Verizon leaping ahead with EV-DO

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html


--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.
37 answers Last reply
More about verizon leaping ahead
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <t8GdnfEpBPOifOndRVn-tA@comcast.com>, root@[127.0.0.1]
    says...
    >
    > http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
    >
    >
    >

    Interesting. 4 months old, but interesting. And I'll believe it
    when it's rolled out fully. It's easy to say you're doing it. it's
    another to actually do it.

    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:20:55 -0400, "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]>
    wrote:

    >http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html

    Rolling out EV-DO is an interesting and risky venture for multiple
    reasons.

    Part of the carrier's spectrum is dedicated to data only with EV-DO.
    This implies that, even under "emergency loads", which the FCC is
    encouraging carriers to handle, that EV-DO spectrum is "untouchable"
    for voice.

    The carriers using EV-DO hope that that data-only spectrum will be
    well utilized. That remains to be seen and is another risk.

    One would think that Verizon Wireless would, eventually, like to
    migrate their especially heavy peak-load voice areas to EV-DV for the
    gains in voice capacity. Since EV-DV is also data capable,
    simultaneously, in the same spectrum, does EV-DO have a long term
    future for carriers that don't have entirely separate frequency ranges
    for it?

    Only time will tell.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <t8GdnfEpBPOifOndRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
    "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

    > http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html

    April 8, 2004 is old news?

    Says they expect to complete end of 2005.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
    > In article <t8GdnfEpBPOifOndRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
    > "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
    >
    >> http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
    >
    > April 8, 2004 is old news?

    Verizon's been *testing* EVDO in DC and San Diego for *months.*
    This is not news.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > This implies that, even under "emergency loads", which the FCC is
    > encouraging carriers to handle, that EV-DO spectrum is "untouchable"
    > for voice.

    Speaking of "risky", how can you guess at predictions based on an
    unknown implication??? Won't carriers also being going to VoIP
    on these high speed networks?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:37:33 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    >> This implies that, even under "emergency loads", which the FCC is
    >> encouraging carriers to handle, that EV-DO spectrum is "untouchable"
    >> for voice.
    >
    >Speaking of "risky", how can you guess at predictions based on an
    >unknown implication??? Won't carriers also being going to VoIP
    >on these high speed networks?

    Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    already on their wireless voice network?
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Steven J Sobol wrote:

    >>> http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
    >>
    >> April 8, 2004 is old news?
    >
    > Verizon's been *testing* EVDO in DC and San Diego for *months.*
    > This is not news.

    The news isn't Verizon doing EV-DO. The news is Walt Mossberg writing
    an article about it in the WSJ. That column is read by millions. It
    bothered me a tad that didn't mention Sprint or EV-DV, but what do you
    expect? EV-DV is for all practical purposes vaporware right now. If
    you want *fast* data speeds anywhere in major cities in the next year
    and a half, you have one choice (technical considerations of DO vs. DV
    notwithstanding).

    Nevertheless (as Microsoft has shown), selling vaporware *can* work...

    And Sprint could start *marketing* (instead of FUDding) cheap
    Vision-phone-laptop connections...


    --
    da
    ~~
    "OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
    to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    O/Siris wrote:

    >> http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html

    > Interesting. 4 months old, but interesting. And I'll believe it
    > when it's rolled out fully. It's easy to say you're doing it. it's
    > another to actually do it.

    Very true. And I sincerely doubt it will be rolled out *fully* (i.e.,
    in non-major metro areas) by the end of 2005.

    Nevertheless, they're going to pick up customers as a result of that
    article. Mindshare is everything.


    --
    da
    ~~
    "OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
    to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Donkey Agony <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

    > The news isn't Verizon doing EV-DO. The news is Walt Mossberg writing
    > an article about it in the WSJ. That column is read by millions. It
    > bothered me a tad that didn't mention Sprint or EV-DV, but what do you
    > expect? EV-DV is for all practical purposes vaporware right now.

    Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
    a flurry of press releases when that happens.

    > If
    > you want *fast* data speeds anywhere in major cities in the next year
    > and a half, you have one choice (technical considerations of DO vs. DV
    > notwithstanding).

    *nod*

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <8d3b70toe70bdsab4kimprm691s83ooke1@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    > their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    > already on their wireless voice network?

    one word answer

    Capacity
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:i6qdnX9OSLM-L-jd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    > Donkey Agony <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
    >
    > > The news isn't Verizon doing EV-DO. The news is Walt Mossberg writing
    > > an article about it in the WSJ. That column is read by millions. It
    > > bothered me a tad that didn't mention Sprint or EV-DV, but what do you
    > > expect? EV-DV is for all practical purposes vaporware right now.
    >
    > Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
    > a flurry of press releases when that happens.
    >
    > > If
    > > you want *fast* data speeds anywhere in major cities in the next year
    > > and a half, you have one choice (technical considerations of DO vs. DV
    > > notwithstanding).
    >
    > *nod*

    True, but I'm in agreement with SPCS's direction in waiting to just go
    directly to DV nationwide, save that I'd like to see a quicker time table
    than 1st qtr 2006.

    Bob
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:20:55 -0400, "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
    >
    > Rolling out EV-DO is an interesting and risky venture for multiple
    > reasons.
    >
    > Part of the carrier's spectrum is dedicated to data only with EV-DO.
    > This implies that, even under "emergency loads", which the FCC is
    > encouraging carriers to handle, that EV-DO spectrum is "untouchable"
    > for voice.
    >
    > The carriers using EV-DO hope that that data-only spectrum will be
    > well utilized. That remains to be seen and is another risk.

    Currently, VZW's trial deployments in D.C. & San Diego are both
    CDMA1xEV-DO 1900. Undoubtedly, D.C. & San Diego were selected as test
    markets due to two factors: VZW holds a PCS D or PCS E 10 MHz license
    overlapping its Cellular B-side license in each market, and D.C.'s BAM
    Lucent infrastructure versus San Diego's AirTouch Nortel
    infrastructure allows VZW to test both vendor's EV-DO solutions. The
    more important conclusion, however, is that VZW has currently
    relegated EV-DO to PCS spectrum that was of little if any consequence
    to its voice or 1xRTT data capacity. However, VZW does not possess
    coincident PCS licenses in all of its major Cellular markets (no
    supplementary PCS spectrum in Charlotte, Denver, Detroit,
    Indianapolis, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, et
    al.) Thus, particularly in those markets, voice/1xRTT capacity could
    potentially suffer if existing CDMA carrier channels are subsequently
    devoted to EV-DO.

    If you are interested to know in which markets VZW does hold PCS
    spectrum, the maps that XFF & I have created are well-documented:

    http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/vzw_pcs.html
    http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/vzw_pcs_block.html

    > One would think that Verizon Wireless would, eventually, like to
    > migrate their especially heavy peak-load voice areas to EV-DV for the
    > gains in voice capacity. Since EV-DV is also data capable,
    > simultaneously, in the same spectrum, does EV-DO have a long term
    > future for carriers that don't have entirely separate frequency ranges
    > for it?
    >
    > Only time will tell.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>...
    > On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 01:20:55 -0400, "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html
    >
    > Rolling out EV-DO is an interesting and risky venture for multiple
    > reasons.
    >
    > Part of the carrier's spectrum is dedicated to data only with EV-DO.
    > This implies that, even under "emergency loads", which the FCC is
    > encouraging carriers to handle, that EV-DO spectrum is "untouchable"
    > for voice.
    >
    > The carriers using EV-DO hope that that data-only spectrum will be
    > well utilized. That remains to be seen and is another risk.

