"Nokia needs device revamp to regain U.S. ground: analysts"
SMS
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
Jeremy...@gmail.com
"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?
Mark Crispin
> "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
>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
>
>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
> 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
> >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.
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
> 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 Crispin
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.
SMS
> 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
> 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.
SMS
> 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
>> 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.
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.
SMS
> On Sat, 30 Sep 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.
>> 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?
"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
>> 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.
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.
Mutlley
SMS
>> there are not
>> GSM/AMPS handsets. A lot of Alaskans switched from TDMA/AMPS to
>> CDMA/AMPS, rather than give up AMPS for GSM.
>
> 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/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=newsearch
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
wrote in <45188d5c$0$96148$742e...@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/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas
wrote in <qm60i2h0ov2ab6788...@4ax.com>:
>Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>>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.
>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.
g
>
>
> 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/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_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
<452d635d$0$34565$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app." ;)
g
>>
>> 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." ;)
>
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
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.
g
> 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
<452d8a0f$0$34489$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>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. [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. ;)
g
> 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
John Navas
<452d9689$0$34536$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>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.
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.
>> 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. ;)
--
tmo...@acm.org
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
news:716ri29febaf9ho4f...@4ax.com:
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.
g
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <w...@t.me.worry> wrote in
> <452d9689$0$34536$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>> 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'd be interested to hear your description of the theorem and how it is
to be correctly interpreted.
>> WiMax presently has a definition.
>
> 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.
>> You seemed to think WiMax would replace CDMA.
>
> CMDA *2000*. What part of "dual modes (WiMAX+CDMA 2000)" was unclear?
The part where you responded to what I said:
>> 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.
>
by writing:
> I sure can: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app." ;)
>> 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.
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...
>> 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.
>
ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
replaced.
>> 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.
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
<452dba55$0$34562$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:00 -0700, g <w...@t.me.worry> wrote in
>> <452d9689$0$34536$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>> 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'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.
>>> WiMax presently has a definition.
>>
>> 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.
[shrug]
>>> 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.
>
>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".
>>> 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.
>
>ah, but you did say you could think of a reason that all CDMA would be
>replaced.
Nope. Read more carefully.
>>> 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.
>
>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.
g
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
tmo...@acm.org
> decent VoIP call but either way it's quite a bit worse than 10 kbps which
> is roughly what conventional audio requires.
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.
g
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
<G42dnS4GSuIQFLPY...@comcast.com>:
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/>.
John Navas
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]
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<simqi25qtqsp5avq2...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:15:58 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>wrote in <45188d5c$0$96148$742e...@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/html/businesstechnology/2003298579_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/>
...
...
...
[MORE]
--
Diamond Dave
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
><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.
I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
Dave
John Navas
<dmine45...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<rtpfj21isj3olvalg...@4ax.com>:
Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
Todd Allcock
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...
Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?
Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
with "long term shrinking markets."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Diamond Dave
<elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
>low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
>certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
>with "long term shrinking markets."
Nokia has never done well in the American market. I used to have a
Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
looked back.
Dave
Nessnet
Nokia sold shit CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
Basic business.
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ii5gj297q74b6jgtg...@4ax.com...
Todd Allcock
> Nokia has never done well in the American market.
If by "done well" you mean you never liked their phones, I'll accept that.
However, in terms of sales, Nokia ruled the US for virtually all of the
1990s and the first couple years of this century, finally
losing it to Motorola a year or two ago.
> I used to have a
> Nokia phone back in the AMPS days. A lousy phone. I never used then
> when I went to GSM and later to CDMA. Went to Motorola and never
> looked back.
>
> Dave
Really. I was the opposite. Almost every phone I've owned has been a
Nokia- three AMPS, five TDMA, and three GSM. I tried a Moto StarTac, and
an Ericsson flip back in the TDMA days, and always went back to Nokia.
My favorite phone ever (considering the day and age it was around) was
the Nokia 8290. Six years ago I had a phone that was still small by
today's standards, wighed nothing, had good receptionand even rudimentary
data connectivity. It's still my "hostile environment" phone- the phone
I take places I'd never take my current, far more fragile PDA phone phone
(the beach, for example.)
My current phone is an HTC Windows Mobile-based PPC. I think Nokia has
lost it recently, as if they're trying to make their phones look as
"wild" as possible instead of ergonomically useful. I assume it's a
variant of the "if you throw enough s**t at the wall..." theory- if they
release 20 goofy looking phones a year, one of them HAS to "click" with
the public and become the next RAZR, right? ;-)
George
> There is a bottom line here.
>
> Nokia sold shit CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
> Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
>
> Basic business.
