Knut H. Flottorp's Page

Editor's note: Here are some comments by Kurt. He is a tireless promoter of TDMA, as these recent e--mail from him shows:

Tom:

You thought that TDMA was dead -- and the future with W--CDMA?

Take a look at this: http://www.etsi.org/t_news/0105_dect.htm (external link)

FYI: DECT is ITM2000 approved already.

Author's Background and Comments

I've worked on thee large network upgrades; the upgrade of GSM/GPRS in Asia (including China & Japan), the Bell South companies in South America, and lately the Bell companies in the US. I never have had time to write papers or books. The DECT--based network is a fixed line network I planned with some friends in Venezuela last year, and it seems will be deployed in Malaysia first.

I am in the typical early phases of a new PhD., wherein I will finalise and publish the queue theoretical aspects of CDMA used in wide area local networks and starting to find its way back in mobile telephony. The guy who did most of this work for the European mobile operators in the early eighties was a good friend of mine, we worked many late night together in the same research institute before he died. I have some of his notes, and think I can complete some of it, along with another old friend of mine, who is still around. We worked on the mathematical models to describe performance issues in very large and complex computer systems, both thenn both employed in high positions with Norsk Data.

I have two lines of papers ready to be published. One is in management theory: I am a senior partner in the IOL institute, and have rewritten their X/Y models, and we are working on a complete revamping of this. This explains how "humane" aspects as well as technology determines how things end up the way they do. The Y--model is a template for planning -- how to raise the right issues, when to decide you have investigated enough, and when to initiate a project. We have moved one stage further, as we also emphasize when to terminate a project -- determine that the reason for the project no longer holds -- and there are no reasons to keep the project going on.

Based on this, the psychiatric department fills in with advanced models for communication. The question is, what is the basis for effective communication; when can you expect to be misunderstood, and how can you deliver a message to specific individuals, to make certain that things are understood? My problem is that once I understand things I forget the process I have been through to reach that understanding. Some consider the understanding process simple. Usually it is not. Here is where I got involved in this work: I need to communicate about the projects effectively and concisely. I also need to verify without intimidating what we as consultants have agreed to do.

See attached papers. I also have a complete web--site, that for the moment is down (because it needs to be revised, new people, addresses, contact details..)

Regards, Knut

Knut H. Flottorp

 

IT Strategy / FreePad Ltd.

Birgitte Hammersvei 12, N--1167 Oslo,Norway

Tel.:+47 22745261 -- fax: +47 22745844 -- mob.: +47 91777940

DroudlePaigeX--Model (in .doc format)

The X Model (in .doc format)

The Y Model (in .doc format)

On TDMA versus CDMA

No Tom, It's like lining up a beaten up Chevy Nova, with a new transmission and supercharger outside the Daytona racetrack claiming this to be the "moral winner" as the judges would not allow it to compete in the Daytona 500.

I have read numerous papers advocating CDMA, where the only sad contributing factor is that the Europeans never accepted the US superiority in cellular technology -- and where CDMA2000 is promoted solely on the ground that since it is US technology it has to be better. Even from prestigious institutions like MIT.

The latest I read was the request to FCC to allocate more frequencies for US cellular telephone, to allow this to operate because of numerous competing technologies. My response here was that unless you cannot get the technology to work on the RF slots allocated, which is wider than the ITU allocations for GSM, then the US technologies has some serious design flaws, as GSM operates fine in much denser use, and by much more subscribers than any US network.

I would love to lay may hands on GSM400, not because we need more channels, but because the 450MHz covers much wider area, and makes mobile telephone networks cheaper to support in scarcely populated areas -- like the mountains in Norway, and at the sea. In old days, the NMT telephone gave coverage most of the sea voyage from Oslo to Kiel!, that is south along the Swedish coastline, then Denmark would kick in and take over, and provide coverage almost to Kiel.

NMT was before its time, fully digital, TDMA, on SS7 signalling. They did not make a voice codec that could work fast enough, nor would be affordable. So it was digital switching of analog voice. The system then had the benefit of extreme coverage -- where reception would degrade gracefully and cover as far as 25 miles.

People hung on to the telephones because of the coverage in the mountains, that allowed them to dial up should they require help, and numerous rescues have been successfully completed.

Using GSM on 1900HMz kills this, and make the technology suited only in the cities. At the moment we use 900MHz and 1200MHz networks; the 450MHz has been unsupported for the obligatory 3 years now. Nokia is the prime promoter of GSM400. Think about the vast areas you need to cover in the US -- the prairies, deserts and the mountains. In lucky spots you could cover 30 -- 50 miles radius cells.

The only way to provide mobile telephony is to make it cheap and reliable. Sometimes Adam Smith and pure market muscle will provide the cheapest and best; -- however usually not if you consider a minimum of "reliability" into the equation -- because this cannot be measured. It is a quality, a "trust" or belief that things will work.

The US needs to understand that the baseball league is a very limited "World Championships" as very few compete in the sport, similar with US football. You cannot just invent another sport when you are defeated in basketball by another national team. Nor can you just close your borders and "invent" a competition on a square racetrack. Then don't blame us when we do not accept your challenge in the race. The rules are international, and are defined by the ITU for mobile telecommunication. The FCC and the rest of the US need to comply with this first, then demonstrate on similar grounds that their technology works and is better. Then you will be asked to enter the race.

Because outside the US there is one thing that rules: best as perceived by the customer, reliable and cheapest. There are no protections for those who should fail. However, the large mobile operators have a lot of subscribers, and a lot of marketing power and a lot of money. So the US is up to a surprise should they decide to open their current protective measures and allow competition to take place in the US.