SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" -shares plunged 25.2 percent

On 2008-01-31, Mark Crispin <MRC@Washington.EDU> wrote:
> Close, but not quite correct. There is no GSM in Japan, but not "all
> companies" support UMTS.

Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only
two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two
mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that
is the only phone I have which works there.

> Willcom has a PHS network. IIRC, PHS is also used by a carrier in Taiwan.

I think one of the China landline carriers (China Netcom?) also runs a
substantial PHS network. I read somewhere that they are closing in on
100 million subscribers, which anywhere else would be a huge number but
which, in China, is only 15% of the market.

> The bottom line is that most US phones do NOT roam in Japan. Only a phone
> with UMTS in the 2100 band will roam in Japan. IIRC, T-Mobile and AT&T
> each have one smartphone that has that.

I've not heard of a T-Mobile phone which has it. AT&T has one.

Dennis Ferguson

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
> Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only
> two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two
> mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that
> is the only phone I have which works there.

I bet the roaming charges are horrendous. It's a lot cheaper to rent a
USIM from Softbank at the airport (105 yen/day + call charges) if you have
an unlocked UMTS 2100 capable phone. Softbank and the other carriers will
also rent a phone if you want to do that.

> I think one of the China landline carriers (China Netcom?) also runs a
> substantial PHS network.

I wouldn't be surprised. PHS is popular in East Asia.

> I've not heard of a T-Mobile phone which has it. AT&T has one.

I forget which T-Mobile phone does UMTS 2100, but IIRC it's one of the
smartphones. T-Mobile does have a roaming agreement with Softbank.

-- 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.

On 2008-01-31, Mark Crispin <mrc@Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
>> Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only
>> two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two
>> mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that
>> is the only phone I have which works there.
>
> I bet the roaming charges are horrendous. It's a lot cheaper to rent a
> USIM from Softbank at the airport (105 yen/day + call charges) if you have
> an unlocked UMTS 2100 capable phone. Softbank and the other carriers will
> also rent a phone if you want to do that.

Roaming isn't so bad now. I have in the past roamed there with
a Hong Kong SIM, at about $1/minute incoming, but my Celtrek SIM costs
24 cents/minute incoming, with a US inbound number (compared to 12 or 15
cents/minute to forward US calls to a Japan mobile).

I didn't know you could just rent the SIM, thanks for that. When I
asked before (a while ago now) they always wanted 800 or 1000 yen per day
for a phone which, since I've never stayed more than a day or two, was
beyond my cost/convenience threshold. If I stay for a while I'll
consider that (the outbound call rates are a bit silly though).

Dennis Ferguson

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
>

Alltel is making some pretty good inroads and may largely pick up the slack
from Sprint ... especially if they start selling assets.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>>
>
> Alltel is making some pretty good inroads and may largely pick up the slack
> from Sprint ... especially if they start selling assets.

In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
countries where there are already established GSM networks. In
percentage terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share.
However if and when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that
will be a blow to CDMA.

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA!
>
> Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different.
>

They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
but not anytime soon.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
>>
>>Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
>>did it come from?
>
> He's wrong, of course, but still desperately clinging to his forecast
> that Verizon and Sprint will take over the U.S. market.
>

Nah ... I think he said CDMA based technology is the way of the future. AT&T
is already using it in their data networks and my supposition is that in the
not to distant future voice networks will be legacy and we will all have
mobile phones that are really voice over data similar to VoIP today. The
analogy might be to make every handset EVDO only and run a VoIP client on it
connected to a phone number via SIP. AT&T and all the rest will move foward,
and depending on technological evolution, it will be more expensive for some
than for others. But, the OP is most likely correct, the future are
technologies based on CDMA.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are
> totally unrelated to CDMA. They paid a huge premium for Nextel, because
> of Nextel's high ARPU, and thought they could convert all those Nextel
> iDEN customers into Sprint customers. Instead, those customers fled to
> other carriers.
>
> OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality
> networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to
> provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success
> of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs
> because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you
> need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide
> equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this,
> and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance,
> claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their
> margins would increase to close to Verizon's.

Think of how many times a Verizon caller makes a call and only one person can
hear the other, but not the reverse. Rarely. AT&T or T-Mobile ... MUCH more
frequent. I had a contract for a company out in Delano, MN. Signal from
SprintPCS was almost non-existant. AT&T was alright in the parking lot due to
the lower cellular frequency they use ... Verizon was great (one to two "bars"
throughout the building). T-Mobile was MAX bars. Why? Because they managed
to make a deal with T-Mobile to put an antenna right on top of the building in
exchange for making it their "company mobile phone network". Everybody there
carried a T-Mobile phone. Do you know how many times that I heard, "Can you
hear me?" or "I can't hear you!" Too many to count. I don't know why
exactly, but apparently GSM uses different channels for each direction of
audio and one gets broken. The whole time I was there, I didn't have that
problem with Sprint PCS (or when it roamed to Verizon if I was lucky) or with
my Verizon phone [after I switched from Sprint PCS].

