Talk:Evolution-Data Optimized/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

It should at least should contain a description of what EV-DO is for an educated but non-expert reader. Perhaps one who has a cell phone that displays EV and 1X bars, and would like to know what they are and why they differ.

Some Questions

• Some ideas on updates to this page if anybody has the time/information: What are the differences between all the versions of the IS-856 standard, which versions are actually deployed, and which version are planned to be deployed. Also information on the 3GPP2 vs. TIA/EIA versions of the 1xEVDO spec would be nice. Links to the free/current 3GPP2 documents would be nice.

• What does 1x stand for - first generation?

Sridev 19:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

- 1x is shorthand for "single carrier"

- by the way... the Carrier in Single Carrier does NOT refer to Verizon or Sprint :o) it refers to the protocol.. how the data is transmitted.... bob with http://evdo-coverage.blogspot.com

- Carrier refers to carrier wave. — 12.201.72.68 11:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

- 1x stands for "one times", because the carrier channel is one times the size of an IS-95 (first generation) CDMA channel, 1.25 MHz. It is short for 1xRTT (1x Radio Transmission Technology), and distinguishes it from 3xRTT, where the carrier channel is three times 1.25 MHz, or 3.75 MHz, wide. --DylanW 21:18 PST, Dec. 19, 2005

Maybe the article should mention Sprint and Verizon moving toward WiMax and LTE. Also, it would be nice if the article clarifies if rev B is in use anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.23.219 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

EVDO or EV-DO?

This article seemed very confused as to whether it should be 'EVDO' or 'EV-DO'. I changed most occurrences to 'EV-DO' for the sake of picking one. If you feel strongly that it should be 'EVDO', please go for it. burke (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

C.S0024-A v2.0?

In the sentence

"The latest version of the 1xEV-DO standard can be found in C.S0024-A v2.0."

I have no idea what "C.S0024-A v2.0" is, and I'm sure most readers don't either. Could this be explained? --DylanW 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the name of the 3GPP2 version of IS-856 (1xEV-DO Rev A). It can be found at http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/cref.cfm. --Bgurg 18:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rev. 0 & Rev. A

It is odd that there is a section that discusses Rev. B and its specs but no section for Rev. 0 or Rev. A. My understanding is that Rev. A is currently being introduced in the US and as far as I know Rev. B is not avaliable. Mudphud 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Cellular Router reference

I propose adding StompBox Networks and Tor Amundson to the article somewhere, as he has provided instructions for creating a DiY WiFi hotspot. --Digitalsabre 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a specialist's guide?

This article seems to be aimed at a specialized audience of wireless cognoscenti, not at the average layperson. Could someone translate this into terms that are generally understood by persons without an EE degree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuclearWinner (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC). (Hey, thanks for signing my name, Mr. Bot!) OK, now I know what tag to add: "TECHNICAL". And I have done so. This topic should be understandable by the intelligent layperson, so let's make the article conform to that hope. An idea would be to explain jargon terms. NuclearWinner 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some jargon terms that could be explained:

• KDDI
• stationary communications
• fast packet establishment
• overlay
• channel structure
• pilot structure
• mobile ASICs
• statistical multiplexing

NuclearWinner 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It is quite muddy. I have rewritten the intro to sound more like English and also explained (some by wikilinking), KDDI, ASIC and stationary communications, but more remain... --Deon Steyn 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep going.... I'm a techie and I was lost by line two. ByteofKnowledge 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Submission - Questions About Nokia Pulling Out out of CDMA Space

This is a well thought-out submission. I have a question regarding the (referenced) claim that Nokia is pulling out of CDMA. The wording of the article is such that one might be led to believe Nokia is exiting the CDMA space, when this is most definitely not true. What the reference actually states is Nokia and Sanyo are dissolving their CDMA handset effort.

Links

I've cleaned up a great deal of inappropriate external links, per WP:EL and WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOT#LINKFARM. Put simply, the purpose of linking externally on Wikipedia is not as a shortcut to writing articles, or to link to specific subjects from a page about a general subject. External links from this page should only be made to non-commercial sites relevant to the entire topic of EV-DO, with clear evidence that links are being added in accordance with policy and guidelines. Deiz talk 12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Too Technical

Agree in 2014! Needs a major edit. Reading the Lede, I have no idea what the cell phone designation EV-DO data means to me. see also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
--71.133.255.249 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

When I look up a cellular data protocol, I'd like to see the answers to these simple questions:

• Is it considered to be 3G or 4G?
• Which carriers use it?

108.48.193.129 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

EDGE Comparison

What's up with the EDGE speed comparison sentence? It says that EV-DO is significantly faster than EDGE, and then goes on the mention HSDPA without saying anything about the speed of that technology.

