video Calling on CDMA 2000

Forums › Mobile handsets › video Calling on CDMA 2000

bbman

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#7128 21-Mar-2006 20:35

Hi just a wee side line on video calling on TNZ cdma 2000.

Due to no handsets being available TNZ cannot offer the service however they could run video calling nation wide on the 1xRtt and EVDO networks using IP as oposed to CSD which Voda offer.

There are test cases of 2 way video calls using IP base VOIP etc software from laptops and PDAs over 1xrtt and EVDO and it works well.

The advantage TNZ have is once Rel A comes and handsets with this feature are made they can offer it and offer it nationwide. This is some thing Voda cannot do atleast in the next year or so due to the huge investment required to build a true nation wide WCDMA network on 2100 MHZ.

Voda will increase 3g Coverage over the next year but they will need to spend in excess of $1bil to get any thing near a nationwide network on 2100mhz and then they will have change the Freq to 900mhz to get there GSM foot print. It's unlikely to happen in the near future.

So it comes down to mobility and quality. Personally i think Video calling is a great toy and a great potential tool however until it's nationwide and available through out the foot print i will not be bothered. I will wait for Rel a EVDO and see what comes from that!

www.ultimatebroadband.co.nz
Delivering better broadband services

UFB fibre, Rural fibre on EA networks, RBI wireless, Ruralnet & Ultra wireless, wireless networks

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#31211 21-Mar-2006 20:44

I agree... once the coverage issue is gone, it will be much more valuable.
A 'presence' indicator for video capability would be nice, so you could see if your contact could recieve a call (i.e. was in 3G coverage and video capable handset)

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#31217 21-Mar-2006 21:31

Video calling is IP based with EV-DO Rel a isn't it?

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#31223 21-Mar-2006 22:01

I believe, and Jama will confirm of course, that Rev A has increased speeds in both directions (1mbps upstream as I recall) and reduced latency, which is the most critical item.

Applications like voice and video are _really_ sensitive on IP networks - packets need to arrive in sequence and at the right time, or you experience jitter, leading to poor quality voice/video. Voice needs 100kbps each way using todays codecs, with latency of about 100ms to be usable.

So, when the bearer is up to it then application can follow.....

I'm not sure, but I don't think a video codec is part of the CDMA2000 spec, so any function is built as a meta-app rather than at the core like UMTS. Which isn't too bad, as UMTS video is hard-coded to 64kbps channelised packets....

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79253 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#31225 21-Mar-2006 22:19

It's a shame, because video calling on UMTS requires more than a simply handset software upgrade if any developments are made on the standard. UMTS is actually only used for signalling, with video being actually transmitted on a 64Kbps CSD channel.

As you say having video on a different layer makes so much more sense...

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#31251 22-Mar-2006 08:06

EVDO RevA is max 3.1mbps down and 1.8Mbps up at around 25ms. There is also QoS so data can be prioritised with the bandwidth split to allow running multiple data services at the same time.

Once you get a good upload speed we can all become givers rather than just takers.

I have successfully run a video con over 1xRTT and EVDO Rel0. 1x was a bit choppy but EVDO was great. Its all about the latency.

bbman

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#31257 22-Mar-2006 08:40

REV A will certainly be the shiz, fast on up and down link and with more expansion in the pipeline of the EVDO coverage it will offer the best all round mobile broadband and 3g voice capability for some time yet.

Voda will have to do better than Smoke and mirrors to offer a similar service and HSPDA on current releases is not going to offer the up/down link speeds and quality that EVDO does and will!

Looking forward to this being rolled this year!

www.ultimatebroadband.co.nz
Delivering better broadband services

UFB fibre, Rural fibre on EA networks, RBI wireless, Ruralnet & Ultra wireless, wireless networks

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#31261 22-Mar-2006 09:03

antoniosk:
Applications like voice and video are _really_ sensitive on IP networks - packets need to arrive in sequence and at the right time, or you experience jitter, leading to poor quality voice/video. Voice needs 100kbps each way using todays codecs, with latency of about 100ms to be usable.

