off-network roaming. I told her to wait until she had digital coverage
> because I didn't think that AMPS roaming was included, but she didn't get
> charged for the call, and I didn't get charged for an AMPS call in Talkeetna.

All that shows is that you were able to make calls near Talkeetna, a
fairly important population center (which does indeed have a cell tower)
in the Mat-Su borough which itself is heavily populated (for Alaska).
The fact that population centers along a highway are served by cellular
does not mean that the highway itself is covered much by cellular.

The George Parks Highway is nearly 400 miles long from Palmer to
Fairbanks, and goes through substantial wilderness areas with no cellular
towers. The Alaska Railroad parallels the highway on that stretch of the
rail line, although at some points it is quite some distance away.

It seems that you only got as far north as Denali, about halfway, and
never got into unincorporated Alaska.

A greater extreme is in the Yukon, where (as of summer 2006) most
population centers have cellular (and the remainder will next get it next
summer). There is no coverage on the highways at all once you get more
than a couple of miles from town. And prior to 2006, the ONLY cellular
coverage of any kind between Fort Nelson and Tok was in Whitehorse.

Cellular coverage in the north continues to improve by leaps and bounds,
but it is FAR less than is taken for granted in the Lower 48 or southern
Canada. Even today, you can still drive for hundreds of miles in the
north country without any cellular signal, although maybe in another few
years that won't be the case any more.

Nonetheless, if you want reliable and continuous access to telephone
service in the north country, you rent a satellite phone. If you stay in
town, or just want to be able to check in with the folks at home once a
day, then cellular may be alright.

> Anyway, she had to call Verizon twice to get a good answer. The first person
> she talked to told her 'Verizon has no coverage in Alaska, it's our 49th
> state you know.' Besides not knowing her history, the Verizon customer
> service rep was incorrect. At least at the time, Alaska was included in
> Americas Choice extended network.

The Verizon customer representative was correct. Verizon has no coverage
in Alaska. And yes, Alaska is the 49th state; Hawaii is #50.

Alaska has other companies that have coverage, most of which have roaming
agreements with Verizon. The important statewide companies are ACS
Wireless (CDMA) and Dobson Cellular One (GSM). For a while, Dobson had
greater statewide digital coverage, but in 2006 ACS expanded
significantly. There are also important regional companies in Alaska, for
example Copper Valley Wireless (Glennallen, Valdez), ASTAC Cellular One
(North Slope Borough; *not* the same as Dobson), etc.

Whether you are charged in-plan or separate roaming depends upon your plan
and the nature of the roaming agreement between that carrier and Verizon:
. AC gives in-plan roaming with many, but not all, US domestic carriers
that will accept Verizon roamers. There is the AC1 and AC2 variant.
. NAC gives in-plan roaming with many, but not all, North American (US,
Canada, Mexico) carriers that will accept Verizon roamers.
. NSR (no longer offered to new subscribers) gives in-plan roaming with
all US domestic carriers that will accept Verizon roamers.
. SC (no longer offered to new subscribers) as an add-on to NSR gives
in-plan roaming with all Canadian domestic carriers that will accept
Verizon roamers.

Note "that will accept Verizon roamers." There are some carriers that do
not accept Verizon roamers. For example, as of July 2006, Latitude
Wireless in the Yukon did not accept US roamers; a Verizon phone would
recognize LW's CDMA signal but any attempt to place a call resulted in an
error tone. However, LW accepted Canadian roamers. Since LW's network
came online in July 2006, I expect that by 2007 they will have a roaming
agreement with Verizon.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mutlley

2006-10-01, 3:33 pm

Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mutlley wrote:
>
>I haven't heard of any GSM network being replaced by CDMA. GSM is being
>replaced by WCDMA (a.k.a. UTMS) just as CDMA is being replaced by EV-DO.
>In spite of the similarity in names, the transition from GSM to WCDMA does
>not mean that GSM is being replaced by CDMA.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://panda.com/mrc
>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
>Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Woops .. Your correct . It should have read WCDMA..

SMS

2006-10-04, 10:33 pm

nas wrote:
>
> How about the Nokia 6340i? It's GSM, TDMA and Analog. Of course, getting
> Cingular to provision a new one might be tough.

It would also be pretty hard to buy a new one since they are discontinued.

The amount of AMPS coverage where there is no digital coverage is still
very large. Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a lot of areas
where AMPS is all you'll get. You can look at the Verizon coverage page
that shows digital and analog coverage for AC1 versus AC2 and see how
much you lose without AMPS.

I.e., go to
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...ewsearc
h
and put in zip code 94060. Look at the difference between AC and AC2
coverage, a huge area turns from gray (roaming or no coverage) to white
(no coverage)

A lot of the AMPS coverage is there for the roadside call boxes, but
it's still Verizon's network and is usable by any Verizon customer with
an AMPS capable handset (and by AT&T TDMA/AMPS customers, at least on an
emergency basis.