Is there a reason for this? Is EV-DO best compared to EDGE for some reason, instead of HSDPA? Or is it just that EV-DO sounds better when compared to EDGE? --joeOnSunset 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

I just made this article twice as long as it was before. I hearby invite people to edit this and clarify anything that doesn't make sense. Since I understand it, sometimes it's hard to explain it to someone who doesn't. Feel free to message me with specific questions, if you want. --Mblumber (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Specialty vendor lists

I've removed the specialty vendor lists under "Cellular router" because they are not pertinent to an article about EV-DO. A list of EV-DO operators is fine, but I don't see the usefulness of a very specific vendor of a particular EV-DO cellular router with a direct link to their website -- why not also have links to Samsung, LG, Sanyo, etc. since they sell far more EV-DO devices than the company I removed does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.67.202 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TIA-856 Rev. 0 reverse link structure

Power control should be also present for Forward Link. Reference [5] only mentioned that forward "pilot" is always transmitted at full power, not the entire forward link. Please provide a reference that specifically mentions power control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.36.178 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect; EVDO is time-multiplexed on the forward link; the pilot is transmitted along with the entire channel at full power at all times. The citation confirms this.--Mblumber (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) z

Could you also provide a citation regarding power control on the traffic channels? The citation only discuss the pilot channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.36.178 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In 1xRTT (during normal operation) the forward link pilot is not power controlled; Each user is code multiplexed on the channel using a PN code (for the sector) and a walsh code (for each user). The traffic channels are power controlled independently depending on the user's particular RF condition. In EVDO, there is no power control on the forward link sectors, as each user is time multiplexed (along with the pilot) onto a single stream operating a high power. Each stream is then code multiplexed with other sectors using PN sequences. In this way there is no "power control" on EVDO forward link. This is spelled out on the 2nd page of the Lucent document, under the heading of "Combination of TDMA and CDMA"--Mblumber (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can be more technical

I don't think being too technical is a problem for this article. Since this is an artical regarding EVDO, not regarding CDMA2000 or even 3G in general, reader should already have some knowledge on CDMA2000 before they arrive here. It's like when someone searched TCP/IP they're not looking for a general description of what internet is, but the protocol details.

Personally I am interested in the difference from EVDO to 1xRTT, and this is exactly how this article is proceeding. You wouldn't be able to explain this kind of information without going at least somewhat technical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.36.178 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nice that this goes into some technical depth. I would, however, like to see a better introduction that talks about how EVDO is a data-centric service (rather than voice-centric), that it works hand-in-hand with MIP, and how network integrators have deployed it as an overlay network, rather than as a replacement as frequently happens. --Mblumber (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some questions that I had when I came to this article, in case knowing my perspective might be a bit helpful: What is EVDO used for, talking, texting, surfing the internet? Does EVDO only work on phones using CDMA or can it be used on phones using a SIM card? Who would rather use EVDO than HSPA? Do people primarily use EVDO because it's the software installed on less expensive phones, or is there another reason? Thanks for all the hard work that went into this article. Hope this is useful.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jksfitz (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, it's too technical. While Wiki has some leeway regarding accessibility, this jumble of alphabet soup and "lazy hyperlinks" is over the top. At least the leade section should not be jargon-reliant. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).
User:Jksfitz above gives some reasonable hints about where to begin. Like Big Picture and context. And Hey, how about: What the hell is it? What does it mean on a cell phone's specs? etc? Here'a a major clue: describing all it's car-parts (and how they fit) does not describe any car. Thank you.
    OK I just softened up the 1st paragraph. The leade is an INTRO.
--71.133.255.249 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Doug Bashford

SVDO

Shouldn't the news that in August the CDMA Working Group announcned SVDO (Simultaneous 1x Voice and EV-DO data), be in the article? http://cdg.org/news/press/2009/Aug17_09.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTHonVDS (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

SNR values in DRC table?

Looking back through the reference for the DRC table (in the section 'Rev0 forward link channel structure').

1. The table in the reference seems to have been copied incorrectly (modulation and FEC values are wrong in some cases)

2. The 'SNR' values column was originally headed 'Ec/Io', which I suspect is SINR (signal to noise plus interference ratio, usually Ec/Nt). As far as I could see, the reference doesn't contain information on the SNR required for each DRC.

I'm not changing any of this, as I'm hoping that the person who edited the table can clarify (e.g. by supplying some other reference for the SINR values, if that's what they are).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evolution-Data Optimized. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023022338/http://www.cdg.org:80/technology/3g/advantages_cdma2000.asp to http://www.cdg.org/technology/3g/advantages_cdma2000.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1