The only person with AT&T there that could get signal in the building without
standing at a window, was using TDMA (of course, it was Cingular then, but his
phone said AT&T :-)

Personally, I think CDMA to be the superior technology without doubt. The
problem only is that it is encumbered by patents from Qualcomm [they are evil]
and GSM is much older and was more entrenched in Europe and elsewhere before
CDMA saw the light of day in the American, Japanaese and Korean landscapes.

For me, I simply use what works best, reguardless of the technology, but it
happens to be Verizon Wireless here in Minnesota.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws Ness-Net <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> John, up to your old tricks again I see......
>
> Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
>
> N E X T E L
>
> is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
>
>

They thought they could convert Nextel over to CDMA and that their
push-to-talk would be a mature replacement for it. It was not the case. So,
not all Nextel people who moved on, went to Sprint and that is why they are
losing on Nextel. I think their goal is to shut of iDen, perhaps swap
spectrum and then bring up the new spectrum for data. It doesn't seem to be
going their way.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:13:41 GMT, "Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote:
>
>>Did Nextel take over Sprint?
>
> No. At the time, it was called a merger of equals, but I think most
> people will agree that Sprint acquired Nextel.
>

And it is Sprint Nextel ... not Nextel Sprint.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.attws Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline
>
> Were you ever a Sprint customer? I was, 2000-2005 for my wife's phone
> and 2004-2005 for both phones. The biggest problem at Sprint wasn't the
> network.
>

Yeah ... you got that right!

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
>>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline
>> Were you ever a Sprint customer? I was, 2000-2005 for my wife's phone
>> and 2004-2005 for both phones. The biggest problem at Sprint wasn't the
>> network.
>>
>
> Yeah ... you got that right!

OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network?

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network?

They didn't have too many network problems in my experience. Unfortunately,
two places that I had worked over a three year period had nearly zero
coverage, but that was a true anomoly as I found I had coverage just about
every where else that I went. The analog roaming up in the arrowhead of
Minnesota was great ... and Free!

But their billing systems and policies .... they can eat shit.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network?

For many people, the network was a problem. For me, it never was. Sprint
had good coverage along the lake, near my old house in Mentor on the Lake,
Ohio, long before Verizon and ATTWS/Cingular did, and ATT still might not
(I petitioned Verizon to add coverage down there, and they did, about 6-8
months after I asked. I didn't talk to ATT because I was a VZW customer
at the time).

Out here, in the rural little corner of northeast Apple Valley, CA, on
the edge of town where I used to rent a house, Sprint has a tower. I was
past the edge of Verizon coverage out there.

And in general, my wife and I never had a problem with Sprint's network.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On 2008-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>>
>>
>> Alltel is making some pretty good inroads and may largely pick up the slack
>> from Sprint ... especially if they start selling assets.
>
> In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
> countries where there are already established GSM networks. In
> percentage terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share.

Who are they taking that market share from? If I look at the GSM Association
and CDMA Development Group numbers, at the beginning of 2001 there were
420 million GSM/3GSM (that's what they call it) and 85 million
CDMAOne/CDMA2000 subscribers. In the fall of 2007 there were 2.57 billion
xGSM subscribers and 425 million CDMAx subscribers (with a total world
mobile market of 3.3 billion; 8% use something else). I can't find the
total world market for 2001, but while CDMAx might be gaining in share
of the overall market they're falling behind GSM in market share.

> However if and when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that
> will be a blow to CDMA.

I think it isn't the only one. Telefonica in Mexico shut down their
CDMA network last year, and while the Hong Kong CDMA operator (first
in the world) still runs their network they're down to offering exactly
one phone model which they never actually have in their stores (a Nokia
2112 at that, a blast from the past) so I think they're keeping the
network up mostly for roaming. This doesn't matter so much since
the huge bulk of the growth in subscribers these days is in developing
countries and CDMA is growing there (but not as fast as GSM).

Dennis Ferguson

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
> If I look at the GSM Association
> and CDMA Development Group numbers, at the beginning of 2001 there were
> 420 million GSM/3GSM (that's what they call it) and 85 million
> CDMAOne/CDMA2000 subscribers. In the fall of 2007 there were 2.57 billion
> xGSM subscribers and 425 million CDMAx subscribers (with a total world
> mobile market of 3.3 billion; 8% use something else).

Put another way, CDMA has a comparative market share of 16% of the
combined GSM+UMTS+CDMA market in 2007 vs. 20% in 2001.

Although UMTS is a 3G GSM successor rather than a CDMA successor, the fact
remains that it uses CDMA technology (hence the other name, W-CDMA).

I think that it is still entirely too soon to declare CDMA dead. Far more
likely is a what Verizon and Vodafone have already announced; a fusion of
effort towards LTE in 4G as opposed to UMB, and thus rendering the
question moot.

> I think it isn't the only one. Telefonica in Mexico shut down their
> CDMA network last year

There are still three other CDMA carriers in Mexico. Telefonica only had
a 2G network.