It was more than that. They couldn't get their CDMA designs past the
carriers acceptance testing. The few that did get thru then fell into
the worst performer category as you described.
Michael Wise
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
> >leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
> >their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>
> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
Great, then why bother such continued cross-postings to
alt.cellular.verizon? Its OT for the n.g.
--Mike
Dennis Ferguson
> At 20 Oct 2006 00:22:08 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Nokia is leaving the CDMA 2000 market (not the WCDMA market) because "it
>> sees [it] as a shrinking market in the longer term".
>
> I'll take "What is Nokia's Official Corporate Excuse for Total Failure in
> the CDMA Market?" for $1000, Alex...
>
> Seriously, we're talking about Nokia, who'll pump out 6 different
> versions of the same phone for a carrier with an 8% market share in Outer
> Mongolia, yet Verizon and Sprint, controlling over half the US market are
> too small a market for them? The same manufacture who designed and
> produced a one-shot GAIT phone for a single client (Cingular), and
> designed and built a new TDMA handset (the 3560) while both major US TDMA
> carriers were in the midst of their conversion to GSM?
I think Nokia's problem with CDMA is that they don't like Qualcomm, or
at least paying licensing fees to Qualcomm. I seem to remember Nokia
and Qualcomm involved in litigation over some of Qualcomm's CDMA patents
a few years ago, and Nokia is the only company I know which has managed to
develop IS-95/CDMA2000 mobile phones without the use of Qualcomm chips or
cores (to minimize the use of licensed Qualcomm intellectual property).
I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
very well.
It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
free and open, relatively speaking. I guess Nokia decided they could
make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market without
having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
to do so.
Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company ownership
of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.
> Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation- just
> low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
> certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to do
> with "long term shrinking markets."
Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were exceedingly
innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else, they
managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.
Dennis Ferguson
Todd Allcock
> I think the latter is actually quite an admirable achievement, though
> it is unfortunate that none of their CDMA phones actually worked
> very well.
I agree completely. It might be a more interesting wireless world today
if Nokia had managed to pull off a decent Qualcomm-less CDMA chip.
> I guess Nokia decided they could
> make a good living by dominating the bigger portion of the market
without
> having to make Qualcomm rich at the same time, and took the opportunity
> to do so.
I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
need a marketing excuse!
>
> Note that (to make clear my biases) I think CDMA2000 is superior
> technology, in both principle and practice, but the one-company
ownership
> of the technology bugs me a bit. I guess it bugged Nokia more.
Agreed. I think CDMA is superior in many ways, but from _my_ end user
standpoint, the ability to change phones without involving my carrier,
and select phones from outside of my carrier's official (and often
"crippled" offerings trumps the technology advantages of CDMA. (This, of
course, is not a technology limitation, just the business decisions of
Sprint and Verizon.)
> > Nokia has yet to produce a single CDMA handset with any innovation-
just
> > low-end CDMA knockoffs of their low-end GSM (and TDMA) phones. I
> > certainly don't blame them for bailing on CDMA, but it has nothing to
do
> > with "long term shrinking markets."
>
> Actually I think at a technical level Nokia's CDMA handsets were
exceedingly
> innovative compared to everything else's since, unlike everyone else,
they
> managed to build them from scratch without use of Qualcomm silicon or
> cores. The phones just didn't work all that well.
You are correct- I was really talking about feature sets rather than
innovation "under the hood." There was nothing compelling in any Nokia
CDMA handset's features that would make customers buy them in enough
numbers to justify Nokia investing more into perfecting their CDMA
chipsets. The world has enough low-end CDMA candy-bar phones to need one
that doesn't work as well, and there are plenty of GSM carriers in the
world to keep Nokia busy building phones that don't enrich Qualcomm.
SMS
> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess as
> much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA because
> it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone else's
> technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA. They don't
> need a marketing excuse!
Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing its
market share in other countries around the world. Of course outside of
the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is easy when
you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is expanding CDMA
like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to happen in India.
SMS
> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
> free and open, relatively speaking.
Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.
CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).
It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
range is not as much of an issue.
But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.
John Navas
wrote in <453bad68$0$88635$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Total nonsense.
John Navas
wrote in <453bb094$0$88663$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> It is the case that, while the USA managed to bully CDMA2000 through
>> the ITU as a second 3G phone international "standard", IS-95/CDMA2000 is
>> actually the proprietary technology of a single company to an extent
>> that makes GSM and WCDMA (which have their own IPR problems) look quite
>> free and open, relatively speaking.
>
>Well GSM anyway. W-CDMA is still CDMA, and Qualcomm still gets royalties.
Not true, as I've explained previously.
