Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's First WCDMA Call

Posted by timothy on from the watson-i-need-broadband dept.

k-hell writes "Ericsson and AT&T Wireless recently completed the first WCDMA/UMTS call in a live network environment in the Americas, capable of data transfer speeds of up to 384 Kbps. AT&T Wireless and Ericsson currently pursuing the path to 3G capabilities in the U.S. market by deploying EDGE-ready GSM/GPRS systems. This path ensures an evolution to EDGE, then UMTS, a wideband radio technology that provides mobile users with data rates up to 2 Mbps." This is not yet a strong enough reason to move to Dallas, though.

6 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Sprint 3G @ 144-230 kbps right now by ckm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm using Sprint's PCSvision system right now (for this post in fact). It gets somewhere between 144 to 230 kbps (similar to ISDN) and is available right now. I have the unlimited service, which is $110/month-to-month. Pretty resonable, I use it on the road for business.

    The only thing that's been kinda sucky so far is the slow upload speeds and it really sucks battery life out of a notebook...

    Other than that, it works as advertised. Setup is a bit of a pain, but it's only been out for a month or so, so perhaps the next release of the software will fix that.

    --
    -- I don't have a cool sig.
  2. WiFi vs. 3G by Lt+Razak · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am one of the toughest critics of cellular operators, whom I believe are the weakest links in the value chain to create viable wireless data businesses. However, I don't think the cellular operators are -- or should be -- embarrassed about 3G vs. WiFi. The operators should be embarrassed about lots of things -- misleading the public about capabilities, marketing WAP as "wireless Internet," providing virtually no customer education, etc., etc. -- but not about the concept of 3G vs. WiFi. Some points of comparison: * WiFi was designed for local area networks. 3G was designed for wide area networks. * WiFi was designed for data. 3G was designed for voice and data. * WiFi emphasizes computing devices (laptops, desktops, PDAs). 3G emphasizes (so far) handsets; I hope the cellular industry gets more aggressive about promoting PC Card/Compact Flash radio modems and wireless-enabled PDAs for 3G. * WiFi uses non-licensed spectrum. 3G uses licensed spectrum. Businesses are often more wary of using unlicensed spectrum than licensed spectrum. * WiFi doesn't require corporations or home users to pay airtime charges for local usage. WiFi companies trying to develop nationwide paid access are still figuring out the business model. 3G (2G and 2.5G) requires local, national and international airtime charges. If the cellular industry fails to develop a viable business model for integrating WiFi with cellular and if public fee-based WiFi networks expand dramatically across the country, then it's possible that WiFi could steal some of the thunder and customers away from 3G data services.

  3. Re:WTF? by mdechene · · Score: 5, Informative

    WCDMA - Wideband Code Division Multiplexing Algorithm
    UMTS - Universal Mobile Telephone System
    3G - Third Generation Cell Phone System
    GSM - Global System for Mobile Communications
    GPRS - General Packet Radio Service
    EDGE - Enhanced Data for GSM Evolution

    --

    Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
  4. Re:Forget about 3G! Take a look at SOMA Networks. by bartman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the NTT (the telco doing trials of SOMA technology in Japan) tiral page: www.winq-kanazawa.net. But it's not much good if you don't read Japanese -- it does have a pretty picture of the client hardware.

    --
    -- bartman
  5. Re:Forget about 3G! Take a look at SOMA Networks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, their website claims 12MB/s. Nice. Sounds like they are based on WCDMA, but "enhanced for Internet performance". They have details on their radio protocol on their website. Apparently they have a trial running in the USA, in rural Oregon -- details here. I can't wait to see this stuff available for the general public!

  6. GSM Playing Catch-up to CDMA by cscordo · · Score: 2, Informative

    CDMA (2G) -> CDMA-2000(3G) GSM (2G) -> WCDMA(3G) Its funny how these GSM-based 3G technologies are achieving these technical milestones now, while CDMA-based technologies (ie. CDMA-2000) have been commercially deployed for months at much cheaper costs, and much greater flexibility. A testament to the ongoing wireless industry debate between GSM and CDMA. The way it looks right now, GSM-based carriers are going to have a much more expensive and difficult time evolving their networks; especially in Europe, where the 3G migration path was mandated by the European Commission years ago in an effort to protect all of the European companies supporting (and making huge revenues off of) GSM. Now that a better way to 3G exists (ie. CDMA-2000, based off of CDMA), European carriers can't switch technologies and are finding it near impossible to keep up with the evolving pace of CDMA-2000. Euro-carrier Orange all but scrapped their 3G plans today due to mounting costs and complexities of developing WCDMA networks. Its the reason why NTT Docomo (Japanese carrier) is now getting blown away by their competitor(s) in Japan, when 2 years ago they led the market. The same reason why Europe has gone from first to last in terms of carrier technology and services. Some really good thoughts on the GSM vs. CDMA topic from people who know way more than me: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.sh tml http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=f5b64 b062368aae582d6f4f7895ce712&threadid=73028