Milestone-Proposal talk:Development of CDMA for Cellular Communications, 1989
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
Here is a version of the citation that came from Advocate Dave Bart, and which has my support as Proposer:
On November 7, 1989, Qualcomm publicly demonstrated a cellular radio system based upon Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). The technology, later known as cdmaOne, incorporated features that maintained voice quality, increased capacity, reduced dropped calls, lowered device costs and extended battery life. cdmaOne formed the basis for IS-95 and follow on second and third generation cellular standards
This citation is currently being assessed by a few technical contacts in the cell phone industry, and I will provide feedback as I receive it.
Brian Berg, R6 IEEE Milestone Coordinator
Based on extensive discussion with the proposer, the above milestone wording was suggested for consideration. We believe this accurately identifies the historical importance and contribution of the Qualcomm demonstration. -- Dave Bart, Milestone Advocate
The team with whom I have been working proposes this alternate citation:
On November 7, 1989, Qualcomm publicly demonstrated a digital cellular radio system based upon Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) which increased capacity, improved service quality and extended battery life. This formed the basis for the IS-95 second generation cellular standards and for all third generation mobile broadband cellular standards which have been used in billions of devices worldwide.
The advocate stated that the citation was "way too broad" re: "all third generation mobile broadband cellular standards." However, I respectfully submit that there are only three recognized 3rd Generation standards: CDMA2000, WCDMA and SC-CDMA. All use CDMA, and so I feel that use of the word “all” is appropriate here.
The advocate also stated that "billions of devices worldwide" is "...not defined. What devices? Billions based on what count?" I agree that this should be made more clear, and that the statement should have proof as well. I therefore propose adding the words "mobile cellular" for clarity. Proof of this statement is not difficult to find. There are currently around 3 billion 3G devices worldwide, a fact shown, for example, in a chart showing 2G, 3G and 4G LTE presence in the world over time that can be found in a Working Document created for the European Union's European Parliament here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0306 (on p. 8 of the PDF here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0306&from=en).
I therefore propose this new 60-word citation (whose only change is adding "mobile cellular" near the end):
On November 7, 1989, Qualcomm publicly demonstrated a digital cellular radio system based upon Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) which increased capacity, improved service quality and extended battery life. This formed the basis for the IS-95 second generation cellular standards and for all third generation mobile broadband cellular standards which have been used in billions of mobile cellular devices worldwide.
In addition, I can add the above-cited proof re: the "billions" claim to the text of the proposal, and I will also add some other citations as well in order to fully substantiate this claim.
Committee response -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[edit | reply | new]
Minor comment: there should be a comma before which.
More significant comment for consideration: Anytime we start down a path of naming a milestone that is part of a series of innovations, we need to make sure that we are honoring the most significant achievement. What are the possibilities of milestones for 1G, 3G, 4G, and future cell standards. I see that this honors Qualcom, but were there any other people doing similar work? (I don't want other companies thinking we are choosing one over another). Should the military roots be mentioned?