how-to block ads
|
|  
CurGeorge8
join:2005-05-02
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: EV-DO? The ironic thing with your post is that the company playing catch up is using HSDPA. The companys with the most widely deployed EVDO are both using CDMA services. | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: EV-DO? Only in the U.S.
CDMA subs = +377million, 75 million EVDO
GSM subs = +2.5 billion, +138 million UMTS/HSDPA
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
anonnie
@sbcglobal.net
| said by Perhaps your telcos should consider joining most of the rest of the world and investing in GSM / UMTS / HSDPA technology instead of CDMA.
Economies of scale, cheaper deployments, better peer review of technologies as you actually have peers to review them, all good! Yes it does mean not keeping it in the USA by handing money to Qualcomm but surely a good thing.
Yours, with love from a 3.6Mbit/s HSDPA network.
[/BQUOTE :said by music4praise  :Another ironic thing is that HSDPA uses a version of CDMA as the air interface (W-CDMA to be specific). The particular version of CDMA was not developed by Qualcomm but a number of Qualcomm patents are involved. What is more ironic is that ATT uses GSM and NOT CDMA. | |
| music4praise
join:2006-02-22
Big Rapids, MI | Another ironic thing is that HSDPA uses a version of CDMA as the air interface (W-CDMA to be specific). The particular version of CDMA was not developed by Qualcomm but a number of Qualcomm patents are involved. | |
| 
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
| As has been pointed out HSDPA *is* a CDMA technology, just not one that is part of the CDMAOne/CDMA2000 evolutionary path.
That said, though, from what I've read, I get the idea that most of the chipsets that have been manufactured in the last several years, and will be manufactured going forward, are or will be physically able to support most popular air interface standards. What standards they are actually able to access are determined by how the software controlling the radio functions is implemented on the handset.
This being the case, the technical impediments to cross-interface roaming are not insurmountable, and Sprint and ATTM (just as an example) could roam on each others' networks in the U.S. even right now, if they wanted to spend a relatively small additional amount to add such capabilities to the software in their handsets.
According to this view, the fact that such agreements don't exist is at least as attributable to business decisions as it is to technical limitations, and all the wrangling about evolutionary paths, etc., isn't anywhere near as significant, really, as it's played up to be.
(This seems to make sense to me, especially given the fact that CDMA/GSM handsets have existed for sometime, e.g., Sprint's Samsung IP-830w smartphone, which will roam on GSM 1900 internationally, but not on T-Mo or ATTM.)
Can someone with the requisite technical knowledge weigh in on this? | |
| | | |
|
·