NEWS: Skeptical Qualcomm crashes WiMax lovefest

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:54:25 GMT, John Navas wrote in :

As I posted in another thread: VoIP over WiMAX. Think dirt cheap "killer app."

Close. I suspect that an alternative method of yacking on the phone is not going to be much of a draw, especially with toll free calling. However, methinks that Cellular Video Phone might be a bit more compelling. Just one problem. The camera lens is on the wrong side of the cell phone (unless you use a headset).

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:32:24 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

I'm talking about cost to the carrier, not the consumer.

Video phone is one of those seemingly cool ideas that's never caught on. I'm not surprised, because I personally don't like the idea. Do you?

There are already phones with the lens in the correct side.

Nope. Not me. However, I know a few parents and kids that are literally addicted to various IM chat programs that support video. Also some commercial services that I'm sure would be interested in a cellular version of their exising bedroom camera offerings.

I just burned a few minutes looking at the handset pictures on verizonwireless.com. None of the ordinary or PDA phones have the camera on the users side.

Nokia has the N80, which does have a video phone feature and the camera on the user side:

's the only one that I could find and I'm not even sure if the lens near the top of the phone is the camera or a view finder.

I'm also not sure about the N93, which is more of a digital camera and video recorder, than a cell phone:

rest of the camera phones have the camera on the opposite side. What model where you thinking of?

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:10:07 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

Verizon tends to be behind the technology curve, so I suggest you check cell phone review websites in the future.

Nokia N70 Sony Ericsson K800i Sony Ericsson P990i

I wanted something that I could buy. The review sites are fine if I know the maker and model number, but not so great for searching for obscure features. I agree that Verizon is somewhat technically retarded.

|

will work. GSM/WCDMA only. The list of features does offer "Two-way video call capability". There's my killer application of the near future. If it can be done with UMTS today, it can be done better with Wi-Max.

|

"Video phone" is on the feature list. GSM/WCDMA only.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:01:49 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

I've had pretty good luck with site search engines, and with Google site-restricted searches.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical.

I personally don't see any real advantage to the consumer of WiMAX (as compared to Wi-Fi) over HSDPA. What am I missing?

Yep. "Video phone" is on the feature list. GSM/WCDMA only.

As I write, Verizon (CDMA 2000) tends to be behind the technology curve. Bluetooth was another notable case in point. Perhaps you should consider another carrier. ;)

Actually it is different than you think. They tend to be behind on the toy stuff that users see. But as far as having a solid redundant technically advanced network they are way ahead of the others.

Did you know that most GSM installations don't have battery or generators or redundant data paths?

Yep. "Video phone" is on the feature list. GSM/WCDMA only.

>

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:23:25 -0400, George wrote in :

Irrelevant in this context, whether true or not, and many such features are anything but "toys", notable case in point being way behind on less functional Bluetooth.

In fact GSM "installations" and technology are roughly comparable to CDMA 2000.

George hath wroth:

I'm fairly familiar with the Verizon cell sites in the Santa Cruz CA area. I threw together a web site in 2001 showing some photos and a few details. It's totally out of date now:

are approximately double the number of sites in SCZ County today. A look at the photos will sometimes show if there's a backup generator or battery box.

Another site with cell site photos:

It's a mixed bag and a poor generalization. The philosophy difference between Cingular and Verizon is quite different. Verizon goes for a few sites with wide area coverage. These tend to be commerical blockhouse sites that usually provide backup power. Cingular goes for large numbers of smaller low level sites, where it would not be economical to install backup power on a telephone pole or rooftop. Verizon tends to have a larger number of users per cell site and therefore tends to use higher density backhauls. I don't know any that have redundant backhauls. Cingular inherited the PacBell Wireless PCS system, where most of the cell site were located at telco central offices. These get backup power from the CO. None of the residential cell sites and few of the camouflaged sites have backup power. It's difficult enough to hide the antennas. Hiding the generator is almost impossible. Cingular's smaller sites usually only have a single T1. With the recent addition of data services, both vendors are increasing their backhaul bandwidth so I expect this distinction to shortly evaporate.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:22:09 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

It's actually not that simple, and varies widely from area to area.

According to Aktino, nearly 80% of all wireless traffic in North America is backhauled over existing copper loops typically utilizing HDSLx technology (multiple DS1/fractional DS3), typically outsourced to ILECs. Cingular is actually a leader in the use of dedicated fiber (e.g., from FiberTower). Few sites for any carrier (Verizon included) have truly redundant backhaul, primarily because it's expensive (one of the highest network costs), and only of much benefit if backhaul methods are truly different (e.g., HDSL over copper versus fiber and/or microwave). Redundant service is instead often provided by overlapping cells.

Cingular's internal standard for back up power has been to augment permanent generators at key sites with wide coverage with a limited amount of back up power (e.g., batteries) at other sites, and mobile generators (and sites) that can be rapidly deployed as needed. More permanent generators are now being deployed in areas where widespread natural disasters are more frequent (e.g., Gulf Coast) and/or as mandated by regulation (e.g., Washington State).

Sweeping claims that Verizon's network is better than other carriers are simply advocacy not rooted in reality.

Its certainly a mixed bag but not a poor generalization. We seem to be on different coasts. I agree on the philosophy difference. Hiding generators here isn't an issue but they don't install them anyway. In the case of Cingular in my area they inherited the old AT&T TDMA properties which did have generators. But the new & replacement GSM equipment doesn't (new sites don't have battery or generator and sites installed in parallel with a TDMA site don't use the TDMA battery & generators).

In the case of my area a Cingular tech would have to drive almost 200 miles from their storage location to bring one of the 2 generators they keep for an almost 2,500 square mile area.

Without getting into details there are other places besides individual backhaul where one would want to have redundancy when moving data around and some carriers do and others don't.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:40:48 -0400, George wrote in :

Are you really sure about that? All the sites I've seen here in Northern California have at least battery backup, as per Cingular's internal standard.

Buffalo New York? 200 miles to where? How do you know there are only 2 generators? That's not the case here in Northern California.

I respectfully disagree -- see my prior response in this thread.

Yes, nothing beats actually seeing the doors open on equipment to verify stuff like that.

The rDNS for my IP isn't accurate at all.

I know about the generators because of the work I do and the multiple trusted sources who have given me the same response.

Thats OK, all I can say is that there are substantial differences in philosophy among the wireless companies as far as quality of infrastructure.