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:15:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 45188d5c$0$96148$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500685.html"
>
>Duh, Nokia has essentially abandoned CDMA, which is the leading
>technology in the U.S., with the most subscribers and an increasing
>market share. Motorola can amortize their development and marketing
>costs over a much larger TAM.

Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...79_wimax11.html>

Two developments in the past year have given WiMax, the wireless
broadband technology that promises high-speed Internet access to
almost any device anywhere, virtually unstoppable momentum. One is
Kirkland-based Clearwire's expanding national WiMax rollout. The
other was Sprint Nextel's decision to use it to build nationwide
wireless broadband networks.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9670bcbd317be09b69e2
1860127f0065
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1160600544 9670bcbd317be09b69e2
1860127f0065 (Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:02:24 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:02:24 GMT
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:02:24 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:72469 alt.cellular.verizon:212916 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:280394 alt.cellular.attws:55777

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:46:00 +1300, Mutlley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>
wrote in < qm60i2h0ov2ab67886qd
nr1vpaf737om22@4ax.com>:

>Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>Woops .. Your correct . It should have read WCDMA..

And WCDMA, designed to complement GSM, has little to do with "CDMA"
(more accurately CDMA 2000) -- in most respects they are quite
different.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
> Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:
>
> <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...79_wimax11.html>
>
> Two developments in the past year have given WiMax, the wireless
> broadband technology that promises high-speed Internet access to
> almost any device anywhere, virtually unstoppable momentum. One is
> Kirkland-based Clearwire's expanding national WiMax rollout. The
> other was Sprint Nextel's decision to use it to build nationwide
> wireless broadband networks.
>

Though presumably the existing CDMA providers will continue with it
since they aren't abandoning voice traffic (are they?) and WiMax's
lowest rate appears to be about 1 Mbps. It overlaps with EVDO but not
with 1xRTT which is used for voice calls.

WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.

g

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:33:40 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 452d635d$0$34565$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>Though presumably the existing CDMA providers will continue with it
>since they aren't abandoning voice traffic (are they?) and WiMax's
>lowest rate appears to be about 1 Mbps. It overlaps with EVDO but not
>with 1xRTT which is used for voice calls.
>
>WiMax would appear to be a data protocol not a voice one. I guess it's
>possible that all CDMA will be replaced, including voice versions, but
>I've never heard that suggested nor can I think of a good reason.

I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app." ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:

>
> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app." ;)
>
I doubt it. In order do that there has to be enough signal strength to
support minimum WiMax rate on the reverse (uplink) channel (and the
downlink as well, of course). With the power and antenna limitation of
the phone, that would shrink the existing coverage terribly. I don't
think the carriers will do that. It wouldn't be very good business to
suddenly require support for bi-di 1 Mbps just to continue to handle
voice. They would essentially be restricting their voice coverage to
what are otherwise the much-smaller data coverage footprints.

g

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:31:41 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 452d70f6$0$34546$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>I doubt it. In order do that there has to be enough signal strength to
>support minimum WiMax rate on the reverse (uplink) channel (and the
>downlink as well, of course). With the power and antenna limitation of
>the phone, that would shrink the existing coverage terribly. I don't
>think the carriers will do that. It wouldn't be very good business to
>suddenly require support for bi-di 1 Mbps just to continue to handle
>voice. They would essentially be restricting their voice coverage to
>what are otherwise the much-smaller data coverage footprints.

VoIP needs much less bandwidth than that, on the order of only 24 Kbps
per circuit, and I personally don't see a significant range (coverage)
limitation as compared to cellular. But even if coverage is smaller, a
dual mode phone might still be a killer app IMnsHO.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:

> VoIP needs much less bandwidth than that, on the order of only 24 Kbps
> per circuit, and I personally don't see a significant range (coverage)
> limitation as compared to cellular. But even if coverage is smaller, a
> dual mode phone might still be a killer app IMnsHO.
>
I know VoIP *needs* less but WiMax won't operate any slower, 1.04 Mbps
is the lowest it's designed to go. The range limitation comes out of the
fundamentals of transferring bits at the rate across the channel.

A 1 Mbps channel takes 100 times more power, 20 dB, than a 10 kbps
channel even though both are supporting a single voice rate application.
I'm matching what existing voice requires not VoIP with this comparison.
If your 24 kbps is correct VoIP is about 2.5 times less efficient than
the compression and coding currently used by voice channels. Even though
the 1 Mbps channel only needs to run 1 percent of the time, it can't
trade off duty cycle/loading for data throughput.
If you don't have the required link budget to support the extra 20 dB it
won't work at all. This means you have to get closer (shrink the cell)
until you have the required margin. That's just Shannon's equation
determined by physics.
g

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 452d8a0f$0$34489$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>I know VoIP *needs* less but WiMax won't operate any slower, 1.04 Mbps
>is the lowest it's designed to go. [SNIP]

The three laws of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.