    Currently, VZW's trial deployments in D.C. & San Diego are both
    CDMA1xEV-DO 1900. Undoubtedly, D.C. & San Diego were selected as test
    markets due to two factors: VZW holds a PCS D or PCS E 10 MHz license
    overlapping its Cellular B-side license in each market, and D.C.'s BAM
    Lucent infrastructure versus San Diego's AirTouch Nortel
    infrastructure allows VZW to test both vendor's EV-DO solutions. The
    more important conclusion, however, is that VZW has currently
    relegated EV-DO to PCS spectrum that was of little if any consequence
    to its voice or 1xRTT data capacity. However, VZW does not possess
    coincident PCS licenses across all of its major Cellular markets (no
    supplementary PCS spectrum in Charlotte, Denver, Detroit,
    Indianapolis, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, et
    al.) Thus, particularly in those markets, voice/1xRTT capacity could
    potentially suffer if existing CDMA1x 800 carrier channels are
    subsequently
    devoted to EV-DO.

    FYI, if you are interested to know in which markets VZW does hold PCS
    spectrum, the maps that XFF & I have created are well-documented:

    http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/vzw_pcs.html
    http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/vzw_pcs_block.html

    > One would think that Verizon Wireless would, eventually, like to
    > migrate their especially heavy peak-load voice areas to EV-DV for the
    > gains in voice capacity. Since EV-DV is also data capable,
    > simultaneously, in the same spectrum, does EV-DO have a long term
    > future for carriers that don't have entirely separate frequency ranges
    > for it?

    Assuredly, 1xEV-DV - in the true spirit of CDMA - is the more
    efficient technology at balancing both voice & data capacity. Though
    there is some irony involved in the following statement - since both
    EV-DV & EV-DO use time-division scheduling techniques to dramatically
    improve Ec/Io thus also increase instantaneous data throughput - the
    hubristic flaw of EV-DO reminds me much of the inefficiency of GSM or
    IS-136 TDMA. In CDMA, unused capacity - in the form of power - can be
    fully distributed to other active users. But in the TDMA
    air-interfaces, unused timeslots sit inefficiently vacant. Since
    EV-DO dedicates carrier channels entirely to data, any unusued data
    capacity also sits inefficaciously disengaged and unavailable to
    voice, regardless of proportional demand.

    My primary concern - for both EV-DO & EV-DV - is that neither will
    ultimately be able to deliver upon promised broadband-like speeds.
    Shannon's classic equation shows us that capacity cannot simply be
    manufactured via technology alone. Increased capacity can only be
    distributed via fundamental improvements in bandwidth,
    signal-to-noise, or to a lesser degree also modulation agility - the
    last of which is closely-tied to signal-to-noise.

    The 1.2288 MHz channel at hypothetically 6 dB S/N can support a
    maximum capacity of approximately 2.85 Mbps. If the S/N can somehow
    be refined to 9 dB, theoretical capacity jumps to about 3.89 Mbps.
    Regardless, however, that capacity will be divided amongst all users
    of the channel. The greater the number of users, the less throughput
    available to each individual user. The overall channel capacity may
    be in the multi-megabit range - which is an impressive result over
    little more than a 1 MHz wireless channel - but no single user will
    approach that speed.

    In a nutshell, there is no alchemy involved in either EV-DO or EV-DV.
    Neither is a magic bullet. As the number of users of 3G data services
    will increase, the multi-megabit capacity will be continually
    subdivided into smaller & smaller individual pieces. As usage
    multiplies, only increased bandwidth - additional 3G spectrum
    allocation - or improved signal-to-noise - more frequent spatial
    re-use (i.e. cell-splitting) - will maintain broadband-like 3G data
    capacity per user.

