If lte is gsm, then what's the CDMA 4g?

[Ascertion]

Wimax? Or does it just stop at EvDo revC?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Boosted20V]

Wimax? Or does it just stop at EvDo revC?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

UMB.

[pyroscott]

Don't let AJ or Robert see you calling LTE a GSM technology... Blasphemy

[lordsutch]

Technically the hypothetical UMB was CDMA's (3GPP2's) answer to LTE. WiMax and WiMax Advanced was a whole different industry grouping.

 

LTE is an evolution (hence the "E") of the ideas behind GSM and UMTS (W-CDMA, including HSPA etc.), but airside it's yet another incompatible thing, so it's not really GSM except that pretty much everyone in the GSM camp went GSM->UMTS->LTE and in the US SIM cards have mostly been associated with GSM carriers but not with CDMA carriers (CDMA SIMs do exist but no carrier in the US uses them - even on Verizon, the user-removable SIM only does LTE and sometimes GSM roaming).

[Ascertion]

Don't let AJ or Robert see you calling LTE a GSM technology... Blasphemy

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[bigsnake49]

Technically the hypothetical UMB was CDMA's (3GPP2's) answer to LTE. WiMax and WiMax Advanced was a whole different industry grouping.

 

LTE is an evolution (hence the "E") of the ideas behind GSM and UMTS (W-CDMA, including HSPA etc.), but airside it's yet another incompatible thing, so it's not really GSM except that pretty much everyone in the GSM camp went GSM->UMTS->LTE and in the US SIM cards have mostly been associated with GSM carriers but not with CDMA carriers (CDMA SIMs do exist but no carrier in the US uses them - even on Verizon, the user-removable SIM only does LTE and sometimes GSM roaming).

 

There's absolutely nothing GSM abt LTE. Not the air protocol nor the backend.

[miguell2]

LTE is to GSM as German is to English or Latin is to Spanish. Am I right?

[iansltx]

LTE is to GSM as German is to English or Latin is to Spanish. Am I right?

 

LTE has more in common with WiMAX and 802.11n WiFi than it does with W-CDMA or GSM. Heck, it has more in common with iDEN than it does with GSM.

 

The big reason LTE is associated with GSM, bigger even than the fact that both techs always use SIMs, is that both LTE and GSM/UMTS/HSPA came from the same standards body: 3GPP. WiMAX came from IEEE, like WiFi. CDMA is a Qualcomm tech, but its standards branch has wound up as 3GPP2.

[Boosted20V]

LTE has more in common with WiMAX and 802.11n WiFi than it does with W-CDMA or GSM. Heck, it has more in common with iDEN than it does with GSM.

 

The big reason LTE is associated with GSM, bigger even than the fact that both techs always use SIMs, is that both LTE and GSM/UMTS/HSPA came from the same standards body: 3GPP. WiMAX came from IEEE, like WiFi. CDMA is a Qualcomm tech, but its standards branch has wound up as 3GPP2.

 

I know Qualcomm's licensing revenues are doing very nicely seeing as 3G EVDO/CDMA tech is still heavily used and will be around for quite a while (especially in other parts of the world) but... in the future it must hurt them that they have no 4G tech to collect licensing revenue from.

[iansltx]

I know Qualcomm's licensing revenues are doing very nicely seeing as 3G EVDO/CDMA tech is still heavily used and will be around for quite a while (especially in other parts of the world) but... in the future it must hurt them that they have no 4G tech to collect licensing revenue from.

 

I think they'll be okay. There's this little think called Snapdragon that they've been making for awhile. I don't see that going out of style any time soon.

[Boosted20V]

I think they'll be okay. There's this little think called Snapdragon that they've been making for awhile. I don't see that going out of style any time soon.

 

I agree they've done a good job diversifying... also picking up ATI's mobile graphics division was excellent. I don't think the margin on the processors is near as nice as on licensing tech though!

[Fraydog]

Qualcomm has a nice chunk of the LTE patent pool. It isn't as if they went away empty handed when they shut down UMB development.

[Boosted20V]

Qualcomm has a nice chunk of the LTE patent pool. It isn't as if they went away empty handed when they shut down UMB development.

 

I've been curious about that. Do you know exactly what patents they control?

[Fraydog]

Sorry, I don't.

 

This article might explain things better than I can.

 

http://m.networkworld.com/news/2012/042612-lte-patent-wars-258713.html#mobify-bookmark

[Boosted20V]

Sorry, I don't.

 

This article might explain things better than I can.

 

http://m.networkworl...mobify-bookmark

 

Haha, I just found the same article. Looks like Samsung/Qualcomm and Intel have solid portfolios. Intel did a good job acquiring patents from other players it looks like.

[EXLINE]

Why exactly was UMB development axed? Was it because they "projected" LTE to be more popular. Wasn't it cancelled along time ago?

[Fraydog]

Why exactly was UMB development axed? Was it because they "projected" LTE to be more popular. Wasn't it cancelled along time ago?

 

Mainly it died on the vine because Verizon chose LTE and Sprint was already committed to WiMax.

[jhtechservices]

I agree, Qualcomm isn't going anywhere. And EvDo Rev B is being used on GoGo's in-flight system for their "new" faster mobile broadband. So Qualcomm has a few revenue sources...

[miguell2]

So how difficult would be to upgrade to Rev B? It is not just a software update I take.

[WiWavelength]

So how difficult would be to upgrade to Rev B? It is not just a software update I take.

 

EV-DO Rev B single carrier is likely just a software upgrade, as it adds in 64-QAM DRCs. But EV-DO Rev B multi carrier is a hardware upgrade, since the number of carrier channels is scalable, and those multiple carrier channels have to coordinate data throughput.

 

AJ

[Ascertion]

 

EV-DO Rev B single carrier is likely just a software upgrade, as it adds in 64-QAM DRCs. But EV-DO Rev B multi carrier is a hardware upgrade, since the number of carrier channels is scalable, and those multiple carrier channels have to coordinate data throughput.

 

AJ

It would shut all of the HSDPA+ fanboys up if there was a CDMA carrier that had revB. Isn't revB friendly to battery too? I'm just assuming its not very cost efficient for Sprint, otherwise we'd probably have it.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[lilotimz]

I assume the problem is not cost efficiency but the fact that everything is to be replaced by NV hardware so why bother with getting new hardware just for rev B. Not to mention... I doubt it'd help that most sprint towers are over capacity and bogged down thanks to the T1 lines.

[Ascertion]

I assume the problem is not cost efficiency but the fact that everything is to be replaced by NV hardware so why bother with getting new hardware just for rev B. Not to mention... I doubt it'd help that most sprint towers are over capacity and bogged down thanks to the T1 lines.

Sprints adding back haul to every tower and depending on the type of RevB (as AJ mentioned), it could be software upgrade. Sprint will definitely have the right amount of back haul if the site is sporting lte speeds.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[lilotimz]

Sprints adding back haul to every tower and depending on the type of RevB (as AJ mentioned), it could be software upgrade. Sprint will definitely have the right amount of back haul if the site is sporting lte speeds.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm taking about people yelling for ReV. B last year before NV upgrades began. I remember people were complaining everywhere to upgrade to Rev B and idiots cancelling contracts because they didn't. Good times. It was all based on rumors and conjectures iirc.

 

Nowadays, sprint towers with NV and upgraded backhaul has the potential to do a lot more things than just a year before so rev B is definitely possible.

[Fraydog]

The problem with Rev. B is that there can't be a lot of devices out there supporting it. The market is, for better or worse, standardizing around LTE.