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

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in
<47a75dca$0$36332$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>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...

Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is
totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air
interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS
(infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000.

Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is
a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese.

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