if CDMA2000 is 3G than WCDMA is 4G. Think of it this way, GSM uses a 250
khz carrier, CDMA uses a 1.25Mhz carrier, WCDMA uses a 5 MHz carrier -
what the CDMA people are saying is that, hey we got this technology that
is close to ten years old but it performs a hell of a lot better than
the technology (GSN) that you are using now, which is over 15 year's
old. And of course, it is much better than the new technology (WCDMA)
that you have just invented and trying to commercialize now. Why not
forget both, and just use our technology.
the point is that while CDMA is mature now and starting to evolve more
rapidly as a technology with 1x, and 1x EV-Dx, it is still limited by
its 1.25MHz carrier design. There is only so much bandwidth that you can
pack into a 1.25MHz carrier (so far about 2.4 Mbps with EV-DV). With its
bigger carrier, WCDMA networks will always be capable of 3x the
throughput of CDMA. All those performance improvements, like 1x, and
EV-Dx, will eventually be develop for WCDMA, so when the technical
improvements of EV-DV is deployed over a WCDMA network it should get
something like 7.2 Mbps.
in five year's time, when WCDMA is mature, anyone who has purposely
built a 3G network using CDMA2000 1x, will end up like today's GPRS
operators trying to compete against 1x.
qualcomm is actually asking people to rush into a technology that will
be outdated in a couple of years. US analysts are always the first ones
to be taken in by qualcomm, understandably, and always tell only one
side of the story.
analysts who say that operators with 3G licenses should forget about
WCDMA because it is late and just built a CDMA 1x, or worse GSM 1x
network in its place, obvious don't understand anything about the Asian
market or the difference between GSM and CDMA.
Joao Paulo Silva wrote:
> Hi all
> As anyone read the conclusions on a "cdma2000 1x vs W-CDMA" report recently published by Sapere Mobile!!!?
> Is it my impression or a lot of korean/american analysts are desperately trying to prove the superiority of cdma2000 1x, just because W-CDMA networks and hansets have taken more time to develop that expected?
> A few conclusions from the report:
> "Operators that paid too much for 3G licenses, technology that won't be ready for at least three years, and skeptical investors add up to a losing proposition.
> Europe's regulators must give operators more time and flexibility. All reasonable options should be considered including infrastructure sharing, spectrum swapping, disaggregation of spectrum for resale or leasing, and alternative technologies
> Prospects for GSM1x, the CDMA2000 overlay for GSM, are particularly good in Asia where some operators own both GSM and CDMA2000 networks. GSM1x enables GSM operators to upgrade to 3G in existing spectrum, and allows combining dual networks to reduce operating costs and provide users a best-of-both-worlds solution
> CDMA2000 will capture the majority of 3G subscribers for at least the next three years. Some 2G operators, particularly in Asia, will be forced to reevaluate their 3G strategies. CDMA450, a CDMA2000 solution for the 450 MHz band, is particularly attractive to operators in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Africa."
> This mail was sent to address tc7991_at_netvigator.com
> Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
Received on Fri Nov 22 09:08:21 2002