>CDMA was the perfect technology for the U.S., where spectrum efficiency
>was of paramount importance, and where the longer range of CDMA made it
>more suitable for eventual replacement of rural AMPS. This is why CDMA
>continues to be the dominant technology in the U.S. and why it continues
>to gain market share (though with Sprint's declining fortunes, I think
>that CDMA's market share will begin to stabilize and not keep going up).
Not true.
>It has less advantages in densely populated countries, such as most of
>Western Europe, where spectrum was not as limited, and where longer
>range is not as much of an issue.
>
>But yes, Nokia, and other phone manufacturers despise Qualcomm, much as
>memory manufacturers despise Rambus. In Qualcomm's case, their patents
>are ironclad, unlike Rambus's patents.
Not true.
0 for 3.
Joe
WCDMA?
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ii5gj297q74b6jgtg...@4ax.com...
John Navas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:57:48 -0400, "Joe" <a...@xyz.org> wrote in
<12k3t21...@corp.supernews.com>:
Imran
http://www.mobileisgood.com/CDMA2000_evolution.html
http://www.mobileisgood.com/WhatIsUMTS.html (second one for W-CDMA)
"Joe" <a...@xyz.org> wrote in message
news:12k3t21...@corp.supernews.com...
news.verizon.net
As I see it 0 for 0 - and alot of BS....
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:q0i3k2hogj0gnrtul...@4ax.com...
>
> Not true, as I've explained previously.
>
> Not true.
Scott
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:42:00 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote in <453bad68$0$88635$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> I agree again. I really wasn't knocking Nokia's technical prowess
>>> as much as ridiculing their excuse that they're getting out of CDMA
>>> because it's a losing market share. Not wanting to license someone
>>> else's technology is a perfectly valid reason not to play in CDMA.
>>> They don't need a marketing excuse!
>>
>>Especially since CDMA is actually gaining market share. CDMA has more
>>subscribers than any other technology in the U.S., and is increasing
>>its market share in other countries around the world. Of course
>>outside of the U.S., except for Korea, increasing your market share is
>>easy when you are starting from almost nothing. Still, China is
>>expanding CDMA like crazy, and it still isn't clear what's going to
>>happen in India.
>
> Total nonsense.
>
Prove it.
SMS
Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market, due to their almost
total lack of CDMA phones. Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
being number one in the U.S. a fantasy. They really are going to have to
re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
growing markets like China.
SMS
> Nessnet wrote:
>> There is a bottom line here.
>>
>> Nokia sold shit CDMA devices. The market reacted by not buying them.
>> Nokia decided to get out because they were not selling anything.
>>
>> Basic business.
>
> It was more than that. They couldn't get their CDMA designs past the
> carriers acceptance testing. The few that did get thru then fell into
> the worst performer category as you described.
However the bowling game is better than the Motorola games.
John Navas
wrote in <45497ffe$0$88681$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Diamond Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:34 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <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.
>>
>> I guess you'd care if you had a GSM phone on a GSM carrier. Nokia is
>> leaving the CDMA market, which is fine by me because I don't care for
>> their phones anyhow - GSM or CDMA.
>
>Nokia is far behind Motorola in the U.S. market,
Yes.
>due to their almost
>total lack of CDMA phones.
No. The real factor, as confirmed by authoritative sources, is the
RAZR, which has been phenomenally successful in the USA.
>Since CDMA is the leading technology in the
>U.S., with more subscribers than GSM, it really makes Nokia's goal of
>being number one in the U.S. a fantasy.
Nokia is actually abandoning CDMA2000 (not "CMDA") because it's a
"shrinking" market, focusing instead on the growing market, W-CDMA
(UMTS/HSDPA), a major blow to Qualcomm. Sprint's decision to move to
WiMAX is another major blow to Qualcomm and CDMA2000.
>They really are going to have to
>re-enter the CDMA market at some point, as CDMA continues to expand in
>growing markets like China.
Wishful thinking.
Dennis Ferguson
Bad example "growing market", maybe:
http://www.mwjournal.com/News/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_3476
"[In China] Market reports show revenue from CDMA service fell 1.3 percent
during the first half of 2006 and that profit margin was down 3.3 percent"
Poor China Unicom got stuck with their CDMA network, in addition to
GSM, as part of negotiations (with guess who?) for China's entry into
the WTO. Unicom's CDMA subscriber base is growing at less than half
the rate for Unicom's GSM, and (according to the Hong Kong newspaper)
Unicom is losing overall market share to China Mobile at a fair clip.
I like CDMA just fine, but it is worth keeping the respective sizes
of the worldwide markets in perspective. China alone has 20% more GSM
subscribers than CDG estimates of CDMA2000 subscribers in the
entire world.
Dennis Ferguson