Potential Competing Standards
Motorola proposed a new system called 1Xtreme as an evolution of CDMA2000, but it was rejected by the 3GPP2 standardization body. Later, a competing standard called EV-DV developed by Qualcomm, Lucent, Nokia, Motorola, etc. in 3GPP2 was proposed as an alternate evolution of CDMA. EV-DV stands for Evolution-Data and Voice, since the channel structure was backwards compatible with IS-95 and IS-2000 (1xRTT), allowing an in-band network deployment. In comparison, EV-DO requires 1 or more (1.25 MHz) freq. bands in addition to the voice band. (EV-DO Rev. A could potentially support a VoIP overlay network for voice calling, but this has not been pursued except for PTT, see QChat).
At the time, there was much debate on the relative merits of DV and DO. Traditional operators with an existing voice network preferred DV, since it does not require a separate band. Other design engineers, and newer operators without a 1x voice network, preferred EV-DO because it did not have to be backward compatible, and so could explore different pilot structures, reverse link silence periods, improved control channels, etc. And the network cost was lower, since EV-DO uses an IP network and does not require an SS7 network and complex network switches such as a mobile switching center (MSC). Also, equipment was not available for EV-DV in time to meet market demands whereas the EV-DO equipment and mobile application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) were available and tested by the time the EV-DV standard was completed. As a result, the EV-DV standard was less attractive to operators, and has not been implemented. Verizon Wireless, then Sprint Nextel in 2004 and smaller operators in 2005 announced their plans to deploy EV-DO. In March 2005, Qualcomm suspended development of EV-DV chipsets, and focused development on EV-DO.
Read more about this topic: Evolution-Data Optimized
Famous quotes containing the words potential, competing and/or standards:
“Much of what contrives to create critical moments in parenting stems from a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the child is capable of at any given age. If a parent misjudges a child’s limitations as well as his own abilities, the potential exists for unreasonable expectations, frustration, disappointment and an unrealistic belief that what the child really needs is to be punished.”
—Lawrence Balter (20th century)
“The idealist’s programme of political or economic reform may be impracticable, absurd, demonstrably ridiculous; but it can never be successfully opposed merely by pointing out that this is the case. A negative opposition cannot be wholly effectual: there must be a competing idealism; something must be offered that is not only less objectionable but more desirable.”
—Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)
“Today so much rebellion is aimless and demoralizing precisely because children have no values to challenge. Teenage rebellion is a testing process in which young people try out various values in order to make them their own. But during those years of trial, error, embarrassment, a child needs family standards to fall back on, reliable habits of thought and feeling that provide security and protection.”
—Neil Kurshan (20th century)