    Andrew
    --
    Andrew Shepherd
    cinema@ku.edu
    cinema@sprintpcs.com
    http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:i6qdnX9OSLM-L-jd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    >
    > Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
    > a flurry of press releases when that happens.
    >
    > --
    > Steven J. Sobol

    I always try to say that Verizon is migrating to EV-DV,
    but Sprint is *leapfrogging* to EV-DV.
    ---JRC---
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <rmarkoff-8FE0C0.06270208042004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
    rmarkoff@msn.com says...
    > April 8, 2004 is old news?
    >
    >

    The news did *not* come out April 8th, Phillie, and I'm certain you
    already knew that. Verizon announced it would be doing this at the
    end of last year.

    When WSJ chose to print it has nothing to do with how old the actual
    story is.

    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <8d3b70toe70bdsab4kimprm691s83ooke1@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu says...
    > Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    > their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    > already on their wireless voice network?
    >

    You *do* remember, don't you, that PTT and Ready Link are both IP
    voice services?

    --
    RØß
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>...
    >
    > One would think that Verizon Wireless would, eventually, like to
    > migrate their especially heavy peak-load voice areas to EV-DV for the
    > gains in voice capacity. Since EV-DV is also data capable,
    > simultaneously, in the same spectrum, does EV-DO have a long term
    > future for carriers that don't have entirely separate frequency ranges
    > for it?

    Another reason why Sprint PCS - unlike VZW - will be bypassing 1xEV-DO
    and instead evolving directly to the greater efficiencies &
    equilibrium of 1xEV-DV is the character of SPCS' spectrum assets.

    VZW, as the majority of its primary licenses are either Cellular 25
    MHz or PCS 30 MHz, averages about 30-35 MHz of combined Cellular &/or
    PCS spectrum per market. VZW has no major markets where it controls
    less than 25 MHz, no major markets where it holds only a 10 MHz PCS
    license.

    In comparison, SPCS averages approximately 20 MHz of purely PCS
    spectrum per market, including several notable markets (Cincinnati,
    Dayton, Norfolk, Richmond, et al.) where SPCS still controls only a
    single 10 MHz PCS D or PCS E license. The 10 MHz "Achilles' heel"
    markets were previously even more prevalent, but SPCS has been
    continually leveraging some of its PCS A or PCS B 30 MHz strongholds,
    partitioning &/or disaggregating 10 MHz portions of those licenses in
    spectrum transactions w/ primarily AT&TWS, receiving in exchange
    supplemental 10 MHz blocks upping the spectrum ante to a more
    consistent 20 MHz in notable markets (Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland,
    Houston, Jacksonville, Memphis, Raleigh-Durham, et al.) for which
    SPCS' had won at FCC auction only one 10 MHz license.

    The primary point, however, is that w/ some 10 MHz markets yet
    remaining, SPCS likely could not deploy EV-DO truly nationwide across
    those markets. Only three 1.25 MHz CDMA carrier channels can be
    deployed w/in a 10 MHz block. SPCS would have to devote or even
    reassign to EV-DO at least one of the three potential CDMA carriers in
    those markets at the consequential expense of 1xRTT voice/data
    capacity. EV-DV is the solution. All protocols - IS-95A, 1xRTT,
    EV-DV - and all services - voice, CSD, packet-data, VoIP - are
    supported over each & every EV-DV carrier, providing the necessary
    spectral efficiency even in those 10 MHz "Achilles' heel" markets.

    Andrew
    --
    Andrew Shepherd
    cinema@ku.edu
    cinema@sprintpcs.com
    http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:23:44 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <8d3b70toe70bdsab4kimprm691s83ooke1@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    >> Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    >> their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    >> already on their wireless voice network?
    >
    >one word answer
    >
    >Capacity

    So, they have to replace everyone's phone, re-engineer their entire
    data network to give priority to VoIP (thereby potentially knocking
    out data users) and up the capacity on their land-side data lines from
    each tower.

    I think it will be much cheaper to go EV-DV, and they'll get a larger
    voice capacity than your alternative!
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:09:44 GMT, O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <8d3b70toe70bdsab4kimprm691s83ooke1@4ax.com>,
    >paul@wren.cc.kux.edu says...
    >> Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    >> their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    >> already on their wireless voice network?
    >>
    >
    >You *do* remember, don't you, that PTT and Ready Link are both IP
    >voice services?

