Talk:High Speed Packet Access/Archive 1

HSPA a successor to or a part of UMTS

One day someone will come up with a nice diagram to explain all these technologies and how they compare and relate. Based on UMTS being the successor of GSM and cdmaOne/CDMA2000 being a completely different family:

Is HSPA (HSDPA, HSUPA) a successor to UMTS? Or maybe a subgroup of technologies in the same family/system? ~K

Latency / [Round-trip delay time] affects connection speed

In the article, there's no mention of latency that significantly affects the practical speed of the connection. Googling refers it to be about 150ms where as 3G without HSDPA / HSPA offers no less than 220 ms to my experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hukkinen (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify "HSPA 7.2"

Is "HSPA 7.2" the same as High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA)?
Somebody please clarify and insert a comment one way or the other in the main article.
LP-mn (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Speed POV

Are the downlink speeds listed here per handset/client, or per tower or per 5 mhz WCDMA spectrum slice? If these are laboratory speeds which can only be accomplished with 1 handset connected to the base station with no other base stations in range, this should be mentioned and not WP:PEACOCK the article. 68.173.145.85 (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Description doesn't describe what it does

In the intro, the only clue we get about what it does is that HSPA extends and improves the performance of existing WCDMA protocols. So what does WCDMA do? It needs to be explained in layperson's terms. guanxi (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro wording: amalgamation

I am not a native speaker but I believe that amalgamation is unnecessarily complex wording. According to Manual_of_Style#Clarity this should be avoided. If you as a native speaker agree, please help find a better synonym for amalgamation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbakhoff (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

HSPA Cons

This section doesn't make any sense. What is the claim and is there a source for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutney379 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Evolved HSPA article

Evolved HSPA or HSPA+ are marketing term which are not well defined. They refer to certain extensions of HSDPA/HSUPA which are already described in more detail in High-Speed Downlink Packet Access and High-Speed Uplink Packet Access. I suggest that HSPA+ be merged into those articles and then redirected to High-Speed Packet Access (which already has a section on HSPA+). --Drizzd (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree especially since HSPA++ is beginning to make it's rounds as a term for the next level of enhancements.... Nasula (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly described with more detail in the main article, and it is the next iteration after HSPA, so it should have its own article. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What is stopping us from adding the few small details to the main article? The main article after all discusses practically all aspects in the HSPA+ articel(64 QAM, MIMO, Dual Cell) except the flat all-IP architecture, which would be easy enough to move through the merge to the main article. As a whole it might even improve the main article if done properly. Even this HSPA+ article doesn't discuss many of the very important improvements like interference cancellation, equalizers, Fractional DPCH, CPC, High-speed FACH/RACH and other examples of improvements in HSPA+. And when would we stop? When will we start creating an HSPA ++ Article for additional improvements (ICIC, SON Level 3, 4x4 MIMO, MC, etc?). I'd rather see the main article contain the improvements in an understandable form ad then if a function (like CPC for example) needs more explanation, there could be a dedicated page for that function itself. This way people would get a more up to date picture of current WCDMA networks and their specifications.

Heck, I can still see people talking about WCDMA networks as a single code 5MHz network (essentially DCH) instead of the more current and realistic multicode, multiband-capable MIMO-enabled networks that they are. This is especially true when people start comparisons of WCDMA to LTE/WiMax. They compare 1999 WCDMA to 2008-2012 Wimax/LTE networks instead of a current comparison. If we don't include the current implementations within the main article, people looking up information from Wikipedia will have to trawl through many linked pages and may fail to get a current view of what is going on.

As a bonus we'd get rid of the ridiculous list of deployments, which essentially is starting to read "most of the WCDMA-based 3G operators" Nasula (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT Merge Articles

The HSPA+ article is vast, with a ton of information regarding the technology. HSPA+ and UMTS (3G) are two separate technologies even though the first is evolved from the latter; we don't merge homo sapiens and homo Erectus; we haven't merged EDGE and GPRS; there is no need to merge these articles and doing so would not be beneficial to Wikipedia's users.

Johnxsmith (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)