So, when the bearer is up to it then application can follow.....

Slightly OT but isn't it ironic that Telecom will potentially have a far better mobile broadband offering than what is available over their copper network? Any VoIP applications over ADSL are just a joke at present with ADSL's poor performance and interleaving!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

juha

1317 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#31264 22-Mar-2006 10:07

Slightly OT but isn't it ironic that Telecom will potentially have a far better mobile broadband offering than what is available over their copper network? Any VoIP applications over ADSL are just a joke at present with ADSL's poor performance and interleaving!

Well, it's different technology providers - Lucent for the mobile stuff and Alcatel for the DSL - but more importantly, different sales strategies. Telecom doesn't mind if people were to switch from its fixed landlines/broadband to its mobile voice and data service. Given how expensive mobile comms in NZ are, it'd probably bring in more money for Telecom and a wireless network is cheaper to maintain as well.

It does mind, however, if residential and business customers use Telecom-supplied DSL to eat into calling revenues with VoIP as well as the reducing income from very expensive data circuits. Hence, there's a disincentive for Telecom to provide fast DSL, and I've even seen arguments that it would be failing its shareholders and thus be liable for prosecution under commercial law should it provide DSL that cannibalises revenues elsewhere.

The disincentive may disappear later next year, if Telecom introduces a "walled garden" network, where it supplies most of the content. Per-use payments from customers and content providers will then make up for the lost revenue from the above services.

If Telecom does pull that one off, it will be the only telco in the world that has managed to do so. So far, the plan is going well.

Juha

Jama

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#31267 22-Mar-2006 10:32

A mobile network is more expensive to maintain.

bbman

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#31268 22-Mar-2006 10:40

depends whos maintaining it, In telecoms case they have Lucent

In reference to that, had Telecom actually let lucent build their CDMA network to Lucents spec we would have a better foot print and service through out Nz, however TNZ thought they new best and made sure they played a hand and controlled it all.

Wireless compared to cable is cheaper from the install for starters. 10 square km of Fibre in city versus a cellular sites to cover the same distance, wireless will win hands down because of the scale and propagation from a small number of sites, versus 100km of fibre layed in that same area.

www.ultimatebroadband.co.nz
Delivering better broadband services

UFB fibre, Rural fibre on EA networks, RBI wireless, Ruralnet & Ultra wireless, wireless networks

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#31293 22-Mar-2006 14:39

mjsit&t:
Wireless compared to cable is cheaper from the install for starters. 10 square km of Fibre in city versus a cellular sites to cover the same distance, wireless will win hands down because of the scale and propagation from a small number of sites, versus 100km of fibre layed in that same area.

Up until recently however there haven't been the wireless technologies to get anywhere near fibre (or even copper) in both speed and performance so that's kind of a moot point. Fibre is still far superior but there are at least wireless technologies either here now or in the near future such as EV-DO rev a and WiMax that will close that gap.

paradoxsm

3000 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#31483 25-Mar-2006 01:35

CDMA is cheap as chips to install and maintain and so streamlined, Small cabinets.. That's why I am a real fan of it..

Video calling works very well, I have personally streamed very clear 50kBit video over it, using Sierra datacards and laptops. works way better than UMTS's varient with it's toy phones (OK it's still cool, shame the phone gets too hot to touch in 5 minutes!)

Even better, Did it in Australia when EVDO roaming was "free"! (imagine the bill otherwise!)

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#31491 25-Mar-2006 10:44

paradoxsm: CDMA is cheap as chips to install and maintain and so streamlined, Small cabinets.. That's why I am a real fan of it..

New GSM and UMTS gear is the same, I was surprised to see how little there really is to Vodafone's new 3G sites that are literelly on every 2nd lamp post or street light in the Wgtn CBD! Even a couple of years ago a Microcell still needed a reasonable sized cabinet to store the radio gear in.