    And it "plays well" with voice, since it shares the same spectrum via
    cdma2000 1x. Another "vote" for EV-DV.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On 8 Apr 2004 21:57:14 -0700, cinema@ku.edu (Andrew Shepherd) wrote:

    >paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<b9na70prrrdc4cch3vr584bee2kg0mhfjh@4ax.com>...
    >The 1.2288 MHz channel at hypothetically 6 dB S/N can support a
    >maximum capacity of approximately 2.85 Mbps. If the S/N can somehow
    >be refined to 9 dB, theoretical capacity jumps to about 3.89 Mbps.
    >Regardless, however, that capacity will be divided amongst all users
    >of the channel. The greater the number of users, the less throughput
    >available to each individual user. The overall channel capacity may
    >be in the multi-megabit range - which is an impressive result over
    >little more than a 1 MHz wireless channel - but no single user will
    >approach that speed.

    Hi, Andrew. The difference between the "old" TDMA (regular Mux) and
    EV-DV (stat-Mux) is that if a mobile doesn't have anything "to say"
    TDMA will still reserve the slot. EV-DV doesn't "reserve" the slot.
    There are up to 64 ACTIVE users (not total users) per "frame". So, if
    there aren't 64 active users other mobiles with "more to say" can take
    up those slots within the frame.

    Now, whether the internet path to the customer's data from the
    wireless carrier's infrastructure can support a sustained
    multi-megabit throughput will be a major factor in determining whether
    the fastest throughput is available. This is not the responsibility of
    the wireless carrier, however.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    O/Siris <NON-ASCII EMAIL> wrote:
    >
    > Interesting. 4 months old, but interesting. And I'll believe it
    > when it's rolled out fully. It's easy to say you're doing it. it's
    > another to actually do it.
    >

    I do believe that Sprint PCS also has plans to roll out this technology.
    As we already know, Sprint likes to do all cities at once before
    announcing a service rather than city by city as Verizon does.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAdp0u1p0e3NXsrtERAtayAJsGPQMwOP+EbaqrN0//oElpl20kpQCfdLSv
    aSLKUYoCqIY+K/OKE530hxU=
    =iMH6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <ra7d705u3cb69urkoekon96ukfa05iaqm4@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:23:44 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <8d3b70toe70bdsab4kimprm691s83ooke1@4ax.com>,
    > > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    > >
    > >> Why would a carrier "push" the much higher bit rate of VoIP on your
    > >> their wireless data network when they have an optimized solution
    > >> already on their wireless voice network?
    > >
    > >one word answer
    > >
    > >Capacity
    >
    > So, they have to replace everyone's phone, re-engineer their entire
    > data network to give priority to VoIP (thereby potentially knocking
    > out data users) and up the capacity on their land-side data lines from
    > each tower.
    >
    > I think it will be much cheaper to go EV-DV, and they'll get a larger
    > voice capacity than your alternative!

    Who said replace everything with VoIP? They can just add **some** VoIP
    phones to even out capacity issues.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:13:02 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >> So, they have to replace everyone's phone, re-engineer their entire
    >> data network to give priority to VoIP (thereby potentially knocking
    >> out data users) and up the capacity on their land-side data lines from
    >> each tower.
    >>
    >> I think it will be much cheaper to go EV-DV, and they'll get a larger
    >> voice capacity than your alternative!
    >
    >Who said replace everything with VoIP? They can just add **some** VoIP
    >phones to even out capacity issues.

    If you want to do your best to try to get the most voice users through
    during an emergency, you'll have to replace as many phones as you can,
    if you want to use the data carrier (via VoIP) in an emergency.

