Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Upgrades extend life of iDEN networks, Wi-Fi integration in future

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:26:19 -0500

>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Upgrades extend life of iDEN networks, Wi-Fi integration in future
>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:33:00 -0600
> From: "meijin" <[email-masked]>
> Organization: Budogeek Productions
> To: <[email-masked]>

> Marcel:I am not an RF engineer, so work with me on this part of the conversation. If you
> have an EBTS that has, say, 10 BRs...then you can support 30 interconnect calls or 60
> dispatch calls at the same time, right? Those numbers might be off slightly...but are
> close I believe.

Close, you failed to account for the traffic channels but we will take that out of the mix
for now.....

>
> One BR supports 3 interconnect or 6 dispatch calls I believe. If you replace those
> single BRs with quad BRs, then you have the capacity of 4x what you started
> with...right? And if you increased the BRs to a total of 15 quad BRs, then you have
> more. Where you are loosing me is that if one quad BR is 4x the capacity of a single BR
> you end up with a 75% loss of voice capacity. I just don't follow the logic there. What
> am I missing?
>

I must have confused you I kept mixing time slots and channels that was the problem.  Lets
just take USERS in dispatch mode.

You keep trying to compare Physical capacity to Technical capacity.

25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR        =   1 QUAD BR =  (1) Widen Data USER
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR
---------------------------------------------
( 100 Khz per WiDEN Data channel )

Or

25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR        =   1 QUAD BR =  (24) Voice USERS (Dispatch)
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR
25 kHz = 6 Channels = 1 BR

So the LOSS is much more than 75% it's 95.83%

Each Users represents approx. %4.1666666 X 24 User spots = 100%

Now I have only read the preliminary documentation and it does mention speeds are in
proportion to capacity so I would imagine the channel could support additional users at
reduced speeds, but since Nextel is touting 132 Kbps that was the figure I worked with.

> Here is one other point to consider...the vast majority of our data users are short
> burst users and not extend use users.

Not the users I know (myself included) stay on for a while. Look  at GM, Coke, Tennessee
Police, Consolidated Freightways (oppps they are out of business) they are all heavy data
users look at their bill you will see.

> So, the amount of time that they spend using the service is very slight and spread over
> the entire day. So, even if I am completely screwed up with the paragraph above, as long
> as the add some additional capacity to the EBTS there should not be a noticable issue
> voice capacity...plus, if the new voCoder goes through as planned (and yes, I know fully
> how you feel about the voCoder...so spare the me speech), then you are looking at a 6:1
> increase of interconnect to take into consideration with the whole equation...if it
> works as planned, that should have some effect over the additional overhead of the WiDEN
> data usage.

Remember the New vocoder only applies to INTERCONNECT. Dispatch is a down the road.

As to the whole Wi-Fi issues and how Nextel is screwing Moto. That just flat does not make
any sense! That is like saying that Moto is screwing Nextel because they also manufacture
CDMA/GSM phones that competitors to Nextel use! Who says that we have to implement
everything that Moto rolls out in every case?

I did no say they that moto was getting screwed . Show me where I said that?
I said:

"Nextel has already started to circumvent Moto on this issue, Nextel is already testing
Wi-Fi with their customers. Nextel's alliance with companies such as RadioFrame has
allowed them provide Wi-Fi services while controlling the cash revenue."

Marcel wrote:

But data shows that the cost of coverage per square foot is greater using the Moto
solution.

> If their Wi-Fi solution does not make good business sense to use in a particular
> situation, then I would be more worried about who is making a bad business decision and
> using it! You have to use what makes the most sense! On top of that, Moto is fully
> onboard with the RadioFrame solution.

Look at the coverage cost per square foot documents that Moto provided, then look at Radio
Frames cost estimate. Unless moto revised their quote since Dec. 20th, they are still
higher.

> Who do you think it is that is providing Moto with all of the documentation that they
> need to act as a BR and interface with the iSC-II/iSC-III and pass it all on to the BSC?
> Moto is.

Of course, but the Fact is.....

RadioFrame is presently selling the Wi-Fi solution to Nextel at this time Yes or No?  >>
Yes<<<

Is Moto presently selling Wi-Fi to Nextel? Yes or No >>>NO<<<

I know RadioFrame will not remain the only vendor.

Motorola will support 3 guys on a Camel in Afghanistan if Nextel says so.  Remember iDEN =
I Do Everything Nextel?

> Believe me, getting all of that to correspond with the 9.8 and Enhanced 9.8 upgrades was
> a real piece of work!

Yes

> Michael

--