-Arthur C. Clarke

Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and is
spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in that
and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an issue
(as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual modes
(WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will be a
killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good to argue
about it now. ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:18:46 -0700,

> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
> something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states
> that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
>
> 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to
> venture a little way past them into the impossible.
>
> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic.
>
> -Arthur C. Clarke
>

Interesting quote but I'm not sure how this applies. If you are doubting
Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think
I will terminate my part in this discussion now.

WiMax presently has a definition.
You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.
I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
problem, it's no longer WiMax.
If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
then CDMA doesn't go away.

This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
going away to be replaced by WiMax.

g

> Sprint is free to implement a lower speed if that makes sense, and is
> spending more than enough money to be able to call the shots (in that
> and other ways). Even at 1 Mbps, I still don't see range as an issue
> (as I wrote) because that could be easily addressed with dual modes
> (WiMAX+CDMA 2000). That's part of why I think WiMAX VoIP will be a
> killer app. But of course only time will tell -- does no good to argue
> about it now. ;)
>

John Navas

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 452d9689$0$34536$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>Interesting quote but I'm not sure how this applies.

Read #1 and #2 again. ;)

>If you are doubting
>Shannon's equation because it indicates limits to the possible, I think

What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.

>I will terminate my part in this discussion now.

Your choice.

>WiMax presently has a definition.

Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.

>You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.

CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?

>I said 'I doubt it' for voice, because of what it would do to the footprint.
>If a carrier uses something slower than WiMax to address the footprint
>problem, it's no longer WiMax.

Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.

>If a carrier uses CDMA to continue to cover voice (which seems likely)
>then CDMA doesn't go away.

I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.

>This wasn't about whether VoIP is a good app or not, it was about CDMA
>going away to be replaced by WiMax.

With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.
[color=darkred]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

tmoran@acm.org

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

> A 1 Mbps channel takes 100 times more power, 20 dB, than a 10 kbps
But if you only need to transfer 10k bits, you should be able to
use the fast, high power channel for 1/100 second, then turn it off
for the next 99/100 second, thus using the same average power. No?

Scott

2006-10-11, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:716ri29febaf9ho
4f4oaqc3grvlkuad7ih@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
> < 452d9689$0$34536$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Read #1 and #2 again. ;)
>
>
> What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.
>
>
> Your choice.
>
>
> Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.
>
>
> CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?
>
>
> Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.
>
>
> I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.
>
>
> With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
> simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
> be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.
>
>

Gee, Johnny- I see that are once again dabbling in areas that you don't
understand. I'll assume that all of the 'information' you posted was
the result of yet another google search- why should this time be any
different than any other?

The information provided by G is accurate and much more reliable than
your own personal pipe dreams.

2006-10-12, 4:33 am

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
> < 452d9689$0$34536$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>
> What I'm doubting are your assumptions and application of his theorem.

I'd be interested to hear your description of the theorem and how it is
to be correctly interpreted.

>
> Which Sprint is free to adapt to its own needs.

Which would make it something other than IEEE 802.16 that is as yet not
suggested and unknown.

>
> CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?

The part where you responded to what I said:

>
by writing:
> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app." ;)

>
> Sure it is, in the same way that "Pre N" is still considered Wi-Fi.

OK. If we let the meaning of WiMax change to "something that has some of
the current aspects of WiMax but also provides low channel rate voice
service" rather than the presently understood definition, then I agree
completely with you. "WiMax may replace all of CDMA".

However if in any discussion those involved say "all words are subject
to having their meanings modified or adapted at any time to mean
something else" then there's not much point in trying to learn from one
another.

Though I have to admit, this exchange has been sort of amusing...

>
> I didn't say it would -- I said WiMAX VoIP would be a killer app.
>

ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
replaced.

>
> With all due respect, you're reading something into what I wrote that
> simply isn't there. My point was (and is) that CDMA 2000 is likely to
> be relegated to a secondary role as Sprint moves forward.

That's not what your response indicated. Perhaps you didn't correctly
present your opinion.

I'm waiting to hear your clarification of the definition of Shannon's
channel capacity equation.

g

John Navas

2006-10-12, 4:33 am

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:44:44 -0700, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
< 452dba55$0$34562$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I'd be interested to hear your description of the theorem and how it is
>to be correctly interpreted.

Focus first on the first part of what I wrote, about your assumptions.

>
>Which would make it something other than IEEE 802.16 that is as yet not
>suggested and unknown.

[shrug]

>
>OK. If we let the meaning of WiMax change to "something that has some of
>the current aspects of WiMax but also provides low channel rate voice
>service" rather than the presently understood definition, then I agree
>completely with you. "WiMax may replace all of CDMA".