    With your suggestion the re-engineering of the entire data network
    still would have to be done, along with some increase in capacity of
    the land-side data lines.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Migrating verizons? Get my shotgun!!


    John R. Copeland wrote:
    > "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:i6qdnX9OSLM-L-jd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    >
    >>Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
    >>a flurry of press releases when that happens.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Steven J. Sobol
    >
    >
    > I always try to say that Verizon is migrating to EV-DV,
    > but Sprint is *leapfrogging* to EV-DV.
    > ---JRC---
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <PRxdc.2411$k05.480@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > > "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    > > news:i6qdnX9OSLM-L-jd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
    > >
    > >>Both Sprint and Verizon will be migrating to EV-DV, and you can expect
    > >>a flurry of press releases when that happens.
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>Steven J. Sobol

    With Sprint likely a flurry of press releases long before its released;
    kinda like the press releases announcing the release of a Nokia phone
    that was no where to be found, (even now, 3 weeks later)
  26. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <9mbd70l5rnlui48icu5op05lp2njt02dpg@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:13:02 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> So, they have to replace everyone's phone, re-engineer their entire
    > >> data network to give priority to VoIP (thereby potentially knocking
    > >> out data users) and up the capacity on their land-side data lines from
    > >> each tower.
    > >>
    > >> I think it will be much cheaper to go EV-DV, and they'll get a larger
    > >> voice capacity than your alternative!
    > >
    > >Who said replace everything with VoIP? They can just add **some** VoIP
    > >phones to even out capacity issues.
    >
    > If you want to do your best to try to get the most voice users through
    > during an emergency, you'll have to replace as many phones as you can,
    > if you want to use the data carrier (via VoIP) in an emergency.
    >
    > With your suggestion the re-engineering of the entire data network
    > still would have to be done, along with some increase in capacity of
    > the land-side data lines.

    If the data network takes IP, then its not any re-engineering. IP is IP.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:21:58 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <9mbd70l5rnlui48icu5op05lp2njt02dpg@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >

    >If the data network takes IP, then its not any re-engineering. IP is IP.

    Voice demands more stringent network service than best effort data.
    $$$ (These things need to be thought about, beforehand!)

    From the customer service side: think of the support nightmare:

    Customer: "Hi, my call just droppedl".
    Service Rep: "Where were you, and what time was it?"
    Customer gives appropriate info.
    Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    using our regular voice network?"

    The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    to respond.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    > using our regular voice network?"
    >
    > The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    > to respond.

    Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.

    What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    VoIP.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    >> using our regular voice network?"
    >>
    >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    >> to respond.
    >
    >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    >
    >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    >VoIP.

    Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    solve the "emergency capacity" problem.

    It complicates matters more than it's worth!
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com>,
    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:

    > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    > > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    > >
    > >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    > >> using our regular voice network?"
    > >>
    > >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    > >> to respond.
    > >
    > >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    > >
    > >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    > >VoIP.
    >
    > Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    > solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
    >
    > It complicates matters more than it's worth!

    Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

    >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
    >
    > Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
    got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
    you have in your whole body.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:BOudndPUlJg73-rdRVn-sw@lmi.net...
    > Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
    >

    >
    > Perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth now, Phillie. Paul's
    > got more technical knowledge of CDMA and cellular in his left pinkie than
    > you have in your whole body.
    >

    I'd say tip of the pinkie.....don't give the troll fool too much credit.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    <paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    > > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    > >
    > >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    > >> using our regular voice network?"
    > >>
    > >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    > >> to respond.
    > >
    > >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    > >
    > >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    > >VoIP.
    >
    > Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    > solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
    >
    > It complicates matters more than it's worth!


    Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

    Bob
  34. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
    <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >
    ><paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    >news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    >> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    >> >> using our regular voice network?"
    >> >>
    >> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    >> >> to respond.
    >> >
    >> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    >> >
    >> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    >> >VoIP.
    >>
    >> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    >> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
    >>
    >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
    >
    >
    >Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply ...

    Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...
  35. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:37:35 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com>,
    > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    >> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was it
    >> >> using our regular voice network?"
    >> >>
    >> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know how
    >> >> to respond.
    >> >
    >> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    >> >
    >> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    >> >VoIP.
    >>
    >> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    >> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
    >>
    >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
    >
    >Of course, you say that and then its a self fulfilling prophecy.

    How so?
  36. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    <paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    news:v67g70pq5rt2k7a8cvj0team0kekr2bg8e@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 20:46:40 GMT, "Bob Smith"
    > <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    > >news:ug1e709g5t6b394drf3v28eq9jgahmsvco@4ax.com...
    > >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:52:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <qikd709arrjhddib2lqsgqume5la7apgrd@4ax.com>,
    > >> > paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> Service Rep: "Was your phone doing VoIP (for load balancing) or was
    it
    > >> >> using our regular voice network?"
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The customer probably won't understand the question, no less know
    how
    > >> >> to respond.
    > >> >
    > >> >Thats doing it your way; which is not what I suggested.
    > >> >
    > >> >What I suggested is selling maybe one model phone of 20 that would do
    > >> >VoIP.
    > >>
    > >> Yet the costly land-side network issues remain. And it still wouldn't
    > >> solve the "emergency capacity" problem.
    > >>
    > >> It complicates matters more than it's worth!
    > >
    > >
    > >Funny, but so do you, by bringing up old arguments that no longer apply
    ....
    >
    > Please elaborate as to which arguments no longer apply...

    Sorry for the confusion Paul. That comment wasn't direected to you, but our
    resident troll, Phillipe ... aka: Robert M. etc.

    Bob
    >
  37. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    paul@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote in message news:<cr7d70p0hjcjv6er3d4ti9u0e24mp3kte6@4ax.com>...
    >
    > Hi, Andrew. The difference between the "old" TDMA (regular Mux) and
    > EV-DV (stat-Mux) is that if a mobile doesn't have anything "to say"
    > TDMA will still reserve the slot. EV-DV doesn't "reserve" the slot.
    > There are up to 64 ACTIVE users (not total users) per "frame". So, if
    > there aren't 64 active users other mobiles with "more to say" can take
    > up those slots within the frame.

    Indeed. Like CDMA, the time-division air-interfaces - particularly
    GSM - have gotten on-board discontinuous transmission (DTX) to reduce
    average RF output for tighter spatial/frequency-reuse hence greater
    capacity. However, the TDMA interfaces are simply not nimble enough
    to truly recycle those available timeslots for other users when an
    active mobile "doesn't have anything 'to say.'"

    The beauty of EV-DV is the ability to dynamically apportion bandwidth
    from both time-division & code-division standpoints. Imagine that the
    time-channel varies the horizontal domain, while the code-channel
    fluctuates in the vertical domain. Time can be continuous or slotted,
    whereas Walsh code allotment can oscillate from one to very many - all
    dependent on the need of the particular user.

    On the other hand, EV-DO distributes all traffic Walsh codes - all or
    nothing - on a time-division basis. Conversely, 1xRTT assigns
    supplemental bandwidth not on a time-division basis but via
    variable-length Walsh spreading - shorter Walsh codes for higher data
    rates. But EV-DV can aggregate the majority of traffic Walsh codes
    for 3G packet-data on a time-division schedule - to maximize the Eb/No
    per user, while it can also retain a necessary supply of individual
    Walsh codes for continuous low-rate use - voice, CSD, WAP, VoIP, etc.
    If there are no low-rate users on the channel, EV-DV is almost
    indistinguishable from EV-DO.

    Andrew
    --
    Andrew Shepherd
    cinema@ku.edu
    cinema@sprintpcs.com
    http://www.ku.edu/home/cinema/
Ask a new question

Read More

Sprint PCS Outlook Express Verizon Internet Service Providers