Slashdot Mirror
USTR Critical Of Japanese TD-CDMA Licensing
News for nerds writes "Yahoo Asia reports that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said in its annual report that the Japanese government has so far refused to issue experimental licenses to certain U.S. companies to test the new TD-CDMA technology. It attacks China and S. Korea along the line. The funny thing is, according to Impress Internet Watch, the Japanese government states that no U.S. companies had actually applied for the license so far. ITmedia also reports the Japanese government didn't deny foreign application, while criticizing the government for too narrow bandwidth of TD-CDMA that can be monopolized easily. Is this the precursor of another wave of pressure onto technology from Japan?"
Is America going to be the leader and develop high quality technology that other countries can come begging for, or is it going to sit at Japan's doorstep begging for scraps?
Japan must feel like how I did in Civ2. I was always so far ahead of the rest of the nations because I focused on developing technology while the rest of the world was more interested in building up their militaries.
I have been pwned because my
So, basically, he believes that the spectrum is a medium which could be much like the internet, given protocols and standards that allowed things to connect using it.
The problem with the spectrum is that if you don't state clearly what and where you transmit, it becomes a chaos of interferences. It has to be regulated to be useful.
Another example is the US-european models of mobile/cell telephony, where the strong european regulation (mandatory GSM) in fact allowed a stronger market; in that example you also have the limit of the regulation, when european government's greed (or telco's stupidity, who knows) almost killed 3G by auctioning licences or charging enormous tariffs for spectrum access.
Incidentally, in many parts of the world straight TDMA GSM gives better quality than land-lines because of the digital nature of the network.
When yozu are looking at the financial only, yes CDMA is superuior. But if you look at the quality only, then , sorry but my experience with CDMA was very poor... This is kind of a give-take. I guess that all considered both system are equivalent (none superior).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's about USia that wants something but can't get it easily or fast enough, so they're crying and going back to momma (the WTO) to get her to bully the foreign nation they're trying to exploit into submission.
Lucky Japanese though: with poorer or weaker countries that happens to have what USia wants (say, oil), the crying-back-to-momma step is skipped and the other guy gets a punch in the face rightaway.
How's this a troll? when was the last time you saw the United States play fair on any market without weight-throwing?
Yep, there is much more overhead in GSM because it does more. Qualcomm frankly make me sick because although they developed CDMA for mobile equipment and promoted it aggressively, they forgot that an air-protocol doesn't make a complete system. Implement a fraction of the protocol and everything is faster, but its better not to switch cells mid-call!!!
As for 'doing the European thing', thats called interoperability, as the rest of the world uses it too. It may be unimportant in the US where only 10% of people have passports but many in the rest of the world do travel.
The reason why I'm sick of this is that I'm aware of an incident where the US threatened to pull a World Bank loan if the country didn't admit a CDMA system which was 100% incompatible with its neighbours.
The WAP consortium was only seeking a way to get html down a low-bandwith traditional style connection as that is what is available in most of Europe. GPRS (already deployed) and later UMTS make this redundant.
But that's what he just said... set protocol standards.. it is exactly like GSM.
Rather than have the authorities tell us what we can use each band for, tell us what protocol to use, and let us figure out what to use them for.
Wider, fatter open spectrum... look what has been done so far in 2.4Ghz ISM. and it's a SHITTY piece of spectrum.
Open up some real specttrum, set teh access standards, but don't tell us what to use it FOR.. and then we'll get somewhere.
Everything in radio is old. Spread spectrum was patented in the 40's, FM in the 30's, and the principles of TDMA were worked out by Nyquist and his cohorts in Bell Labs in the 20's. Huffman coded digital data? Introduced (albeit in primitive form) by Samuel Morse. Even the "advanced" modulation formats being proposed these days are pretty much straightforward implementations of coding theories developed by Claude Shannon & his comtemporaries in the 50's
What's new is cheap silicon to strap radios to everything and everybody under the sun, and microprocessors to make them easy to operate, or even autonomous.
Sorry but this is bullshit! I don't think mobile phones produce "coherent" microwaves, they're not masers after all.
I believe what's meant here, from further reading on the web, is that the "coherence" component is the modulation frequency. For instance, most cell phones will transmit in bursts, then shut off for a few milliseconds, then transmit again. The frequency of this (if regular) is very similar in action to ELF radiation, which is proven to cause all sorts of problems. CDMA, as the article says, is not as bad about this because it doesn't have a regular 'beat' to its transmissions.
WTF is "oscillatory similitude" - does it have anything to do with crytals.
This is just fancy wording for saying that there is a frequency component of the microwaves emitted by cell phones which is very close in frequency to the frequency of some biological process.
I don't think I'll bother to dignify your last (stupid) jab by a comment about it, other than to say that it's a stupid jab.