-- Mark --

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

How will that be a blow to CDMA? Your response doesn't make sense to me.

> In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
> countries where there are already established GSM networks. In percentage
> terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share. However if and
> when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that will be a blow to
> CDMA.

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> How will that be a blow to CDMA? Your response doesn't make sense to me.
>
>> In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
>> countries where there are already established GSM networks. In percentage
>> terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share. However if and
>> when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that will be a blow to
>> CDMA.

Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.

On 2008-02-02, Mark Crispin <MRC@Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
>> I think it isn't the only one. Telefonica in Mexico shut down their
>> CDMA network last year
>
> There are still three other CDMA carriers in Mexico. Telefonica only had
> a 2G network.

Not really. Iusacell and Unefon merged, but the merged company still
totals less than 4 million subscribers compared to 14 million for
Telefonica Movistar and approaching 50 million for Telcel. The Telmex
thing doesn't exist yet.

Note also that it may only be the leading edge. Telefonica also owns
(bought) CDMA networks in at least Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela,
Peru, Chile and Argentina, and I think they've stopped selling the CDMA
in favor of GSM everywhere.

The Telmex 450 MHz CDMA network is a good idea, actually. Mexico has
huge uncovered rural areas and I don't think anyone could afford
enough GSM towers to make a dent in that. The 450 MHz CDMA networks
give them maximum coverage with minimum investment.

Dennis Ferguson

On 1 Feb 2008 17:19:26 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60h2kuF1qvn4sU1@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA!
>>
>> Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different.
>
>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>but not anytime soon.

Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:13:13 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a32854$0$84205$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> Alltel is making some pretty good inroads and may largely pick up the slack
>> from Sprint ... especially if they start selling assets.
>
>In my world travels, I see more and more CDMA networks across Asia, in
>countries where there are already established GSM networks. In
>percentage terms, CDMA has been increasing its worldwide market share.
>However if and when Australia allows CDMA to replaced by NextG, that
>will be a blow to CDMA.

Actually just the opposite, as I've proven in past posts.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.

Next G is HSDPA.

--
Charles

Charles wrote:
> In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.
>
> Next G is HSDPA.

Which is W-CDMA.

In article <47a4725f$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Charles wrote:
> > In article <47a3e62b$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, I was referring to CDMA 2000. Of course NextG is also CDMA.
> >
> > Next G is HSDPA.
>
> Which is W-CDMA.

Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?

You could also say that all cell phones are the same since they are
radios. (to most people that would be true and good enough since they
don't care if a phone uses CDMA, W-CDMA, HSDPA, TDMA, GSM, LTE, etc,
they just want it to work)

Next G is HSDPA. Telstra plans to turn off it's CDMA network.

--
Charles

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>but not anytime soon.
>
> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>

Whatever you say John ... you know best.

Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
.... you know best.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>

There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

On 4 Feb 2008 17:37:31 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60p0qrF1rrm2lU1@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>>but not anytime soon.
>>
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>
>Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
>Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
>intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
>maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.

>But I defer to you
>... you know best.

Discourtesy only serves to make your case less persuasive. Likewise
your lack of anything to support your argument.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 4 Feb 2008 17:44:51 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote in <60p18jF1rrm2lU2@mid.individual.net>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
>
>There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name! Further,
>Qualcomm does hold patents on some of the intellectual property used in
>W-CDMA, so every W-CDMA phone out there is purchased with some of it going to
>Qualcomm. Qualcomm is the sole holder of CDMA (and I believe CDMA-2000)
>patents, so clearly, there is a trend towards opening the technology to be
>truly open, like GSM, but so far, it is still based enough on Qualcomm's CDMA
>technology that they continue to reap the benefits of this in W-CDMA sales.

There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held
by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm
hasn't been doing very well.

<http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011>
Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC
August 17, 2007

Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal
foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on
the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and
handsets.

According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its
CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims
Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling
products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents.

...

The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning
the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and
cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom.

...

In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that
Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving
technology.

The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless
communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that
operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and
T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use
equipment with Qualcomm chips.

<http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-in-qualcomm-patent-case/>
Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case
December 15, 2007

A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an
initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmaker’s patent
infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia.

The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on
the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomm’s patents. In
addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid.

The judge’s initial determination will now be reviewed by the
International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling
by April 14, 2008.


Apology accepted.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <60p18jF1rrm2lU2@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why do you insist on pretending that CDMA and W-CDMA are the same?
> >
>
> There is a reason the they both have the acronym CDMA in their name!

The important thing is that they are not compatible, they are
incompatible, not that they have similar names. You can't use a CDMA
phone on a W-CDMA network or vice versa. It is silly to say they are
the same when you can't use one on a network that uses the other.

--
Charles

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in
>>> implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO,
>>> but not anytime soon.
>> Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM
>> infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster
>> the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000.
>>
>
> Whatever you say John ... you know best.
>
> Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the
> intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly
> maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you
> ... you know best.
>

GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North
American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked.
To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA
technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty
misguided.

But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best...

g