vzw22 said:
People are retarded if you believe this. There is no way in hell CDMA carriers will convert over to GSM in the US. There is NO WAY Verizon would ever switch simply for the fact that it would cost WAYYYYYYYY too much money converting over to GSM with the huge footprint. Christoph Catselitz, the head of Siemens' mobile networks business should be demoted to the head of janitorial operations for a comment this stupid. He's only trying to make Siemens look more appealing since they concintrate on GSM phones and not CDMA phones. Probably just blowing smoke up his boss' ass cuz he made a decision somewhere along the line to not put Siemen's time and money into developing CDMA phones and he's saving his own ass for m

...
(continues)

👿 Well if this article is worth it's weight in water convert or die!!!

VZW429 said:
i had cingualr gsm it was okay with voice quality but (and this is not a biast opinion) verizons cdma is clearer(and in some places better) than cingulars gsm (sprints cdma is just horrible but an yway).

Yes, and that idea swings both ways. Come to Pittsburgh and give Cingular and Verizon a try. Cingular has only been in this market for a little over a year now and they already trump Verizon's CDMA.

the future will be in the equipment. the manufacturers are already making equip that can use both cdma and gsm(internationally) why change an entire network when you can just change your phone. plus having the 2 mainstream type networks creates competition, which drives the market without that competition, the industry wouldn't be as strong.

I strongly disagree with CDMA carriers switching to GSM. For one, it would never happen, and two, I like diversity in the industry.

I was pointing out that CDMA and GSM are both great technologies and it the quality of each depends entirely on the area you are in. GSM trumps CDMA in mine.

Very good point. I won't lie, I think CDMA is better overall, but I have plenty of friends with Cingular and are very happy. One thing I have noticed though, is that they don't go many different places. Just the same 4 or 5 different areas of CT.

I have Sprint and I've traveled from PA to Mass., and I always have service.

It all depends on your area. Sprint dominates the northeast, Cingular other areas, and Verizon other areas.

I have to say Sprint has an advantage. Think of the population in the northeast. Consider all of their power vision services out now...

Also, as far as the article...how are they just now putting out a 3G network? Sprint had their's our for at least 4 or 5 years now...I can watch TV on my phone anyt...
(continues)

There's a strong misconception of what 3G is. 3G defines the generation of the standard which you are using. For CDMA it's CDMA2000 and for GSM it's GPRS. 3G is the definition of the technology. The technology that 3G provides, however, enables things like PCS VISION, VCAST, etc. All of these carriers are using 3G these days, just not all of them have implemented novelty features for it yet. BTW, I used sprint around the time Vision was new and all it was at the time was the same as Get It Now! for verizon and Media Mall for Cingular.

In my area, cingular seems to be the way to go. The majority of my family is on cingular, and I'm a recent convert from verizon. As far as I can tell, at least in my area, Cingular is focusing on stability a...
(continues)

The CDMA carriers got their stuff out there quicker than the GSM carriers. From what I can see HSDPA (in its actual deployed format on a network with traffic) is about the equvalent of EVDO. The varying upgrades of each will compete nicely for years to come. Although I prefer CDMA I believe UMTS/HSDPA is a strong competitor. The article mentioned does not mention that Russia and India plan on deploying CDMA networks nationwide. It is wishful thinking on the part of either CDMA or UMTS/HSDPA devotees to think they will dislodge the other unless there is a generational change (to 3g or 4g) Cariers make their long term technology decisions and seem to stick with them.

SPCSVZWJeff said:
The CDMA carriers got their stuff out there quicker than the GSM carriers. From what I can see HSDPA (in its actual deployed format on a network with traffic) is about the equvalent of EVDO. The varying upgrades of each will compete nicely for years to come. Although I prefer CDMA I believe UMTS/HSDPA is a strong competitor. The article mentioned does not mention that Russia and India plan on deploying CDMA networks nationwide. It is wishful thinking on the part of either CDMA or UMTS/HSDPA devotees to think they will dislodge the other unless there is a generational change (to 3g or 4g) Cariers make their long term technology decisions and seem to stick with them.

Agreed. CDMA is growing n...
(continues)

On paper, it looks like Verizon's EV-DO is superiour to Cingular's HSDPA but actually, Verizon is overpromising and Cingular is underpromising. In data tests, Cingular's HSDPA is 2-3 times faster downloading than Verizon's EV-DO and the latency is much better. But then there are no phones for HSDPA yet so you'd have to use a data card to know the difference.

That's not a complete picture tho'. There's also the fact that Cingular is 12 to 18 months behind Verizon in rollin' out their high-speed network (Cingular CEO's own words, not mine), an' that EVDO Rev A will greatly reduce latency.

It ain't really worth quibbling over tho'.. neither technology is goin' away anytime soon, no matter what Siemens says. Like Jeff said, they'll be competing for many years, an' eventually will probably converge into one technology more or less, as each technology steals the others best features an' ideas. That's already startin' to happen.

The competition is good for both technologies.

Poor implimemtation of GSM is the ONLY reason CDMA is strong in this country. Europe has a much smaller area to cover therefore can offer much better service via GSM. Not so easy here. Thats why the longer range of CDMA is proving to be the technology of choice by most people quarter after quarter in the US of A.

Longer range??????????

Dude, CDMA is a good system overall but come on, that is just stupid. Physics determines the distance a signal can travel, not technology.

Why don't you try coming up with some facts rather just making things up out of thin air. Supporters of CDMA have never stated an advantage is how far the signal can travel.

There's no doubt (look it up) that the AM radio station works in larger area, comparing to an FM. Analog cell stations are more powerful then digital.

It's the power of the transmitter what really matters. I do believe that a CDMA transmitter are more powerful than a GSM one. That's why cell phones batteries are dying faster using analog network, and GSM phones have better battery life comparing to CDMA.

It's not a flame war, but you really should start studying physics.

kvazzz said:
There's no doubt (look it up) that the AM radio station works in larger area, comparing to an FM. Analog cell stations are more powerful then digital.

It's the power of the transmitter what really matters. I do believe that a CDMA transmitter are more powerful than a GSM one. That's why cell phones batteries are dying faster using analog network, and GSM phones have better battery life comparing to CDMA.

It's not a flame war, but you really should start studying physics.

The power limit is set by the FCC not by the technology used.

The reason GSM and TDMA have better battery life than CDMA is due to the way CDMA works. CDMA is constantly looking for signal where TDMA and GSM are not...
(continues)

It's a quote from the article:

"Ideally, the GSM (TDMA) technology’s talk-range from a tower is 35 kms in comparision with CDMA’s 110 kms, and the power output of a GSM (TDMA)phone is 2W, in comparision with CDMA phone’s 200 mW i.e., CDMA implies lesser radiation hazard. But the talk time is generally higher in a GSM (TDMA) phone due to its pulse nature of transmission, in comparision with a CDMA phone which transmits all the time"

I'm correcting myself 😉

Sorry, not sure where you got that but GSM does not up to 2 Watts of power. The both uses similar power levels of around 200 mW.

From where are you quoting?

He did not understand my statement regarding CDMA technolgy. Not unusual for him. He should know CDMA has a longer range per tower then GSM "being in the business" and all"

Oh well what can you expect from an Agent shyster?

Technology has no bearing on the range of the technology. it is the frequency it is broadcasted at. 800 Mhz Analog and 800 Mhz GSM will broadcast just as far assuming all other factors are equal (antenna height, power, etc.) Now if you are broadcasting CDMA at 1900 Mhz vs GSM at 850, yes CDMA will travel farther, just not penetrate buildings as well. just like GSM 850 vs GSM 1900.

the frequency is what determines the wavelengths not the technology.

Reverse those figures but you have it right.

850 Mhz will travel farther than 1900 Mhz. Therefore a 1900 MHz GSM signal will not travel as far as an 850 MHz CDMA signal.

You need far more GSM towers to cover the same amount of area then CDMA. That speaks volumes on why the rest of the world has great GSM service and the US does not.

On what are you basing that?

I'm sorry guy, but you are just flat out wrong.

A GSM tower on 850 MHz has the ability to cover the same area as a CDMA tower on 850 MHz.

Now a CDMA tower on 850 MHz can cover a larger area than a GSM tower on 1900 MHz but that is physics, not technology. CDMA 1900 MHz covers less than GSM 850 MHz. Physics, not technology.

CDMA's initial claim to fame was call capacity. When I attended QUALCOMM UNIVERSITY and learned the engineering behind the technology it was capacity, capacity, capacity. I also learned the transmitting power of 200 mW. It is the same on GSM.

As I said in my initial reply, I am never going to say CDMA is not a good technology. If there was a dominant CDMA carrier in this pa...
(continues)

CDMA accommodate more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology.

You are absolutely correct.

But now you are avoiding my question.

On what did you base you CDMA covers more area question?

"Since bandwidth is the major problem in the modern times the CDMA has a very clear advantage over the GSM in these terms. The number of channels(users) that can be allocated in a given bandwidth is comparatively higher for CDMA than for GSM. The cost of setting up a CDMA network is also comparatively less than the GSM network. Due to these advantages there is high probability that CDMA technology will dominate the future of mobile communications".

http://www.mouthshut.com/review/GSM_Mobile_Technolog ... »

And who is the guy who posted that? Some unknown dude on some unknown website?

You are reaching again and STILL haven't proven your FIRST post that says CDMA has a longer range

TenMidgits said:
Thats why the longer range of CDMA is proving to be the technology of choice by most people quarter after quarter in the US of A.

People may be buying CDMA, but it has nothing to do with an increased range due to a false technology advantage.

Secondly, CDMA has a theory of a maximum capacity that is higher than the actual capacity of GSM. When deployed CDMA has an actual capacity that is much closer to that of GSM AND IS INSIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF LOWER COSTS OF DEPLOYMENT. Verizon, Sprint and others do n...
(continues)

texaswireless said:
And who is the guy who posted that? Some unknown dude on some unknown website?

As is you!

You are reaching again and STILL haven't proven your FIRST post that says CDMA has a longer range

TenMidgits said:
Thats why the longer range of CDMA is proving to be the technology of choice by most people quarter after quarter in the US of A.

People may be buying CDMA, but it has nothing to do with an increased range due to a false technology advantage.

REALLY?


"Since bandwidth is the major problem in the modern times the CDMA has a very clear advantage over the GSM in these terms. The number of channels(users) that can be allocated in a given b...
(continues)

RANGE RANGE RANGE YOU MORON.

I have really tried to not rip you but understand your premise. You are just being an idiot. I say range, you talk capacity. I agree that capacity is technically superior on CDMA and ask what about your range claims and you again say capacity.

And as far as your quote, you continue to quote some unknown on some equally unknown website as gospel. He has part of it right about capacity, but completely fails to mention the fact that CDMA equipment and licensing is more expensive, thereby eliminating any cost advantage.

And the capacity advantage does not result in lower build-out costs due to the fact that GSM is open and available from many vendors. GSM equipment is less expensive and that savings more than makes up for any additional towers needed in congested areas where extra bandwidth may be needed.

texaswireless said:
And the capacity advantage does not result in lower build-out costs due to the fact that GSM is open and available from many vendors. GSM equipment is less expensive and that savings more than makes up for any additional towers needed in congested areas where extra bandwidth may be needed.

Uh NOT! All the experts disagree with you. YOu HAVE to be an agent for GSM product with statements like that..

Which experts? The unknown guy from some unknown site you previously quoted?

You certainly aren't an expert.

Pony up there. You are way out of your league on this discussion.

As soon as you attend and receive a degree for completion of Qualcomm University you can discuss this. Until then you have no first hand knowledge of the product and can't intelligently discuss anything.

TenMidgits said:
You need far more GSM towers to cover the same amount of area then CDMA. That speaks volumes on why the rest of the world has great GSM service and the US does not.

Capacity and ranger are two very different matters.

CDMA does indeed provide a higher call capacity, but does not emit a longer ranger than GSM. You may need more GSM towers to "cover" an area due to the amount of users each tower can service, but the physical area covered will be the same between structurally similar CDMA and GSM sites.

Range does not differ greatly between the two technologies.

Then why don't you clarify your statement instead?

Obviously you screwed up and now want to blame it on my interpretation.

I read your statement several times to make sure I was reading correctly. You meant to say CDMA travels farther than GSM. That is a scientifically incorrect statement.

Take your medicine, you screwed up.

AM transits at a lower frequency.

AM, given a equal power source, travels farther than FM because of the lower frequency.

CDMA and GSM, given the same frequency (850 MHz or 1900 MHz) travel the same distance given the same power.

The power source behind the signal is dynamic and varies greatly on different channels of each individual tower.

My point, which is still 100% valid, is that given the same power and frequency CDMA and GSM travel the same distance. The encoding is what is different and has nothing to do with power.

"You really should start studying physics"

And then he gets it all wrong.

Batteries last longer on GSM per mWh because the handset does not need to be in contact with the tower as often while in standby mode. Standby times on GSM handsets are quite often longer but talk time is usually closer in ratings.

"I do believe CDMA towers are more powerful than GSM"

If you are basing that theory on the battery life that is where you improperly extrapolated your conclusion. Power levels for transmission of a digital signal are equal and regulated.

CptFarlow said:
Also, as far as the article...how are they just now putting out a 3G network? Sprint had their's our for at least 4 or 5 years now...I can watch TV on my phone anytime I want now. Maybe Cingular customers will be able to do that in 4 or 5 years. 😉

Sprint has had 3G for 4 or 5 years now? No, no they have not. Sprint has been running a CDMA 1xRRT network since the 90s and that is a 2.5G technology. Sprint actually has been running a slower and older technology than Cingular has for many years. Although both CDMA 1xRRT and GSM/EDGE (what Cingular uses) are both defined as 2.5G technologies, GSM/EDGE actually has faster data capabilities.

Now, both Sprint and Cingular have st...
(continues)

This is all Qualcomm's marketing ploys.

Sprint and Verizon claimed CDMA2000 1xRTT was 3G while AT&T (who was the leader in GSM data) didn't make that claim for GPRS and EDGE and called them 2.5G instead.

You can argue it's technically correct but as far as data goes, "2.5G EDGE" is faster than "3G CDMA 1xRTT."

Either way, Cingular is ahead now technologically with their HSDPA enhancements. Verizon and Sprint will up the ante when they release EV-DO Rev. A. So far Cingular's HSDPA far far exceeds expectations of 400-700k and is more like 700-1400k depending on signal strength.

But I won't argue against the fact that Verizon has the deployment advantage over Cingular.

no just no


Sprint 3G are you serious? what a joke it is like 2 months old!

ATT had UTMS networks set up in 6 cities before the cingular merger ... and have had MobiTV since then

keep dreamin

Maybe in the future if globalization and M&A between international carriers go through. The only way i see it happening is if Vodafone takes a more controlling interest in Verizon wireless.