Just in case they do cause cancer, you may want to know that Motorola cellular phones far LESS towards the human body than Nokia and most other phones. Nokia phones emit up to 10 times more radiation to the brain than Motorola's. There are a couple other phone manufacturers that come close, but not Erickson or Nokia. I'm sure this will change as soon as the FCC mandates that the phones be labeled with the SAR rating.
Motorola's phones may not compare to Nokia's as far as features, but their RF design is superior.
I can provide statistics if anyone doesn't believe me.
This is a true statement.
Time-division multiple access technology was also heavily patented at one time. Eventually the patent got thrown out after Motorola refused to pay royalties and sued.
Did you know that until 1993 (or so), Intel held patents for the integrated circuit? That's right, everyone who wanted to manufacturer microprocessors had to pay Intel royalties. I'm not sure of the specifics of this, so maybe someone else can provide more info on this.
The point I'm trying to make is that patents won't kill CDMA.
One of the reasons that GSM breaks up in crowded areas is the lack of closed and open-loop power control.
In CDMA, the mobile adjusts its power output every 1.25ms (about 800 times per second), so that the Base Station receives the same power from EVERY mobile no matter how FAR away the mobile is. So if a mobile is close the the base station, it is transmitting at a much lower power than a mobile far away.
Granted this isn't quite as important for a frequency-hopping scheme like GSM, however, this allows CDMA to achieve reasonable quality for everybody on the system (not just those who are close to the base station).
Latest projections show that cdma2000 will come out before EDGE. They are comparable 2.5 generation technologies.
It is interesting that 3G standards are most likely to be based on CDMA. That will leave GSM in the history books.
CDMA is superior to GSM. The vocoder has better voice quality-- mostly due to the mathematics involved with the convolutional encoder. AT&T has also proved that CDMA voice quality is better.
GSM is a good standard no doubt about it. CDMA came later, and in my opinion is more elegant.
Because the same frequency band is shared, CDMA supports things such as soft handoffs meaning less dropped calls.
CDMA has a 'rake' receiver meaning that signals bouncing off walls and other object actually INCREASE the voice quality. This is not the case for GSM.
There are many more reasons that justify my statements above. I urge you to study CDMA a little more.
Two of the most popular Real-Time Operating Systems, VxWorks and QNX, offer X-Windows as a windowing environment. Yet their footprint is incredibly small. Check out the QNX website for a demo (http://www.qnx.com). A dialer and a graphical web browser all on a floppy disk?!
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case they do cause cancer, you may want to know that Motorola cellular phones far LESS towards the human body than Nokia and most other phones. Nokia phones emit up to 10 times more radiation to the brain than Motorola's. There are a couple other phone manufacturers that come close, but not Erickson or Nokia. I'm sure this will change as soon as the FCC mandates that the phones be labeled with the SAR rating. Motorola's phones may not compare to Nokia's as far as features, but their RF design is superior. I can provide statistics if anyone doesn't believe me.
This is a true statement. Time-division multiple access technology was also heavily patented at one time. Eventually the patent got thrown out after Motorola refused to pay royalties and sued. Did you know that until 1993 (or so), Intel held patents for the integrated circuit? That's right, everyone who wanted to manufacturer microprocessors had to pay Intel royalties. I'm not sure of the specifics of this, so maybe someone else can provide more info on this. The point I'm trying to make is that patents won't kill CDMA.
One of the reasons that GSM breaks up in crowded areas is the lack of closed and open-loop power control. In CDMA, the mobile adjusts its power output every 1.25ms (about 800 times per second), so that the Base Station receives the same power from EVERY mobile no matter how FAR away the mobile is. So if a mobile is close the the base station, it is transmitting at a much lower power than a mobile far away. Granted this isn't quite as important for a frequency-hopping scheme like GSM, however, this allows CDMA to achieve reasonable quality for everybody on the system (not just those who are close to the base station).
Latest projections show that cdma2000 will come out before EDGE. They are comparable 2.5 generation technologies. It is interesting that 3G standards are most likely to be based on CDMA. That will leave GSM in the history books.
CDMA is superior to GSM. The vocoder has better voice quality-- mostly due to the mathematics involved with the convolutional encoder. AT&T has also proved that CDMA voice quality is better. GSM is a good standard no doubt about it. CDMA came later, and in my opinion is more elegant. Because the same frequency band is shared, CDMA supports things such as soft handoffs meaning less dropped calls. CDMA has a 'rake' receiver meaning that signals bouncing off walls and other object actually INCREASE the voice quality. This is not the case for GSM. There are many more reasons that justify my statements above. I urge you to study CDMA a little more.
I didn't say that QNX's "preferred" graphical engine is X. I said it "offers" X, which is accurate. But I'm not trying to be a bickering geek!!...
Two of the most popular Real-Time Operating Systems, VxWorks and QNX, offer X-Windows as a windowing environment. Yet their footprint is incredibly small. Check out the QNX website for a demo (http://www.qnx.com). A dialer and a graphical web browser all on a floppy disk?!