I said nothing of the kind, as I've again made clear.

>However if in any discussion those involved say "all words are subject
>to having their meanings modified or adapted at any time to mean
>something else" then there's not much point in trying to learn from one
>another.

Fair enough.

>Though I have to admit, this exchange has been sort of amusing...

My own words are "silly" and "pointless".

>
>ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
>replaced.

Nope. Read more carefully.

>
>That's not what your response indicated. Perhaps you didn't correctly
>present your opinion.

Perhaps you didn't pay much attention to what I actually wrote.

>I'm waiting to hear your clarification of the definition of Shannon's
>channel capacity equation.

Suit yourself.

I think we're done. Feel free to have the last word.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

2006-10-12, 12:33 pm

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> But if you only need to transfer 10k bits, you should be able to
> use the fast, high power channel for 1/100 second, then turn it off
> for the next 99/100 second, thus using the same average power. No?

Yes. But the problem remains that we can't support the higher rate,
burstier channel without going to something other than WiMax and without
expensive changes in hardware at both handset and base.

Implementing a lower rate channel with this technique would drastically
increase the crest factor requirements of all the hardware.

And even if it were implemented perfectly we still have to deal with
lower efficiency of VoIP vs. dedicated audio protocols. This also
translates to cell footprint shrinkage, though it would seem that it
would be possible to improve on the existing situation. I don't know if
it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a decent VoIP
call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which is roughly
what conventional audio requires.

g

tmoran@acm.org

2006-10-12, 3:33 pm

> I don't know if it takes 90 kbps bidirectionally or 24 kbps to sustain a
> decent VoIP call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which
> is roughly what conventional audio requires.
Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
the internet is not substantial.

2006-10-12, 3:33 pm

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
> phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
> in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
> the internet is not substantial.

Well, I'm not an export on voice compression schemes and their relative
efficiencies but I suspect the answer relates to the generality of IP
based voice as compared to dedicated systems. I'd agree that the 40 byte
TCP/IP overhead doesn't seem like it should be a show stopper. However
for voice I suppose latency management, QOS and such can't help matters.

Since it's all data, one would think that if latency and rate were
satisfied that it should be possible to improve things to a comparable
level. Perhaps it is and common VoIPs haven't yet done this.

I don't know, maybe someone else here does.

g

John Navas

2006-10-12, 3:33 pm

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:29:33 -0500, tmoran@acm.org wrote in
< G42dnS4GSuIQFLPYnZ2d
nUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast
.com>:

> Why doesn't VoIP use the same data compression algorithm as the cell
>phone uses for its audio? They are both trying to convey the same data
>in digitized form, right? Surely the overhead of sending packets via
>the internet is not substantial.

The original GSM RPE-LTP (Regular Pulse Excitation Long-Term Prediction)
full rate codec is actually 13 Kbps, but that's over the air interface,
not TCP/IP.

For technical information of VoIP codecs, see
<http://www.zytrax.com/tech/protocols/voip_rates.htm>. Some are
actually more efficient than GSM RPE-LTP.

To calculate the necessary bandwidth for VoIP, see
<http://www.voip-calculator.com/calculator/lipb/>.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-10-19, 3:33 pm

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:59:34 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
< simqi25qtqsp5avq2246
57jo86k4nnh2bd@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:15:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in < 45188d5c$0$96148$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>Duh indeed -- CDMA is actually facing an uncertain future given Sprint
>Nextel's recent dumping of Qualcomm in favor of WiMAX:
>
><http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...79_wimax11.html>

Plus, Nokia is actually on a roll:

"Nokia maintains spot as mobile top dog"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/19/nokia_results/>

Nokia has consolidated its position as the world's leading mobile
phone maker and announced a 20 per cent rise in net sales during its
fiscal third quarter.

The Finnish giant said on Thursday that sales rose to €10.1bn from
€8.4bn in the same three month period a year ago.

...

According to Nokia's latest figures, it sold 88.5m devices during its
fiscal third quarter, up 13 per cent compared to the preceding
quarter and a rise of 33 per cent versus the same three month period
a year ago.

...

Nokia grabs 35 per cent mobile market share.

Meanwhile, a new report from Strategy Analytics, which was also
released on Thursday, revealed that the Finnish-based firm has
maintained its top spot on the worldwide vendor table, clocking up
its highest market share level for three years with 35 per cent.

...

Strategy Analytics reports mixed blessings for Motorola, however. The
research firm's study indicates that "Razr mania" would seem to have
peaked with the company losing its crown as the fasting-growing
mobile maker for the first time since the first quarter of 2005. The
US-based mobile manufacturer grew shipments at a healthy 39 per cent
annual rate during the third quarter. It currently has 21 per cent
market share, up from 18.4 per cent a year ago.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot