"GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"
John Navas
When Nokia repeated its prediction that the global GSM standard could
grab half of the US cellphone market, we were skeptical. Thanks to
adoption by Verizon and SprintPCS networks, CDMA phones grabbed a
seemingly impregnable lead in the United States. But the latest
prediction from ABI Research suggests that the GSM family of
standards, which includes GPRS, could overtake CDMA in a couple of
years.
ABI pegs this year's numbers as 73 million CDMA handsets , or a 44
per cent share, versus 58 million, or a 35 per cent share. The latter
is a dramatic increase from 11 per cent last year, thanks to AT&T
Wireless moving from TDMA to GSM/GPRS.
According to the analyst company, GSM will draw level next year, 45
to 44 per cent, and nudge ahead in 2005. The share of others, which
includes Nextel's iDEN will fall to 8 per cent. For the rest of the
period for which ABI has made forecasts, GSM and CDMA technologies
duke it out with scarcely a per centage point of difference between
them.
[MORE]
Previously:
"GSM heads for 50pc of US phones"
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/30831.html>
While the battle to set Iraq's mobile phone standard may be over,
Nokia thinks that GSM can grab 50 per cent of the market back in the
Homeland. And analysts seem to agree it's far from impossible. You
might be as skeptical as we are, but the global GSM standard and its
variants are indisputably on the rise in the United States.
...
The others have been nibbling at each other's market share without
dramatic shifts in power between the camps. The new GSM player
T-Mobile has gained at the expense of old Cingular, and Verizon has
gained at the expense of Sprint PCS. AT&T is making strides
converting its TDMA network to GSM/GPRS, and the market share of the
GSM players combined (38 per cent) is larger than the two CDMA
flagbearers at 34 per cent.
...
However, come the churn, one factor will play into the GSM operators
favor - if they're shrewd enough to realize it. The SIM card model
already allows you to take your phone number and address book with
you and use it in another handset, while CDMA handsets are closed.
And number portability allows you to change the network entirely.
This puts more pressure on the carriers to offer more attractive
handsets (which the model was designed to do, as much as it was
intended to increase competition between network operators). And
competing on features and style plays into the GSM operators hands,
as the coolest kit and the widest variety of models have always come
from the GSM boys, serving a far larger global market.
[MORE]
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Larry
date FCC will let 'em turn off my AMPS system. I can wait for the big
shakeout and other marketing bullshit......obsoleting every phone
every year.
Just stand away from the bagphone. I don't want anyone to get burned.
Larry
And now a word from our flamers and masochists.....
Chris Russell
until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. GSM is much ado about nothing-give
me a TDMA system anytime for voice calls so that when it switches to
AMPS the call always continues in my case. Instead on GSM, you get the
dreaded 3 beeps and a clunk as it drops the call on my Nokia 6340i.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<R4mRa.2423$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Chris Russell
change the status quo. Until the cellular companies put in 2-3 times
the number of cells, AMPS will not go away. As I write this, I am in
Davenport, IA coming back from Walnut Creek, CA. In Wyoming with my
Nokia 6340i in field-test mode, towers on mountains about 20 miles apart
gave me these signals: 1st 7 miles TDMA, next 6 miles AMPS, final 7
miles TDMA. The FCC has always pegged AMPS pull-out with equivalent
area coverage with digital. To do that they will have to add many more
towers.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
nos...@home.com (Larry) wrote in article
<3f15f86a...@news.usenetserver.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Mike
>Sure hope they get it all figured out by Feb 16, 2008, the current
>date FCC will let 'em turn off my AMPS system.
Larry, by the time we hit February 2008, it WILL be YOUR AMPS
system...you'll be the only one on it! ;)
Mike
matt weber
Russell) wrote:
>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. GSM is much ado about nothing-give
>me a TDMA system anytime for voice calls so that when it switches to
>AMPS the call always continues in my case. Instead on GSM, you get the
>dreaded 3 beeps and a clunk as it drops the call on my Nokia 6340i.
Much of 3G is likely to be DOA. There are other, and much less
expensive way to provide most of what 3G is aimed at. There are very
few applications of people drive in cars that need 1mb/sec bandwidth.
There are plenty sitting down at a table.
802.11a/b/g are far less costly, and provide most of the features,
often with considerably more capacity.
John Navas
In <na5chvc3fb9h1mfl2...@4ax.com> on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:21:02
-0700, matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:33 -0000, no...@nospam.nospam (Chris
>Russell) wrote:
>
>>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
>>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. ...
3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
current CDMA.
>Much of 3G is likely to be DOA. There are other, and much less
>expensive way to provide most of what 3G is aimed at. There are very
>few applications of people drive in cars that need 1mb/sec bandwidth.
>There are plenty sitting down at a table.
3G will be driven at least as much by voice as by data, since it offers a big
increase in efficiency.
>802.11a/b/g are far less costly, and provide most of the features,
>often with considerably more capacity.
There are problems with public 802.11, including the lack of a viable business
model, range, security, lack of seamless handoffs, etc.
Larry
Negative. Ask the people in the country what they think of digital
toyphones replacing their 3W AMPS carphones.
(Be prepared to learn new expletives when you find country folks
who've already "upgraded to digital". Their language, though not
suitable for Southern Baptists, is most colorful.)
Notice how cellular stores are located in cities? It's not healthy
for salesmen selling 200mw digital phones out in the country. Bubbas
can make cellular salesmen, and their phones, disappear without a
trace when they come for his AMPS carphones. There are alligators out
there!
Steven M. Scharf
He stated in a previous article:
"...the world has a single standard, and enjoys economies of scale..."
Uh, except for Korea, Japan, and parts of China, Australia, New
Zealand, North America, and South America.
GSM certainly has the most users of any wireless system, just as
Christianity has the most adherents of any religion.
As much as I enjoy The Register, this columnist has
a blind spot when it comes to GSM; he just can't believe
that the U.S. did not fall into line with GSM, and while
he doesn't deny the technical advantages of CDMA,
he ignores the reality of the issues in the U.S., which
drove the adoption of CDMA.
If all of Cingular and AT&T's customers move from
TDMA to GSM, and if Nextel doesn't switch to CDMA,
then the premise of the article is probably correct,
though irrelevant. And of course eventually W-CDMA
is coming at least in Europe.
There's a great article about all this at:
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.shtml
Steve
--
http://www.sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
John Navas
In <2upRa.5944$Mc.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003
04:20:14 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>The author, Andrew Orlowski, has no credibility.
Pot ... kettle ... black. ;-)
Anyone with a different take than yours has no credibility in your eyes.
Why am I not surprised.
Whiz Kid
This author is basing his predictions on "number of handsets sold!".
LOL. Nothing but mindless marketing drivel for GSM.
He also conveniently ignores Alltel when calculating the marketshare of
CDMA companies and the fact that Nextel has publicly announced to go
with CDMA EV-DV in the future.
CDMA has own over GSM very convincingly in USA.
-WK.
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<R4mRa.2423$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Paul T Wang
"Whiz Kid" <Whi...@einstein.iq> wrote in message
news:vhcespc...@corp.supernews.com...
> Man, This is a worst piece of garbage I read in a while.
>
> This author is basing his predictions on "number of handsets sold!".
> LOL. Nothing but mindless marketing drivel for GSM.
>
> He also conveniently ignores Alltel when calculating the marketshare of
> CDMA companies and the fact that Nextel has publicly announced to go
> with CDMA EV-DV in the future.
>
> CDMA has own over GSM very convincingly in USA.
>
Side note: CDMA does not cause EMI on speakers while GSM's TDMA does.
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <na5chvc3fb9h1mfl2...@4ax.com> on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:21:02
>-0700, matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:33 -0000, no...@nospam.nospam (Chris
>>Russell) wrote:
>>
>>>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
>>>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. ...
>
>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>current CDMA.
Sorry, by the strictest definition of 3G (2 mbps peak stationary) only
1x EV-DO is 3G. The rest is propaganda.
It's not the land infrastructure that makes it "3G", it's the radio
side.
John Navas
In <boadhv41qu5c8h37a...@4ax.com> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:58:44
-0500, pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:33:09 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <na5chvc3fb9h1mfl2...@4ax.com> on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:21:02
>>-0700, matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:33 -0000, no...@nospam.nospam (Chris
>>>Russell) wrote:
>>>
>>>>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
>>>>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. ...
>>
>>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>>current CDMA.
>
>Sorry, by the strictest definition of 3G (2 mbps peak stationary) only
>1x EV-DO is 3G. The rest is propaganda.
The industry considers EDGE and UMTS (WCDMA) to be 3G.
>It's not the land infrastructure that makes it "3G", it's the radio
>side.
Actually, it's both.
Frederick
This may be a loaded question but which is the better network? GSM,
TDMA or CDMA? I am lucky my phone works on both GSM And TDMA.
John Navas
In <66c372d3.03071...@posting.google.com> on 17 Jul 2003 07:47:10
-0700, fjc...@photographyspecialist.com (Frederick) wrote:
>This may be a loaded question
It is!
>but which is the better network? GSM, TDMA or CDMA? ...
Whatever network happens to give you the best results.
Your question is a bit like asking, "Which is the better color, green or
blue?"
Dan W.
which service is better, i ask them "What do you need from your cell
phone?"
It's alot like which car to buy, it really depends on what you're going
to use it for.
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<k1zRa.2573$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>
> Whatever network happens to give you the best results.
>
> Your question is a bit like asking, "Which is the better color, green or
> blue?"
Steven M. Scharf
>
> This author is basing his predictions on "number of handsets sold!".
> LOL. Nothing but mindless marketing drivel for GSM.
>
> He also conveniently ignores Alltel when calculating the marketshare of
> CDMA companies and the fact that Nextel has publicly announced to go
> with CDMA EV-DV in the future.
Has Nextel they publicly announced that? There has been
speculation for a while that Nextel would move away from
iDEN and go to CDMA, but I don't remember seeing a public
announcement to that effect.
John Navas
In <9QzRa.106077$Io.90...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 17 Jul
"Nextel And CDMA2000: Picking A Path To 3G?" [May 28, 2001]
<http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA83844>
Though Nextel Communications Inc. is coy on whether it has picked
CDMA as its third-generation technology, the company is touting the
benefits it expects the technology to bring.
The enhanced specialized mobile radio operator confirmed last week it
is seeking proposals for a CDMA2000 1X overlay on its nationwide
integrated digital enhanced network. The company issued requests for
proposals from 14 infrastructure vendors in mid-May. The company
asked vendors to suggest handset manufacturers, although handsets are
not part of the current proposal process. While explaining all of
these details, the company refrained from promising it will deploy
CDMA2000 1X.
"Once we get the responses to the RFPs, we'll take that information
and put it into the equation," says Audrey Schaefer, director of
corporate communications at Nextel. "But just to sum it up, we have
not made any definite decisions on the technology. It seems to be the
logical path for us."
...
Schaefer says the company would require equipment vendors to support
both its iDEN and a CDMA system, and that both systems must be able
to work together. The progression also would require that the 1X
system have the capability to offer its push-to-talk "Direct Connect"
two-way radio features that are popular with Nextel's customers.
Schaefer says the company will not discuss its timetable for possible
deployment. But Nextel spokesman Bob Ratliffe says the company
expects to have a decision on the proposals by late summer or the
fall.
John Navas
In <vhdhvpf...@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:59:53 -0000,
homi...@hotmail.com (Dan W.) wrote:
>John, i agree with you 100%..... If one of my friends or family ask me
>which service is better, i ask them "What do you need from your cell
>phone?"
"and where will you want to use it?"
Michael Lynch
news:R4mRa.2423$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/31758.html>
Needing The Register (in the UK) to support your assertion for the US is
beyond lame. You've reached a new low...
--
Mike
Thomas T. Veldhouse
"Mike" <inund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ma4chvklktpl157nj...@4ax.com...
Yet, if you are in New Richmond, Wisconsin, just 30 miles from downtown St.
Paul, you still must use AMPS with SprintPCS! ALL other carriers in the
area offer digital service there.
Tom Veldhouse
John Navas
In <9oARa.122$oK3...@news02.roc.ny> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:44:53 GMT, "Michael
Lynch" <mly...@citlink.net> wrote:
1. I'm making no assertion.
2. The forecast is by Allied Business Intelligence Inc, based in NY.
null
Big deal. On Verizon for example, from Myrtle Beach, SC almost all the
way to Charlotte, NC is AMPS only. ATTWS's "next generation" network
only covers a few cities in NC. Having digital service holes is
certainly not unique to Sprint.
Steven M. Scharf
from a propagandist at The Register, you can find it at:
http://www.emc-database.com/website.nsf/index/pr030314#this-page
"CDMA is the leading technology choice in the US market accounting
for 43% of all users. However this position could be challenged by the
emergence of new GSM service from existing TDMA operators. GSM
currently accounts for 11% of the market, up from 6% in 1999. EMC
forecasts that GSM will account for 33% of all US users in 2007, with
CDMA continuing to dominate with a forecasted market share of 44%
in 2007."
This report is from March 2003.
Steve
--
http://www.sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
"Chris Russell" <no...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vhc1cpd...@corp.supernews.com...
Steven M. Scharf
St.
> > Paul, you still must use AMPS with SprintPCS! ALL other carriers in the
> > area offer digital service there.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
>
> Big deal. On Verizon for example, from Myrtle Beach, SC almost all the
> way to Charlotte, NC is AMPS only. ATTWS's "next generation" network
> only covers a few cities in NC. Having digital service holes is
> certainly not unique to Sprint.
It's not a big deal to have only AMPS coverage where digital has not
yet reached. There are areas of the U.S. where it will be decades before
they have digital, and where you can still buy 3W AMPS phones.
No service at all is far worse than AMPS service on occasion.
It would be great if the GSM carriers would recognize this fact and
offer some GSM/AMPS phones. I know Cingular offers two GAIT
phones, but no other GSM carrier offers such a handest yet.
James Pole
> Side note: CDMA does not cause EMI on speakers while GSM's TDMA does.
Do people care? I think not...
- James
Carl.
news:pan.2003.07.17....@SPAM.pole.net.nz...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:38:34 +0000, Paul T Wang wrote:
> > Side note: CDMA does not cause EMI on speakers while GSM's TDMA does.
>
> Do people care? I think not...
Then you don't think very hard. It's a little annoying to be sitting next
to a radio you listen to and have your phone f$k it up. That said, GSM
seems to do this far less than IS136 phones do.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003
John Navas
In <xyDRa.106424$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 17 Jul
2003 20:20:45 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>If anyone is interested in research based facts, rather than rubbish
>from a propagandist at The Register, you can find it at:
>
>http://www.emc-database.com/website.nsf/index/pr030314#this-page
>
>"CDMA is the leading technology choice in the US market accounting
> for 43% of all users. However this position could be challenged by the
> emergence of new GSM service from existing TDMA operators. GSM
> currently accounts for 11% of the market, up from 6% in 1999. EMC
> forecasts that GSM will account for 33% of all US users in 2007, with
> CDMA continuing to dominate with a forecasted market share of 44%
> in 2007."
>
>This report is from March 2003.
Nice try, Steven, but The Register was simply reporting on research by Allied
Business Intelligence (ABI) Inc. (as you would know if you had anything
approaching an open mind). ABI is based in New York; EMC is based in England.
Steven M. Scharf
"How code-division multiple access (CDMA) technology emerged
as the world standard for mobile phones"
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?subject
id=894408&story_id=1841059
You can't read it online unless you're a subscriber (which I am).
I suspect that the piece in The Register was a response to the
piece in the Economist.
The conclusion:
'In one form or another, then, CDMA is set to become the
dominant technology for mobile telephony around the world.'
"Chris Russell" <no...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vhc1cpd...@corp.supernews.com...
> posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
> until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. GSM is much ado about nothing-give
> me a TDMA system anytime for voice calls so that when it switches to
> AMPS the call always continues in my case. Instead on GSM, you get the
> dreaded 3 beeps and a clunk as it drops the call on my Nokia 6340i.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
>
>
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
> <R4mRa.2423$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
Aaron C.
work on tdma and gsm. neither phone will work in analog.
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in article
<FKDRa.106433$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
mailinglists
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2upRa.5944$Mc.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003
> 04:20:14 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>> The author, Andrew Orlowski, has no credibility.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... black. ;-)
>
> Anyone with a different take than yours has no credibility in your eyes.
> Why am I not surprised.
And you're up to your same old holier than thou shit. Go back under your
rock, NavASS.
Dental(stud)
the t62u, then it's not a GAIT phone for them either.
"Aaron C." <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vhen7jb...@corp.supernews.com...
Chris Russell
frequency width four times larger than existing cellular services.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<VNoRa.2465$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <na5chvc3fb9h1mfl2...@4ax.com> on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:21:02
> -0700, matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:33 -0000, no...@nospam.nospam (Chris
> >Russell) wrote:
> >
> >>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
> >>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. ...
>
> 3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
> current CDMA.
>
> >Much of 3G is likely to be DOA. There are other, and much less
> >expensive way to provide most of what 3G is aimed at. There are very
> >few applications of people drive in cars that need 1mb/sec bandwidth.
> >There are plenty sitting down at a table.
>
> 3G will be driven at least as much by voice as by data, since it offers a big
> increase in efficiency.
>
> >802.11a/b/g are far less costly, and provide most of the features,
> >often with considerably more capacity.
>
> There are problems with public 802.11, including the lack of a viable business
> model, range, security, lack of seamless handoffs, etc.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
John Navas
True, the S46 isn't GAIT, but it does have both TDMA and GSM.
The T62u is GAIT whether AMPS is blocked or not.
In <vheonck...@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:04:19 -0400,
"Dental\(stud\)" <denta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The S46 isn't GAIT... it doesn't support AMPS, and if AT&T disabled AMPS on
>the t62u, then it's not a GAIT phone for them either.
>
>"Aaron C." <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vhen7jb...@corp.supernews.com...
>> attws offers two gait phones also.. the s46 and t62u. the gait phones
>> work on tdma and gsm. neither phone will work in analog.
--
John Navas
In <57cc45b5249c9bcd...@dizum.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:20:02
+0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:33:09 GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure,
>The last phrase is UNTRUE! WCDMA is based on, duh, CDMA infrastructure. See:
>>and quite different from current CDMA.
>This is NOT true either:
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
John Navas
As I said, 3G WCDMA is largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite
different from current CDMA.
In <vheq24e...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:23:48 -0000,
no...@nospam.nospam (Chris Russell) wrote:
>WCDMA has nothing to do with GSM. It is wideband CDMA with the
>frequency width four times larger than existing cellular services.
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
><VNoRa.2465$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>> 3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>> current CDMA.
--
John Navas
In <BB3CD382.2FD0%mailin...@covad.net> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:28:18 -0400,
mailinglists <mailin...@covad.net> wrote:
Let me guess -- you're eight?
John Navas
In <fWIRa.107047$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul
2003 02:27:23 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>The conclusion:
>
>'In one form or another, then, CDMA is set to become the
> dominant technology for mobile telephony around the world.'
Basic air interface, yes, albeit incompatible with CDMA2000; infrastructure,
no. In other words, you're playing with semantics. Why am I not surprised.
Hollis Ellis
other's in major cities.
Raghu
know the difference between infrastructure and air-interface. All any of the
links say is that the air interface uses Code division multiple access.
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:57cc45b5249c9bcd...@dizum.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:33:09 GMT, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
>
> >3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure,
>
> The last phrase is UNTRUE! WCDMA is based on, duh, CDMA infrastructure.
See:
>
>
<http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci505610,00.htm
l>
> <http://www.cdmatech.com/solutions/products/radio_dual-band_gsm_umts.jsp>
> <http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/WCDMA.html>
>
> >and quite different from current CDMA.
>
> This is NOT true either:
>
>
<http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:6C4hAezyWQ8J:stuweb.ee.mtu.edu/~wong/w
cdma.htm+difference+wcdma+cdma&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
> <http://www.via-telecom.com/library/faq.jsp>
>
null
backwards-compatible) overlay to GSM networks?
In article <h1KRa.2766$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
gopi
> The author, Andrew Orlowski, has no credibility.
> There's a great article about all this at:
> http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.shtml
"What? You're reading pro-GSM FUD? Here, I'll show you some pro-CDMA
FUD to balance it out!"
Sorry, but that guy clearly has his own axe to grind. More to the
point, he is also WRONG.
Referring to GPRS and GSM, he claims:
"A given chunk of spectrum must be permanently assigned to one or the
other; it can't be reallocated dynamically."
In fact, it can be dynamically reallocated with a lot of flexibility.
I refer you to page 3 of this paper:
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/research/tech-reports/2003/CSE-2003-3.pdf
Please, don't answer FUD with more FUD.
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <fWIRa.107047$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul
> 2003 02:27:23 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
> >The conclusion:
> >
> >'In one form or another, then, CDMA is set to become the
> > dominant technology for mobile telephony around the world.'
>
> Basic air interface, yes, albeit incompatible with CDMA2000; infrastructure,
> no. In other words, you're playing with semantics. Why am I not surprised.
What do you mean by "infrastructure, no"? WCDMA won't be compatible with
GSM any more than it will be compatible with CDMA One or CDMA2000 --
it'll use the same "overlay" method that ATTWS is using to migrate from
TMDA to GSM.
James Pole
> How is WCDMA based on GSM more than on CDMA, other than being a (not
> backwards-compatible) overlay to GSM networks?
I think he means that while the radio system is quite simalar to CDMA, the
way that end-users use the system (ie simcards and all the other GSM-only
stuffs) is more simalar to GSM.
- James
James Pole
> What do you mean by "infrastructure, no"? WCDMA won't be compatible with
> GSM any more than it will be compatible with CDMA One or CDMA2000 --
> it'll use the same "overlay" method that ATTWS is using to migrate from
> TMDA to GSM.
I disagree. In Australia and the UK, 'Three' (Hutchinson) has been
operating a UMTS network. Their phone can automatically roam on to O2 (BT
Cellnet) in the UK or Vodafone in Australia if there is no UMTS signal.
Both O2 and Vodafone runs GSM networks -- so a logical mind would conclude
that many UMTS phones are indeed compatible with GSM.
It is compatiable because the system (I'm *not* referring to the
air/radio system) is quite simalar. Both systems use Simcards and the UMTS
system takes a lot of ideas from the old GSM system to create a system
that is more or less compatiable with GSM. The only major difference
between UMTS and GSM is the radio system.
- James
null
James Pole <jam...@SPAM.pole.net.nz> wrote:
Again, I point to AT&T Wireless. They had/have phones that would
seamlessly roam from TDMA to AMPS -- this does not mean that TDMA and
AMPS are the same infrastructure. What "ideas" are you referring to? How
is it "more or less compatible"? You refer to SIM cards, but these have
been available even for CDMA One since 2000:
http://www.cdmatech.com/news/releases/2000/000612schlumberger.jsp
... it's just that most CDMA carriers have chosen not to implement SIM
cards.
From what I understand, the singular goal of WCDMA was to pay fewer
licensing fees to Qualcomm.
James Pole
> Again, I point to AT&T Wireless. They had/have phones that would
> seamlessly roam from TDMA to AMPS -- this does not mean that TDMA and
> AMPS are the same infrastructure.
Heh, again I disagree.
Here in New Zealand, Telecom NZ has a TDMA/AMPS system and they both work
in excatly the same way from an end-users perspective. You can use the
same phone and the same phone number on either their Digital TDMA or
Analouge AMPS system. The phone automatically roams seamlessly from TDMA
to AMPS whenever a phone comes out of digital coverage.
Contrast this to when Telecom NZ migrated over to CDMA. They had to
overhaul their system to cope with the new CDMA system. They forced their
CDMA customers to get a new phone number. If you're a CDMA customer you
can not roam over to Telecom's Analouge service.
Now, why I'm saying that UMTS is compatiable with GSM is because you can
use the same phone and same sim card (and therefore same phone number)
across both GSM and UMTS systems. Look at Australia where 'Three'
customers can roam on to Vodafone's GSM system with the same phone and
same phone number -- very much like how TDMA users can roam on to AMPS
systems without having to change their phone or their phone number.
> What "ideas" are you referring to? How is it "more or less compatible"?
I was referring to how the systems works. TDMA and AMPS has a simalar
backend system which allows customers to roam across the 2 systems without
any changes to their configuration. This is simalar to what has happened
with UMTS and GSM. The people behind UMTS has made UMTS as simalar as
possible to GSM to ease migration from GSM to UTMS.
There is a reason why UMTS is called the future migration path for GSM
providers. It is because UMTS adopts lots of stuff from the GSM standard
which makes it much, much easier for GSM providers to migrate across to
UTMS than it is to CDMA which has a completely different backend system.
> You refer to SIM cards, but these have been available even for CDMA One
> since 2000:
> http://www.cdmatech.com/news/releases/2000/000612schlumberger.jsp ...
> it's just that most CDMA carriers have chosen not to implement SIM
> cards.
This is is irrelevant to this discussion.
> From what I understand, the singular goal of WCDMA was to pay fewer
> licensing fees to Qualcomm.
Yes, that is probally true. GSM was based on TDMA, but I guess this time
round they're not just going to adopt another American standard. They're
going to create their own radio technology to avoid paying fees.
- James
--
James Pole
Email: james [at] pole.net.nz
Website: http://james.pole.net.nz/
John Navas
In <c060ee07.03071...@posting.google.com> on 17 Jul 2003 22:30:00
-0700, bb+graffit...@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
The piece is so bad, so distorted, and (as you note) so full of
misinformation, that I simply chose to ignore it. That Steven cites it with
such enthusiasm ("great article") speaks volumes about both his "expertise"
and his "objectivity."
James Pole
> Interesting, because in the US *all* the CDMA carriers let you do
> exactly that, and several migrated from AMPS to CDMA One in pieces while
> letting you use both networks simultaneously. The reason I mentioned
> ATTWS in particular was that in some places ATTWS allowed call handoff
> between IS-136 and AMPS (seamless handoff, I believe, being the
> distinguishing feature of Hutchison 3), which no CDMA One network can do
> (that I'm aware of).
UMTS is capable of seamless handoffs. This just dosn't happen on
Hutchinson UMTS since they do not operate a GSM service in parallel with
theit UMTS service. They have roaming agreements with Vodafone/O2 which
prevent 100% seamless roaming to/from 2G and 3G. When Telstra, Optus,
Vodafone and all the other GSM providers start providng UMTS service they
will be able to offer seamless roaming between UMTS/GSM services -- in
both direction.
As far as I'm aware CDMA/TDMA phones can handoff to Analouge, but Analouge
will not be able to handoff back to digital service. What happens when you
roam out of Analouge service into an area which only has digital? This
could be common in countries (such as New Zealand) which are rapidly
migrating away from TDMA/AMPS.
> Big deal. Sprint PCS (nationwide CDMA2000) will give me a SIM card that
> I can pop into any GSM phone in the world and when people call my (US)
> Sprint phone number the GSM phone will ring. My Sprint PCS phone will
> also roam on any other CDMA or AMPS system in the US -- there's no
> reason that I would want it to roam on GSM because the US is more
> covered by even CDMA2000 than GSM.
But you have to use a different phone. If I had a UMTS phone, I could use
either GSM or UMTS. This is not the case for people who have a CDMA
account with a GSM sim card. They will have to stop using their CDMA phone
if they waned to use their sim card as sim cards do not work in any CDMA
phones on the market.
And, I'm curious to what happens when one does call a Sprint PCS number.
Which phone rings -- the CDMA phone, the GSM phone or both at the same
time? This is not an issue with GSM/UMTS -- you only have one simcard and
you can use it in either GSM or UMTS phones.
> I concede that if I wanted to switch phones that it would be easier to
> pop out a card than to go to activate.sprintpcs.com and type in my
> phone's ESN, but as I stated before, lack of SIM cards is not a problem
> inherent to CDMA One or CMDA2000, just inherent to the providers here.
No its not. Show me a provider that provides CDMA-compatiable simcards.
Even better, show me a provider which sells CDMA simcard phones. As far as
I'm aware Telecom NZ and Telstra in Australia do not support simcards. So
it is not America which has problems with simcards, its also a problem in
the Asia-Pacific region. Europe dosn't even have CDMA...
> Except that GSM and UMTS can't share spectrum like CDMA One and CDMA2000
> can, so unless wireless providers are going to use redundant spectrum
> forever, they'll have to turn off their GSM system at some point and
> hand out UMTS handsets to everyone (essentially ATTWS's strategy in
> transitioning from IS-136 TDMA to GSM, and what they're going to again
> have to do when they transition to WCDMA).
As far as I'm aware AT&T has GSM and TDMA services operating at the same
time. Telstra in Australia operated AMPS/TDMA/GSM services simultaneously
back in the late 1990's. So this is not impossible. One spectrum can be
allocated to GSM and the other allocated to UMTS.
> Essentially, there's
> absolutely no advantage in moving to UMTS instead of CDMA2000. CDMA One
> networks had it the easiest -- CDMA One is backwards and forwards
> compatible with CDMA2000 on the same spectrum (i.e. a CDMA One phone
> works on a CDMA2000 network and vice versa).
Customers don't care about all this bullshit.
Many people chose GSM just because of the fact *all* phones support
simcards. Here in New Zealand if you want to switch a CDMA/TDMA phone over
to a new number, for whatever reason, you have to go into a Telecom shop
and ask them to change whatever they need to change. With GSM/UMTS all you
have to do is change the simcard.
Many people also chose GSM because of its excellent global roaming
coverage. My GSM provider provides roaming to over 160 providers in over
80 countries. Telecom NZ's TDMA/AMPS service does not provide any roaming
services at all (despite the fact America has TDMA/AMPS services).
Telecom's CDMA service only provides native roaming to Australia, Japan,
America and a few other Asian countries.
All they care about is service. They don't give a shit about frequency
issues. They just want a decent phone which can meet their needs.
Many people I know on Telecom's CDMA/TDMA/AMPS are often pissed off with
the lack of certain services on Telecom (take your pick from global
roaming, lack of international text messenging, lack of simcards, and so
on). I have *never* heard anyone say "I hate GSM/Vodafone. I wanna go to
Telecom's TDMA [or CDMA] service".
> You still don't say what this nebulous "lots of stuff" is. BTW, UMTS
> *is* CDMA (which is why it's also known as WCDMA), just not CDMA One
> (IS-95) or CDMA2000.
GSM *is* TDMA. What's your point?
> Well then why did you bring SIM cards up as a WCDMA advantage?
Because its a real advantage of WCDMA. It is a "paper advantage" of CDMA
in the sense that simcards are in the CDMA paper standard but it has
never, to my knowledge, implemented in real life.
null
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:03:12 +0000, null wrote:
> > Interesting, because in the US *all* the CDMA carriers let you do
> > exactly that, and several migrated from AMPS to CDMA One in pieces while
> > letting you use both networks simultaneously. The reason I mentioned
> > ATTWS in particular was that in some places ATTWS allowed call handoff
> > between IS-136 and AMPS (seamless handoff, I believe, being the
> > distinguishing feature of Hutchison 3), which no CDMA One network can do
> > (that I'm aware of).
>
> UMTS is capable of seamless handoffs. This just dosn't happen on
> Hutchinson UMTS since they do not operate a GSM service in parallel with
> theit UMTS service. They have roaming agreements with Vodafone/O2 which
> prevent 100% seamless roaming to/from 2G and 3G. When Telstra, Optus,
> Vodafone and all the other GSM providers start providng UMTS service they
> will be able to offer seamless roaming between UMTS/GSM services -- in
> both direction.
When you say "seamless roaming" I assume you mean seamless handoff --
this is done with CDMA One to CDMA2000, which is the equivalent. I am
not aware of whether GSM could be made to seamlessly hand-off to
CDMA2000 or not (though I can't imagine there's a good reason why not).
> As far as I'm aware CDMA/TDMA phones can handoff to Analouge, but Analouge
> will not be able to handoff back to digital service. What happens when you
> roam out of Analouge service into an area which only has digital? This
> could be common in countries (such as New Zealand) which are rapidly
> migrating away from TDMA/AMPS.
Well, I never roam off of CDMA, so it's a moot point for me; if I did
roam to analog, the call would drop, but in the United States there's
really no such thing as roaming out of analog service. Either way, you
call back.
> > Big deal. Sprint PCS (nationwide CDMA2000) will give me a SIM card that
> > I can pop into any GSM phone in the world and when people call my (US)
> > Sprint phone number the GSM phone will ring. My Sprint PCS phone will
> > also roam on any other CDMA or AMPS system in the US -- there's no
> > reason that I would want it to roam on GSM because the US is more
> > covered by even CDMA2000 than GSM.
>
> But you have to use a different phone. If I had a UMTS phone, I could use
> either GSM or UMTS. This is not the case for people who have a CDMA
> account with a GSM sim card. They will have to stop using their CDMA phone
> if they waned to use their sim card as sim cards do not work in any CDMA
> phones on the market.
Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. And there are
CDMA carriers in South America that use SIM cards -- the Nokia 3585i
CDMA2000 phone that's available on Sprint even has a SIM card slot,
though Sprint doesn't support it.
> And, I'm curious to what happens when one does call a Sprint PCS number.
> Which phone rings -- the CDMA phone, the GSM phone or both at the same
> time?
Both phones.
> This is not an issue with GSM/UMTS -- you only have one simcard and
> you can use it in either GSM or UMTS phones.
Why is this an issue anyway? You pick up whichever phone you have
convenient. Is it an "issue" when more than one of your home phones ring
at the same time?
Like I said, Samsung already has a combination GSM/GPRS/CDMA2000 phone,
so it's potentially irrelevant anyway.
> > I concede that if I wanted to switch phones that it would be easier to
> > pop out a card than to go to activate.sprintpcs.com and type in my
> > phone's ESN, but as I stated before, lack of SIM cards is not a problem
> > inherent to CDMA One or CMDA2000, just inherent to the providers here.
>
> No its not. Show me a provider that provides CDMA-compatiable simcards.
Iusacell in Mexico. They can even be taken out and put in any GSM phone.
> Even better, show me a provider which sells CDMA simcard phones.
Iusacell in Mexico.
> As far as
> I'm aware Telecom NZ and Telstra in Australia do not support simcards. So
> it is not America which has problems with simcards, its also a problem in
> the Asia-Pacific region. Europe dosn't even have CDMA...
We *were* arguing the technology, are you now arguing the
implementation? Did I ever state that CDMA SIM cards were widespread?
No, I simply stated that SIM cards are *not* an impediment to CDMA2000
vs. UMTS
> > Except that GSM and UMTS can't share spectrum like CDMA One and CDMA2000
> > can, so unless wireless providers are going to use redundant spectrum
> > forever, they'll have to turn off their GSM system at some point and
> > hand out UMTS handsets to everyone (essentially ATTWS's strategy in
> > transitioning from IS-136 TDMA to GSM, and what they're going to again
> > have to do when they transition to WCDMA).
>
> As far as I'm aware AT&T has GSM and TDMA services operating at the same
> time.
Yes. Not on the same spectrum. They will be turning off their TDMA
network.
> Telstra in Australia operated AMPS/TDMA/GSM services simultaneously
> back in the late 1990's. So this is not impossible. One spectrum can be
> allocated to GSM and the other allocated to UMTS.
Exactly, which is why I said "redundant." At some point, the obsoleted
networks will have to be turned off, and all remaining users of those
networks will be forced to upgrade to new phones.
> > Essentially, there's
> > absolutely no advantage in moving to UMTS instead of CDMA2000. CDMA One
> > networks had it the easiest -- CDMA One is backwards and forwards
> > compatible with CDMA2000 on the same spectrum (i.e. a CDMA One phone
> > works on a CDMA2000 network and vice versa).
>
> Customers don't care about all this bullshit.
Customers care that they don't have to get new phones. Ask AT&T how hard
it is to convince their customers to move to their "Next Generation"
(i.e. GSM) network.
> Many people chose GSM just because of the fact *all* phones support
> simcards. Here in New Zealand if you want to switch a CDMA/TDMA phone over
> to a new number, for whatever reason, you have to go into a Telecom shop
> and ask them to change whatever they need to change. With GSM/UMTS all you
> have to do is change the simcard.
In the US, even GSM phones are provider-locked so that you can't simply
go out and buy any phone you want and pop in a SIM card. You *can*
switch cards from the same carrier, however.
Again, *as I said*, Sprint PCS (CDMA2000), at least, allows you to
switch phones on the web at activate.sprintpcs.com where you just type
in the ESN number on the back of the phone. Phone is activated
instantly. And *as I said*, not quite as convenient as using a SIM card,
but hardly a hassle.
> Many people also chose GSM because of its excellent global roaming
> coverage. My GSM provider provides roaming to over 160 providers in over
> 80 countries.
With the same phone? No. Unless you have a "world phone," you're in the
same boat as me, who has a CDMA2000 phone -- I can roam wherever I want
with a SIM card too. But who cares? A) CDMA200/GSM phones are arrving,
and B) a GSM phone costs what, $30? If I'm travelling internationally I
want to have a basically disposable phone anyway.
I have no idea how many providers I can roam on, but I can roam on CDMA
in 34 countries:
and GSM in an additional 96 countries (interesting how with a CDMA
provider I can roam in more GSM countries than you with a GSM provider,
no?):
> Telecom NZ's TDMA/AMPS service does not provide any roaming
> services at all (despite the fact America has TDMA/AMPS services).
> Telecom's CDMA service only provides native roaming to Australia, Japan,
> America and a few other Asian countries.
Again, how is that a limitation of the technology? You've quite
convinced me by now that Telecom CDMA simply sucks.
> All they care about is service. They don't give a shit about frequency
> issues. They just want a decent phone which can meet their needs.
>
> Many people I know on Telecom's CDMA/TDMA/AMPS are often pissed off with
> the lack of certain services on Telecom (take your pick from global
> roaming, lack of international text messenging, lack of simcards, and so
> on). I have *never* heard anyone say "I hate GSM/Vodafone. I wanna go to
> Telecom's TDMA [or CDMA] service".
Again, you have yet to name one aspect that is a limitation of the
technology, and not a limitation of the carrier.
> > You still don't say what this nebulous "lots of stuff" is. BTW, UMTS
> > *is* CDMA (which is why it's also known as WCDMA), just not CDMA One
> > (IS-95) or CDMA2000.
>
> GSM *is* TDMA. What's your point?
Now you're just being an ass. You said (which you conveniently snipped)
that it was "easier for GSM providers to migrate across to UTMS than it
is to CDMA..."
The fact that UMTS is CDMA makes that an absurd statement.
> > Well then why did you bring SIM cards up as a WCDMA advantage?
>
> Because its a real advantage of WCDMA. It is a "paper advantage" of CDMA
> in the sense that simcards are in the CDMA paper standard but it has
> never, to my knowledge, implemented in real life.
Yet it in fact is being implemented, and it has nothing to do with
whether carriers should *switch* to CDMA2000 instead of WCDMA, because
if they wanted to keep SIM cards it would not be an issue.
James Pole
> Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
> unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. And there are
> CDMA carriers in South America that use SIM cards -- the Nokia 3585i
> CDMA2000 phone that's available on Sprint even has a SIM card slot,
> though Sprint doesn't support it.
America and Canada are only country in the world where you would have to
change your phone. With my GSM phone I can use it in almost every
developed countries in the world with the obvious exception of the US and
Canada.
Many people in my area of the world can't do that with CDMA. Telstra in
Australia does not allow phones purchases out of Australia on to their
network. Just to make sure I'm clear, I'm referring to Telstra customers,
not customers of other Telcos roaming on to Telstra.
I'm not aware of the policies of other CDMA providers, but if the provider
has the power to decide what phones can be used on their network, then
that kinds of take away choice for the end-users. GSM dosn't have that
problem. All the GSM providers I know of let their users use whatever
handset they want to use as long as its a GSM-compatible handset.
>> No its not. Show me a provider that provides CDMA-compatible simcards.
>
> Iusacell in Mexico. They can even be taken out and put in any GSM phone.
>
>> Even better, show me a provider which sells CDMA simcard phones.
>
> Iusacell in Mexico.
ALL GSM phones/providers support simcards. There's not much point in
simcards if only a few providers with handsets produced by a few companies
supports simcards. Simcards, on GSM, has succeeded in creating choice for
customers because of the fact *all* GSM phones *must* support simcards.
This will not happen on CDMA for obvious reasons.
> We *were* arguing the technology, are you now arguing the
> implementation? Did I ever state that CDMA SIM cards were widespread?
> No, I simply stated that SIM cards are *not* an impediment to CDMA2000
> vs. UMTS
I believe I was arguing about the implementation of the technology. To be
honest,I couldn't give a shit about whenever the technology I use is based
on TDMA or CDMA as long as it makes effective use of radio resources and
has the standard GSM features such as simcards and so on.
>> Telstra in Australia operated AMPS/TDMA/GSM services simultaneously
>> back in the late 1990's. So this is not impossible. One spectrum can be
>> allocated to GSM and the other allocated to UMTS.
>
> Exactly, which is why I said "redundant." At some point, the obsoleted
> networks will have to be turned off, and all remaining users of those
> networks will be forced to upgrade to new phones.
If you ask me, thats a good thing. I don't want to still use AMPS 5 or
even 10 years in the future. I would rather all providers focus on
providing excellent digital service rather than maintaining a system thats
over two decades old.
Mind you, I live in New Zealand where its possible to provide excellent
digital coverage to almost all of the population because of its small land
mass. It is probably not as easy for Americans since Analogue can cover
vast areas over America while Digital is hard to roll out since it can
only cover a certain amount of land.
> Customers care that they don't have to get new phones. Ask AT&T how hard
> it is to convince their customers to move to their "Next Generation"
> (i.e. GSM) network.
Ok, I accept that point. I guess New Zealand has had it easy since we've
had GSM since 1993 (on Vodafone, formerly Bellsouth) and Digital TDMA
since 1994 so everyone's used to having access to Digital services. It
wouldn't be hard to migrate New Zealand over to a new system since we
probably have plenty of radio frequencies left over to use for UMTS.
> In the US, even GSM phones are provider-locked so that you can't simply
> go out and buy any phone you want and pop in a SIM card. You *can*
> switch cards from the same carrier, however.
That dosn't happen here in New Zealand, as far as I'm aware. In the past
New Zealand providers paid for the phone. However, nowdays we just buy the
phone outright from Vodafone or any phone retailer that sells GSM phones
and get a contract or prepaid simcard with Vodafone. You can even use
overseas phones on Vodafone as long as it supports GSM900/1800.
> Again, *as I said*, Sprint PCS (CDMA2000), at least, allows you to
> switch phones on the web at activate.sprintpcs.com where you just type
> in the ESN number on the back of the phone. Phone is activated
> instantly. And *as I said*, not quite as convenient as using a SIM card,
> but hardly a hassle.
Most providers don't provide that sort of services. For example Telstra
only accepts ESNs from phones sold in Australia. I don't beleive Orange
Australia and Telecom New Zealand offer such a service. From what I know
this kind of practice isn't common to all CDMA providers while simcards
*are* common to all GSM providers.
> With the same phone? No. Unless you have a "world phone," you're in the
> same boat as me, who has a CDMA2000 phone -- I can roam wherever I want
> with a SIM card too. But who cares? A) CDMA200/GSM phones are arrving,
> and B) a GSM phone costs what, $30? If I'm travelling internationally I
> want to have a basically disposable phone anyway.
A GSM900/1800 phone, such as the Nokia 3310 I have now, can roam to any
countries with GSM service except for America and Canada. Thats around 80
countries which it can roam to without needing a new phone. Comapre that
to CDMA which will *not* work in Europe and the Middle-East.
A world phone, such as the Sony Ericsson T610, will work on
GSM900/1800/1900 and it will work on all non-American/Canadian providers
and it will work on many American GSM 1800 providers. Again, this beats
CDMA which can only roam to a few countries.
CDMA is horrid for global roaming, however you put it. With GSM it is
possible to get a good quality world phone that works all over the world
except for GSM800 providers. And all GSM phones sold out of the US/CA
supports GSM900 which is aviliable almost everywhere.
> and GSM in an additional 96 countries (interesting how with a CDMA
> provider I can roam in more GSM countries than you with a GSM provider,
> no?):
I can roam to 90 different countries on Vodafone. This means I can roam to
at least 85 different countries with my GSM900 phone. Thats better than
having to change to GSM whenever I enter a GSM zone and change to CDMA
whenever I enter a zone which has CDMA. Fuck all that, just get GSM and
use the same phone all over the world.
> Again, how is that a limitation of the technology? You've quite
> convinced me by now that Telecom CDMA simply sucks.
It's a limitation of the technology since it does not allow roaming on to
GSM providers, while GSM roaming is part of the UMTS system. It is
possible for phones to have CDMA/GSM but it is quite kludgy. Why not just
have a pure UMTS/GSM phone which only needs one simcard.
KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid.
> Now you're just being an ass. You said (which you conveniently snipped)
> that it was "easier for GSM providers to migrate across to UTMS than it
> is to CDMA..."
>
> The fact that UMTS is CDMA makes that an absurd statement.
Lets make a hypothetical case. At the present time Vodafone New Zealand
operates a GSM900/1800 network. I'll show what will happen if Vodafone
chose to migrate over to CDMA versus UMTS>
If they chose to upgrade to CDMA, they would have to get a new number
prefix (much like what Telecom had to do when they migrated from
TDMA/AMPS) and migrate all their customers over to the new system since it
would be impossible to integerate their old GSM system into their CDMA
system since these systems are *not* designed to work together at all.
However, if Vodafone decided to switch to UMTS, they would have a new
system where they could keep their old customers and the customers
themselves could keep their phone numbers. The only expense would be a
new phone for the customers and new UMTS equipment for the provider.
Vodafone's customers would also be able to roam on to Vodafone's GSM
network if there is no UMTS coverage. This would be impossible had
Vodafone switched to CDMA as there are not many CDMA phones which can roam
on to GSM if CDMA is unaviliable.
There are incredible advantages for GSM providers to migrate over to UMTS
because of the sensible and simple upgrade path UMTS has for exisiting GSM
providers. CDMA is a logical upgrade path for TDMA, but it is not a
logical upgrade path for GSM.
> Yet it in fact is being implemented, and it has nothing to do with
> whether carriers should *switch* to CDMA2000 instead of WCDMA, because
> if they wanted to keep SIM cards it would not be an issue.
Huh? The simple fact is that simcards are not aviliable for the majority
of CDMA users while *all* GSM users enjoy the benefits of simcards seems
to me that CDMA has a fault in which it does not *require* the use of
simcards. I would be more happier if the CDMA standard didn't have all
this ESN rubbish and instead used simcards only.
Thomas M. Goethe
> I disagree. In Australia and the UK, 'Three' (Hutchinson) has been
> operating a UMTS network. Their phone can automatically roam on to O2 (BT
> Cellnet) in the UK or Vodafone in Australia if there is no UMTS signal.
> Both O2 and Vodafone runs GSM networks -- so a logical mind would conclude
> that many UMTS phones are indeed compatible with GSM.
Isn't that because they have phones which have both UMTS and GSM? I
think you have to or the UMTS phone can't work on GSM. Doesn't the carrier
have to maintain a GSM system to keep folks on the air who don't want to
upgrade to a UMTS phone? And isn't UMTS going to be in the 2.1 band in most
places?
>
> It is compatiable because the system (I'm *not* referring to the
> air/radio system) is quite simalar. Both systems use Simcards and the UMTS
> system takes a lot of ideas from the old GSM system to create a system
> that is more or less compatiable with GSM. The only major difference
> between UMTS and GSM is the radio system.
The radio system is a pretty major difference between the two, unlike
CDMA2000 which is fully backward compatible.
Backward compatibility is the big advantage of the CDMA2000/IS-95
system, that the old phones work on the new network and the news ones work
on the old networks (and analong as well in most cases). It makes the steps
forward a lot easier for carriers and subscribers.
There is also a chip system similar available to SIM for CDMA2000 and
IS-95 phones that was apparently developed for the Chinese market. Just saw
some sites which I didn't bookmark, but they said that the chip is
compatible with SIM and could be used in a GSM phone. That, if widely
adopted, will make life a lot easier for world roaming if one comes from a
CDMA2000/IS-95 system. True, you will still need two phones, but if one
doesn't shop carefully, that is the case with GSM phones from the US, isn't
it?
In truth, most subscribers could care less about technology unless they
use data, in which case, they can get much better service (in my area at
least) with a CDMA2000 carrier. I have tried GPRS and it does not compare to
1x in Tampa.
--
Thomas M. Goethe
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <boadhv41qu5c8h37a...@4ax.com> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:58:44
>-0500, pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:33:09 GMT, John Navas
>><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In <na5chvc3fb9h1mfl2...@4ax.com> on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:21:02
>>>-0700, matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:33 -0000, no...@nospam.nospam (Chris
>>>>Russell) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>posting propaganda again. GSM in the USA is only a stop gap method
>>>>>until 3G CDMA systems will dominate. ...
>>>
>>>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>>>current CDMA.
>>
>>Sorry, by the strictest definition of 3G (2 mbps peak stationary) only
>>1x EV-DO is 3G. The rest is propaganda.
>
>The industry considers EDGE and UMTS (WCDMA) to be 3G.
And the ITU considers cdma2000 1x to be 3G, also, as you so kindly
pointed out to me. The industry seems to consider cdma2000 1x to be 3G
in Japan, interestingly enough. The 3G "GSM" group, 3GPP, as I've
pointed out to you twice, doesn't consider EDGE to be 3G, either.
There's no consistency at all. Go back to the original specs to get
consistency. So to argue that X considers Y as 3G is pointless unless
it meets to full spec.
>>It's not the land infrastructure that makes it "3G", it's the radio
>>side.
>
>Actually, it's both.
So, John, if a carrier replaces its GSM radio side with cdma2000 1x
GSM overlay thereby keeping its "GSM" land side infrastructure, is the
system GSM or cdma2000 ?
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>current CDMA.
In fact, aside from the chip rate, bandwidth required, and the sync
structure, the various control channels and data channels are nearly
identical. Even the modulation schemes are quite similar. The two are
so similar that "harmonization" talks took place.
Even with the who knows when it will be out W-CDMA rev. 5, cdma2000
1x-DV will provide more throughput in the same bandwidth, than W-CDMA.
I feel sorry for the European carriers that have to upgrade to both
EDGE (likely for non-metropolitan areas) and W-CDMA for the
metropolitan areas. According to the "Financial Times" June 18th
issue, European carriers are reluctant to talk about W-CDMA and EDGE
deployments.
See the June 18th "Financial Times" article entitled:
"Closer to the Edge"
Meanwhile, the only market in which W-CDMA and cdma2000 have been
deployed (and the international press calls cdma2000 1x in Japan "3G",
as in "KDDI's 3G offering"), KDDI has a millions more subscribers to
its 3G service than DoCoMo does its 3G service.
See June 18th "Financial Times" article entitled:
"Long awaited promises of 3G begin to arrive"
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>As I said, 3G WCDMA is largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite
>different from current CDMA.
Only on the landline side. See my previous post about the radio sides
being more similar than different.
Alan
"Aaron C." <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vhen7jb...@corp.supernews.com...
> attws offers two gait phones also.. the s46 and t62u. the gait phones
> work on tdma and gsm. neither phone will work in analog.
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in article
> <FKDRa.106433$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
> > > > Yet, if you are in New Richmond, Wisconsin, just 30 miles from
downtown
> > St.
> > > > Paul, you still must use AMPS with SprintPCS! ALL other carriers in
the
> > > > area offer digital service there.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Veldhouse
> > >
> > > Big deal. On Verizon for example, from Myrtle Beach, SC almost all the
> > > way to Charlotte, NC is AMPS only. ATTWS's "next generation" network
> > > only covers a few cities in NC. Having digital service holes is
> > > certainly not unique to Sprint.
> >
> > It's not a big deal to have only AMPS coverage where digital has not
> > yet reached. There are areas of the U.S. where it will be decades before
> > they have digital, and where you can still buy 3W AMPS phones.
> > No service at all is far worse than AMPS service on occasion.
> >
> > It would be great if the GSM carriers would recognize this fact and
> > offer some GSM/AMPS phones. I know Cingular offers two GAIT
> > phones, but no other GSM carrier offers such a handest yet.
> >
> > Steve
> > --
> > http://www.sfbacell.com
> > San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
> >
> >
>
Dental(stud)
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:w%JRa.2764$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> True, the S46 isn't GAIT, but it does have both TDMA and GSM.
>
> The T62u is GAIT whether AMPS is blocked or not.
Fine, sorry, it's GAIT functionality is disabled.... all hail John Navas, he
is the perfect being we should all strive to be
Oh, and does anyone else think it's really childish to be cross posting this
crap to several different newsgroups just to start arguments? One would
think someone as self-important as John Navas would have something better to
do with his time! Maybe write sonnets about himself, or look in the mirror?
John Navas
In <vhfv468...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:00:53 -0400,
"Dental\(stud\)" <denta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:w%JRa.2764$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> True, the S46 isn't GAIT, but it does have both TDMA and GSM.
>>
>> The T62u is GAIT whether AMPS is blocked or not.
>
>Fine, sorry, it's GAIT functionality is disabled.... [SNIP childish insult]
The GAIT functionality isn't disabled, since TDMA and GSM work.
John Navas
In <ampfhv459r2sdnt5g...@4ax.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 07:29:00
-0500, pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:11:46 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The industry considers EDGE and UMTS (WCDMA) to be 3G.
>
>And the ITU considers cdma2000 1x to be 3G, also, as you so kindly
>pointed out to me. The industry seems to consider cdma2000 1x to be 3G
>in Japan, interestingly enough. The 3G "GSM" group, 3GPP, as I've
>pointed out to you twice, doesn't consider EDGE to be 3G, either.
>There's no consistency at all. Go back to the original specs to get
>consistency. So to argue that X considers Y as 3G is pointless unless
>it meets to full spec.
As in the past, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
John Navas
In <risfhv4650egk4r4k...@4ax.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:13:31
-0500, pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
The radio side *is* different, as you concede. The similarity in the names
and basic air technology notwithstanding, WCDMA is not related to other CDMA
standards.
Steven M. Scharf
GAIT phones, by definition, include AMPS. The T62u does include
AMPS, but I did not see it offered by AT&T. Where did you see
it? This is big news. I actually see support information for this
phone on their web site, but I do not see it being sold. Is it sold
in-stores only? Is AMPS activated?
A GAIT phone by AT&T wireless would solve a lot of problems
for GSM in the U.S.. I'd seriously consider switching to AT&T when
my Verizon contract expires if I could get the T62u and AMPS
worked.
Steve
--
http://www.sfbacell.com
San Francisco Bay Area Cellular Carrier Comparison
"Aaron C." <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
John Navas
In <6lrfhvo5vpb4cpv0b...@4ax.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:12:22
-0500, pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:33:09 GMT, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
>>current CDMA.
>
>In fact, aside from the chip rate, bandwidth required, and the sync
>structure, the various control channels and data channels are nearly
>identical. Even the modulation schemes are quite similar.
The differences are substantial.
>The two are
>so similar that "harmonization" talks took place.
That's not why such talks took place. The objective was to avoid further
balkanizing of cellular standards, but the Qualcomm remains intractable.
Pity.
Steven M. Scharf
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:22:04 +0000, null wrote:
> > Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
> > unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. And there are
> > CDMA carriers in South America that use SIM cards -- the Nokia 3585i
> > CDMA2000 phone that's available on Sprint even has a SIM card slot,
> > though Sprint doesn't support it.
>
> America and Canada are only country in the world where you would have to
> change your phone. With my GSM phone I can use it in almost every
> developed countries in the world with the obvious exception of the US and
> Canada.
Korea, Japan
Steven M. Scharf
<pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
> And the ITU considers cdma2000 1x to be 3G, also, as you so kindly
> pointed out to me. The industry seems to consider cdma2000 1x to be 3G
> in Japan, interestingly enough. The 3G "GSM" group, 3GPP, as I've
> pointed out to you twice, doesn't consider EDGE to be 3G, either.
> There's no consistency at all. Go back to the original specs to get
> consistency. So to argue that X considers Y as 3G is pointless unless
> it meets to full spec.
You can see the industry definitions on page 3 of
http://www.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~ellinger/Homepage/mp_rev.pdf
EDGE is 2.5G, though I categorized it as 2.75G since at more
than 3X the maximum rate of GPRS but 1/6 the maximum rate
of UMTS, it doesn't belong in either category.
Steven M. Scharf
news:6lrfhvo5vpb4cpv0b...@4ax.com...
> I feel sorry for the European carriers that have to upgrade to both
> EDGE (likely for non-metropolitan areas) and W-CDMA for the
> metropolitan areas. According to the "Financial Times" June 18th
> issue, European carriers are reluctant to talk about W-CDMA and EDGE
> deployments.
The Economist article points out the escape hatch for the
European carriers, but their governments will not allow
them to take it--yet.
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1353050
I think non-subscribers may be able to read the other article I referenced
in an earlier post:
"How code-division multiple access (CDMA) technology emerged as the
world standard for mobile phones" try:
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1841059
John Navas
In <null-EDAC0A.0...@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
09:22:04 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
>unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. ...
There actually quite a few "world standard" GSM phones being sold.
>Yes. Not on the same spectrum. They will be turning off their TDMA
>network.
GSM and TDMA can share the same spectrum, and Cingular is doing it.
>... At some point, the obsoleted
>networks will have to be turned off, and all remaining users of those
>networks will be forced to upgrade to new phones.
Probably true, but several years away. By then most phones will have been
replaced in the normal course.
>Customers care that they don't have to get new phones. Ask AT&T how hard
>it is to convince their customers to move to their "Next Generation"
>(i.e. GSM) network.
I've seen it firsthand, and (at least in this area) customers readily switch
to GSM phones.
>In the US, even GSM phones are provider-locked so that you can't simply
>go out and buy any phone you want and pop in a SIM card.
The are only subsidy locked if you buy a subsidized phone. Unlocked
(unsubsidized) phones are readily available, and can be switched between
carriers with just the change of the SIM. In fact, I do it frequently.
>and B) a GSM phone costs what, $30? If I'm travelling internationally I
>want to have a basically disposable phone anyway.
As always, YMMV -- I'd much rather have my Ericsson T39m and P800, which each
cost far more than $30.
>I have no idea how many providers I can roam on ...
Roaming is expensive and silly. Better to take your "world standard" GSM
phone(s) and buy local prepaid SIMs.
>The fact that UMTS is CDMA makes that an absurd statement.
UMTS is not CDMA (e.g., CDMA2000), similarly in the basic air technology
notwithstanding.
John Navas
In <pan.2003.07.18...@SPAM.pole.net.nz> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
23:00:58 +1200, James Pole <jam...@SPAM.pole.net.nz> wrote:
>Lets make a hypothetical case. At the present time Vodafone New Zealand
>operates a GSM900/1800 network. I'll show what will happen if Vodafone
>chose to migrate over to CDMA versus UMTS>
>
>If they chose to upgrade to CDMA, they would have to get a new number
>prefix (much like what Telecom had to do when they migrated from
>TDMA/AMPS) and migrate all their customers over to the new system since it
>would be impossible to integerate their old GSM system into their CDMA
>system since these systems are *not* designed to work together at all.
Qualcomm has shown that GSM and CDMA2000 can be overlaid -- see
<http://www.gsm1x.com/>.
Steven M. Scharf
"Dental(stud)" <denta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhfv468...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:w%JRa.2764$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > True, the S46 isn't GAIT, but it does have both TDMA and GSM.
> >
> > The T62u is GAIT whether AMPS is blocked or not.
>
> Fine, sorry, it's GAIT functionality is disabled.
If AMPS is disabled it's not a GAIT phone. There are
lots of products with disabled capabilities and the maker
does not advertise them as having that capability simply
because it would have been possible to enable it.
But is that known for sure? Why don't they just leave it
enabled and charge for AMPS roaming. A lot of people
only want AMPS coverage in case of emergency and
wouldn't mind paying for it.
> Oh, and does anyone else think it's really childish to be cross posting
this
> crap to several different newsgroups just to start arguments?
The subject was on-topic, and part of Usenet is arguing about
subjects and topics that aren't terribly important. IMVAIO, the
only mistake was posting a reference to such a poorly written
article by a transparently clueless proponent of GSM; even
that served a purpose, though not the one he hoped for I'm
afraid.
I actually think it's a good thing to get articles like Orlowski's out
in the open where they can be discredited so easily.
John Navas
In <s6URa.107905$Io.92...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul
2003 15:11:20 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>GAIT phones, by definition, include AMPS. ...
Wrong again. GAIT stands for GSM/ANSI-136 Interoperability Team. Although
GAIT phones can and do include AMPS, it's not required.
A multi-mode mobile station that provides operation across GSM (900, 1800,
and 1900 MHz), ANSI-136 (800 and 1900 MHz), and AMPS (800 MHz) systems. AN
OPERATOR HAS THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT THE ENABLING OF SERVICE ON DIFFERENT
BANDS AND TECHNOLOGIES. [emphasis added]
<http://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/interop.pdf>
null
James Pole <jam...@SPAM.pole.net.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:22:04 +0000, null wrote:
> > Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
> > unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. And there are
> > CDMA carriers in South America that use SIM cards -- the Nokia 3585i
> > CDMA2000 phone that's available on Sprint even has a SIM card slot,
> > though Sprint doesn't support it.
>
> America and Canada are only country in the world where you would have to
> change your phone. With my GSM phone I can use it in almost every
> developed countries in the world with the obvious exception of the US and
> Canada.
Different countries use different bands for GSM. Most phones only
support one band. Like I said, unless you use a multi-band "world"
phone, it doesn't matter if your phone has a SIM or not, it won't work
in countries that use other bands.
> Many people in my area of the world can't do that with CDMA. Telstra in
> Australia does not allow phones purchases out of Australia on to their
> network. Just to make sure I'm clear, I'm referring to Telstra customers,
> not customers of other Telcos roaming on to Telstra.
Fine. Another example that Telstra is sub-par, not CDMA One or CDMA2000.
> I'm not aware of the policies of other CDMA providers, but if the provider
> has the power to decide what phones can be used on their network, then
> that kinds of take away choice for the end-users. GSM dosn't have that
> problem. All the GSM providers I know of let their users use whatever
> handset they want to use as long as its a GSM-compatible handset.
Did you miss my statement about how GSM phones are provider-locked in
the US?
> >> No its not. Show me a provider that provides CDMA-compatible simcards.
> >
> > Iusacell in Mexico. They can even be taken out and put in any GSM phone.
> >
> >> Even better, show me a provider which sells CDMA simcard phones.
> >
> > Iusacell in Mexico.
>
> ALL GSM phones/providers support simcards. There's not much point in
> simcards if only a few providers with handsets produced by a few companies
> supports simcards. Simcards, on GSM, has succeeded in creating choice for
> customers because of the fact *all* GSM phones *must* support simcards.
> This will not happen on CDMA for obvious reasons.
The argument was for upgrading to WCDMA/UMTS instead of CDMA2000. If a
network *can* upgrade to CDMA2000 while keeping SIM cards that are
backwards compatible with GSM, then there is still no *disadvantage*
over upgrading to WCDMA while keeping SIM cards that are backwards
compatible with GSM. Whether or not this new network would be backwards
compatible with existing CDMA One phones is irrelevant, because that's
not what said network would be upgrading *from*.
> > We *were* arguing the technology, are you now arguing the
> > implementation? Did I ever state that CDMA SIM cards were widespread?
> > No, I simply stated that SIM cards are *not* an impediment to CDMA2000
> > vs. UMTS
>
> I believe I was arguing about the implementation of the technology. To be
> honest,I couldn't give a shit about whenever the technology I use is based
> on TDMA or CDMA as long as it makes effective use of radio resources and
> has the standard GSM features such as simcards and so on.
Your original argument was that WCDMA is a superior upgrade to GSM than
CDMA2000. If you don't believe this and/or care, why would you make this
argument?
> >> Telstra in Australia operated AMPS/TDMA/GSM services simultaneously
> >> back in the late 1990's. So this is not impossible. One spectrum can be
> >> allocated to GSM and the other allocated to UMTS.
> >
> > Exactly, which is why I said "redundant." At some point, the obsoleted
> > networks will have to be turned off, and all remaining users of those
> > networks will be forced to upgrade to new phones.
>
> If you ask me, thats a good thing. I don't want to still use AMPS 5 or
> even 10 years in the future. I would rather all providers focus on
> providing excellent digital service rather than maintaining a system thats
> over two decades old.
If the network is backwards and forwards compatible, as CDMA One is with
CDMA2000 in the same spectrum, you don't *have to* maintain a separate
network, which is the point.
> Mind you, I live in New Zealand where its possible to provide excellent
> digital coverage to almost all of the population because of its small land
> mass. It is probably not as easy for Americans since Analogue can cover
> vast areas over America while Digital is hard to roll out since it can
> only cover a certain amount of land.
Verizon/Sprint/Alltel have done a pretty good job of it. This Verizon
map shows coverage of where Verizon customers can roam free on Sprint
and Alltel digital systems (yes, seamlessly), and their combined digital
serves the vast majority of the country (with AMPS covering most of the
rest that's not covered on this plan):
tp://tinyurl.com/hc8l
> > Customers care that they don't have to get new phones. Ask AT&T how hard
> > it is to convince their customers to move to their "Next Generation"
> > (i.e. GSM) network.
>
> Ok, I accept that point. I guess New Zealand has had it easy since we've
> had GSM since 1993 (on Vodafone, formerly Bellsouth) and Digital TDMA
> since 1994 so everyone's used to having access to Digital services. It
> wouldn't be hard to migrate New Zealand over to a new system since we
> probably have plenty of radio frequencies left over to use for UMTS.
I don't understand what relevancy this has. 1) The US has plenty of
cellular/PCS spectrum, but that has nothing to do with getting customers
to replace handsets anyway. 2) AT&T is moving from IS-136 TDMA to GSM --
how would AT&T IS-136 customers not be "used to having access to Digital
services"? That doesn't make them any more likely to want to replace
their phones. Twice.
> > In the US, even GSM phones are provider-locked so that you can't simply
> > go out and buy any phone you want and pop in a SIM card. You *can*
> > switch cards from the same carrier, however.
>
> That dosn't happen here in New Zealand, as far as I'm aware. In the past
> New Zealand providers paid for the phone. However, nowdays we just buy the
> phone outright from Vodafone or any phone retailer that sells GSM phones
> and get a contract or prepaid simcard with Vodafone. You can even use
> overseas phones on Vodafone as long as it supports GSM900/1800.
So there's only one GSM carrier in NZ? The US has three: Cingular,
T-Mobile, and AT&T Wireless. You can't purchase a phone from one to use
on another's network. You can theoretically purchase phones from an
outside source and use them on the GSM networks, but in practice it
hardly ever happens. But if you have no competition in GSM carriers,
that's irrelevant anyway.
> > Again, *as I said*, Sprint PCS (CDMA2000), at least, allows you to
> > switch phones on the web at activate.sprintpcs.com where you just type
> > in the ESN number on the back of the phone. Phone is activated
> > instantly. And *as I said*, not quite as convenient as using a SIM card,
> > but hardly a hassle.
>
> Most providers don't provide that sort of services. For example Telstra
> only accepts ESNs from phones sold in Australia. I don't beleive Orange
> Australia and Telecom New Zealand offer such a service. From what I know
> this kind of practice isn't common to all CDMA providers while simcards
> *are* common to all GSM providers.
Doesn't stop said GSM providers from upgrading to CDMA2000 with SIM
support.
> > With the same phone? No. Unless you have a "world phone," you're in the
> > same boat as me, who has a CDMA2000 phone -- I can roam wherever I want
> > with a SIM card too. But who cares? A) CDMA200/GSM phones are arrving,
> > and B) a GSM phone costs what, $30? If I'm travelling internationally I
> > want to have a basically disposable phone anyway.
>
> A GSM900/1800 phone, such as the Nokia 3310 I have now, can roam to any
> countries with GSM service except for America and Canada. Thats around 80
> countries which it can roam to without needing a new phone. Comapre that
> to CDMA which will *not* work in Europe and the Middle-East.
The point still stands that you can't roam worldwide without a new
phone, as can't I. You can't roam in the US or Canada (or any GSM 850
countries) or any only CDMA One countries.
> A world phone, such as the Sony Ericsson T610, will work on
> GSM900/1800/1900 and it will work on all non-American/Canadian providers
> and it will work on many American GSM 1800 providers.
Which is what I said.
> Again, this beats
> CDMA which can only roam to a few countries.
Do you read? Again, *I don't care*.
1) I can pop a Sprint SIM card in any piece-of-junk disposable GSM phone
and go.
2) CDMA2000/GSM combo phones are already available.
3) CDMA One roaming has nothing to do with whether WCDMA is a better
upgrade for GSM networks than CDMA2000, as long as a CDMA2000 phone can
be made to work on a GSM network (just like a WCDMA phone) which it can,
because it has.
> CDMA is horrid for global roaming, however you put it. With GSM it is
> possible to get a good quality world phone that works all over the world
> except for GSM800 providers. And all GSM phones sold out of the US/CA
> supports GSM900 which is aviliable almost everywhere.
See above.
> > and GSM in an additional 96 countries (interesting how with a CDMA
> > provider I can roam in more GSM countries than you with a GSM provider,
> > no?):
>
> I can roam to 90 different countries on Vodafone. This means I can roam to
> at least 85 different countries with my GSM900 phone. Thats better than
> having to change to GSM whenever I enter a GSM zone and change to CDMA
> whenever I enter a zone which has CDMA. Fuck all that, just get GSM and
> use the same phone all over the world.
This somewhat contradicts your previous statement (that you snipped) "My
GSM provider provides roaming to over 160 providers in over 80
countries."
And again, this has nothing to do with whether CDMA2000 isn't a more
compelling upgrade than WCDMA. Seems to me that the contrary is true --
since CDMA2000/GSM phones already exist, CDMA2000 can be backwards
compatible with *both* CDMA One and GSM. Which means you could
theoretically use a CDMA2000/GSM phone in more countries than you could
use a WCDMA/GSM phone.
> > Again, how is that a limitation of the technology? You've quite
> > convinced me by now that Telecom CDMA simply sucks.
>
> It's a limitation of the technology since it does not allow roaming on to
> GSM providers, while GSM roaming is part of the UMTS system.
See above.
> It is
> possible for phones to have CDMA/GSM but it is quite kludgy.
How? CDMA2000/AMPS works just fine, though they weren't designed to work
together. IS-136/AMPS works just fine, though they weren't designed to
work together. Nokia even has a couple of phones that support GSM,
IS-136, and AMPS and they don't have any problems.
>Why not just
> have a pure UMTS/GSM phone which only needs one simcard.
>
> KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid.
Sounds like one CDMA2000/GSM phone that you can use on any CDMA
One/CDMA2000/GSM network is more simple than a UMTS phone that only
works where there's GSM.
> > Now you're just being an ass. You said (which you conveniently snipped)
> > that it was "easier for GSM providers to migrate across to UTMS than it
> > is to CDMA..."
> >
> > The fact that UMTS is CDMA makes that an absurd statement.
>
> Lets make a hypothetical case. At the present time Vodafone New Zealand
> operates a GSM900/1800 network. I'll show what will happen if Vodafone
> chose to migrate over to CDMA versus UMTS>
>
> If they chose to upgrade to CDMA, they would have to get a new number
> prefix (much like what Telecom had to do when they migrated from
> TDMA/AMPS)
No they wouldn't. ATTWS didn't have to give their customers new numbers
when switching to GSM from IS-136. No CDMA carrier that moved from AMPS
in the US had to give their customers new numbers. There is *no reason*
that new numbers would be required.
> and migrate all their customers over to the new system since it
> would be impossible to integerate their old GSM system into their CDMA
> system since these systems are *not* designed to work together at all.
You still haven't backed this up. Carriers elsewhere in the world have
switched network technologies without any problem -- if Vodafone isn't
capable of this, then they're simply incompetent.
You also seem to fail to acknowledge that UMTS *is* a separate network
technology, and all users will have to be migrated to UMTS at some
point, and the GSM networks will have to be shut off. This is no
different than if CDMA2000 were the upgrade path.
> However, if Vodafone decided to switch to UMTS, they would have a new
> system where they could keep their old customers and the customers
> themselves could keep their phone numbers. The only expense would be a
> new phone for the customers and new UMTS equipment for the provider.
See above.
> Vodafone's customers would also be able to roam on to Vodafone's GSM
> network if there is no UMTS coverage. This would be impossible had
> Vodafone switched to CDMA as there are not many CDMA phones which can roam
> on to GSM if CDMA is unaviliable.
How many UMTS phones are there currently? And do you think there
*wouldn't* be more CDMA2000/GSM phones if GSM providers had chosen
CDMA2000 as the upgrade path? Again, not a sign of WCDMA technical
superiority.
> There are incredible advantages for GSM providers to migrate over to UMTS
> because of the sensible and simple upgrade path UMTS has for exisiting GSM
> providers. CDMA is a logical upgrade path for TDMA, but it is not a
> logical upgrade path for GSM.
As you snidely pointed out, GSM *is* TDMA, so it makes no sense why CDMA
would be a logical upgrade path for TDMA (I'm assuming you mean IS-136)
but not for GSM. In fact, the only IS-136 carrier in the US is moving to
GSM (then to UMTS). If GSM carriers (and IS-136 carriers) moved directly
from GSM to CDMA2000, there would be none of the in-between GPRS/EDGE
mess either.
> > Yet it in fact is being implemented, and it has nothing to do with
> > whether carriers should *switch* to CDMA2000 instead of WCDMA, because
> > if they wanted to keep SIM cards it would not be an issue.
>
> Huh? The simple fact is that simcards are not aviliable for the majority
> of CDMA users while *all* GSM users enjoy the benefits of simcards seems
> to me that CDMA has a fault in which it does not *require* the use of
> simcards. I would be more happier if the CDMA standard didn't have all
> this ESN rubbish and instead used simcards only.
If Europe had mandated switching to CDMA2000 instead of WCDMA (yes, in
Europe it's *mandated*, which is the only reason many carriers are
taking that upgrade path), they could have just as easily mandated the
use of SIM cards, and since SIM cards presnt no technological hurdle for
CDMA2000, problem solved.
I'm not familiar with regulations in NZ/AUS, but if GSM carriers had
chosen to upgrade to CDMA2000 and keep SIM, they would have retained
*exactly the same* backwards compatibility as with UMTS, *plus* they
could have had backwards compatibility with CDMA One.
John Navas
In <dnURa.107920$Io.92...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul
2003 15:29:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
><pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
>
>> And the ITU considers cdma2000 1x to be 3G, also, as you so kindly
>> pointed out to me. The industry seems to consider cdma2000 1x to be 3G
>> in Japan, interestingly enough. The 3G "GSM" group, 3GPP, as I've
>> pointed out to you twice, doesn't consider EDGE to be 3G, either.
>> There's no consistency at all. Go back to the original specs to get
>> consistency. So to argue that X considers Y as 3G is pointless unless
>> it meets to full spec.
>
>You can see the industry definitions on page 3 of
>http://www.ife.ee.ethz.ch/~ellinger/Homepage/mp_rev.pdf
That paper is neither authoritative nor current.
Instead, see the ITU "What is IMT-2000"
<http://www.itu.int/osg/imt-project/docs/What_is_IMT2000-2.pdf>
Page 6 defines
* 2G: cdmaOne (IS-95A), TDMA, GSM
* 2.5G: cdmaOne (IS-95B), GPRS
* 3G: cdma2000 1X, EDGE, cdma2000 1x EV-DO & EV-DV, W-CDMA
John Navas
In <CGURa.107947$Io.92...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul
2003 15:49:54 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>If AMPS is disabled it's not a GAIT phone.
Wrong again. GAIT stands for GSM/ANSI-136 Interoperability Team. Although
GAIT phones can and do include AMPS, it's not required.
A multi-mode mobile station that provides operation across GSM (900, 1800,
and 1900 MHz), ANSI-136 (800 and 1900 MHz), and AMPS (800 MHz) systems. AN
OPERATOR HAS THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT THE ENABLING OF SERVICE ON DIFFERENT
BANDS AND TECHNOLOGIES. [emphasis added]
<http://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/interop.pdf>
>... IMVAIO, the
>only mistake was posting a reference to such a poorly written
>article by a transparently clueless proponent of GSM; even
>that served a purpose, though not the one he hoped for I'm
>afraid.
Nice try, Steven, but (as I noted before) The Register was simply reporting on
research by Allied Business Intelligence (ABI) Inc. (as you would know if you
had anything approaching an open mind). ABI is based in New York.
>I actually think it's a good thing to get articles like Orlowski's out
>in the open where they can be discredited so easily.
Wishing won't make it so.
John Navas
In <DDURa.9613$Mc.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
15:46:43 GMT, "Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote:
>> It would be great if the GSM carriers would recognize this fact and
>> offer some GSM/AMPS phones. I know Cingular offers two GAIT
>> phones, but no other GSM carrier offers such a handest yet.
>
>I know little about the technical limitations on GSM, but I seem to remember
>reading that it is not possible to hand off a GSM phone to either TDMA or
>AMPS.
Correct. See "Basic GSM and ANSI-136 Interoperability"
<http://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/interop.pdf>:
Phase 1 does not support handoff and reselection between GSM and
ANSI-136 or AMPS. It does, however, support reselection and handoff
between ANSI-136 and AMPS as described in ANSI-136.
...
A follow-on phase of GAIT is currently being defined. POTENTIAL areas
of enhancement to basic GSM and ANSI-136 interoperability include:
[emphasis added]
...
* Cross-technology handoff. The ability to handoff between GSM and
ANSI-136 is not defined in GAIT phase 1. Cross-technology handoff
would be attractive for roaming between adjacent GSM and ANSI-136
networks. The definition of cross-technology roaming would require
standardization on both the air and network interfaces.
John Navas
In <null-1A7EA8.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
16:10:00 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>Did you miss my statement about how GSM phones are provider-locked in
>the US?
Only if you buy a subsidy locked phone. Unlocked phones are readily
available, and some carriers will unlock phones on request.
>I don't understand what relevancy this has. 1) The US has plenty of
>cellular/PCS spectrum,
The USA is actually tight on spectrum. Considerable effort has been going
into freeing up more spectrum.
>but that has nothing to do with getting customers
>to replace handsets anyway. 2) AT&T is moving from IS-136 TDMA to GSM --
>how would AT&T IS-136 customers not be "used to having access to Digital
>services"?
GSM services are greatly superior to TMDA services.
>That doesn't make them any more likely to want to replace
>their phones. Twice.
Handsets tend to get replaced every couple of years in any event, making
migration relatively easy.
>So there's only one GSM carrier in NZ? The US has three: Cingular,
>T-Mobile, and AT&T Wireless. You can't purchase a phone from one to use
>on another's network.
Actually you can, since some carriers (e.g., Cingular) will unlock phones on
request.
>You can theoretically purchase phones from an
>outside source and use them on the GSM networks, but in practice it
>hardly ever happens.
You can easily buy an unlocked phone (as I did). Most phones are purchased
locked simply because of price and convenience.
>But if you have no competition in GSM carriers,
>that's irrelevant anyway.
There is vigorous competition.
>You also seem to fail to acknowledge that UMTS *is* a separate network
>technology, and all users will have to be migrated to UMTS at some
>point, and the GSM networks will have to be shut off. ...
On the contrary -- UMTS and GSM are designed to be complementary, and will
undoubtedly coexist for many years to come.
>... If GSM carriers (and IS-136 carriers) moved directly
>from GSM to CDMA2000, there would be none of the in-between GPRS/EDGE
>mess either.
Anything but -- GPRS and EDGE are relatively cheap and easy upgrades to GSM
(and TDMA), and EDGE is so good at satisfying market demands here in the USA
that W-CDMA is being pushed back. Carriers are going that way simply because
it makes more sense to them than CDMA2000 (Qualcomm propaganda
notwithstanding).
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <null-EDAC0A.0...@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
> 09:22:04 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but you would have to use a different phone in the US anyway,
> >unless you have one of a few select GSM "World" phones. ...
>
> There actually quite a few "world standard" GSM phones being sold.
>
> >Yes. Not on the same spectrum. They will be turning off their TDMA
> >network.
>
> GSM and TDMA can share the same spectrum, and Cingular is doing it.
Cingular has GSM and TDMA that use the same spectrum, and GSM and TDMA a
couple of places in the same markets, but where do they use GSM and TDMA
in the same spectrum in the same market?
> >... At some point, the obsoleted
> >networks will have to be turned off, and all remaining users of those
> >networks will be forced to upgrade to new phones.
>
> Probably true, but several years away. By then most phones will have been
> replaced in the normal course.
AT&T originally stated that their IS-136 TDMA network was going to be
turned off at the end of 2004. I can't find any reference to that now
(and of course they also originally stated that they would be deploying
UMTS in 2003), so they may have changed their plans.
> >Customers care that they don't have to get new phones. Ask AT&T how hard
> >it is to convince their customers to move to their "Next Generation"
> >(i.e. GSM) network.
>
> I've seen it firsthand, and (at least in this area) customers readily switch
> to GSM phones.
I don't know anyone who switched. It dramatically decreases their
coverage area, as ATT's GSM coverage is far smaller than their IS-136
coverage, and with GSM customers can no longer get free roaming on
analog on any plan.
> >In the US, even GSM phones are provider-locked so that you can't simply
> >go out and buy any phone you want and pop in a SIM card.
>
> The are only subsidy locked if you buy a subsidized phone. Unlocked
> (unsubsidized) phones are readily available, and can be switched between
> carriers with just the change of the SIM. In fact, I do it frequently.
I wouldn't say readily available -- I've never seen a store that sold
one. They are available, if you search, for quite a premium.
> >and B) a GSM phone costs what, $30? If I'm travelling internationally I
> >want to have a basically disposable phone anyway.
>
> As always, YMMV -- I'd much rather have my Ericsson T39m and P800, which each
> cost far more than $30.
I'd rather have a phone that I didn't mind getting lost or stolen.
> >I have no idea how many providers I can roam on ...
>
> Roaming is expensive and silly. Better to take your "world standard" GSM
> phone(s) and buy local prepaid SIMs.
Depends on how much roaming you need to do.
> >The fact that UMTS is CDMA makes that an absurd statement.
>
> UMTS is not CDMA (e.g., CDMA2000), similarly in the basic air technology
> notwithstanding.
No, I never said UMTS was CDMA2000, but it is CDMA. BTW, you have yet to
list what the dramatic differences are between UMTS and CDMA2000.
John Navas
In <null-EBDF40.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
16:54:41 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <PsURa.2907$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> GSM and TDMA can share the same spectrum, and Cingular is doing it.
>
>Cingular has GSM and TDMA that use the same spectrum, and GSM and TDMA a
>couple of places in the same markets, but where do they use GSM and TDMA
>in the same spectrum in the same market?
In general, where GSM 850 has been overlaid on existing TDMA service.
>> The are only subsidy locked if you buy a subsidized phone. Unlocked
>> (unsubsidized) phones are readily available, and can be switched between
>> carriers with just the change of the SIM. In fact, I do it frequently.
>
>I wouldn't say readily available -- I've never seen a store that sold
>one. They are available, if you search, for quite a premium.
Unlocked phones are widely available over the Internet and by mailorder, as
well as from independent dealers in some (but not all) areas. The price is a
normal retail price, not a premium. The difference is the lack of carrier
subsidy. Nonetheless, good deals can be had with a bit of shopping.
>> As always, YMMV -- I'd much rather have my Ericsson T39m and P800, which each
>> cost far more than $30.
>
>I'd rather have a phone that I didn't mind getting lost or stolen.
Fair enough -- different strokes and all that sort of thing.
>> Roaming is expensive and silly. Better to take your "world standard" GSM
>> phone(s) and buy local prepaid SIMs.
>
>Depends on how much roaming you need to do.
If I really needed to do much roaming, I'd get Swisscom for as long as it
lasts.
>> UMTS is not CDMA (e.g., CDMA2000), similarly in the basic air technology
>> notwithstanding.
>
>No, I never said UMTS was CDMA2000, but it is CDMA.
That's about like saying it's cellular; i.e., not terribly meaningful in and
of itself.
>BTW, you have yet to
>list what the dramatic differences are between UMTS and CDMA2000.
"Google is your friend."
Steve Punter
>this fact and offer some GSM/AMPS phones. I know
>Cingular offers two GAIT phones, but no other GSM
>carrier offers such a handest yet.
You are probably referring only to the USA, but in Canada Fido sells the
Nokia 6340 for its GSM/analog capabilities. Fido has an analog roaming
agreement with various B-side providers across Canada, and allows you to use
either a multi-mode phone (like the 6340) or a separate analog phone
programmed with your Fido number. Fido has no roaming agreements with IS-136
providers, and so the IS-136 capability of the 6340 is of no concern to
them.
--
Steve Punter
http://www.arcx.com/sites
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <null-EBDF40.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul
> 2003
> 16:54:41 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <PsURa.2907$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> GSM and TDMA can share the same spectrum, and Cingular is doing it.
> >
> >Cingular has GSM and TDMA that use the same spectrum, and GSM and TDMA a
> >couple of places in the same markets, but where do they use GSM and TDMA
> >in the same spectrum in the same market?
>
> In general, where GSM 850 has been overlaid on existing TDMA service.
Just because they're both using the 850 band doesn't mean they're using
the same spectrum, however. Same as how GSM 1900 and CDMA One 1900 don't
share the same spectrum in the same area.
> >> The are only subsidy locked if you buy a subsidized phone. Unlocked
> >> (unsubsidized) phones are readily available, and can be switched between
> >> carriers with just the change of the SIM. In fact, I do it frequently.
> >
> >I wouldn't say readily available -- I've never seen a store that sold
> >one. They are available, if you search, for quite a premium.
>
> Unlocked phones are widely available over the Internet and by mailorder, as
> well as from independent dealers in some (but not all) areas. The price is a
> normal retail price, not a premium. The difference is the lack of carrier
> subsidy. Nonetheless, good deals can be had with a bit of shopping.
Would you guess that more than 0.1% of the GSM phones in the US were
unlocked, however? I *can* use any compatible, unlocked tri-mode CDMA
phone on Verizon, but that doesn't mean that I would consider it
"readily available" or that many people actually do it.
> >> UMTS is not CDMA (e.g., CDMA2000), similarly in the basic air technology
> >> notwithstanding.
> >
> >No, I never said UMTS was CDMA2000, but it is CDMA.
>
> That's about like saying it's cellular; i.e., not terribly meaningful in and
> of itself.
Well, it's equally as meaningful as TDMA, in that it describes the data
transmission method, and that switching from GSM to any variety of CDMA
(which includes every variety of 3G) conveys many of the benefits
outlined here:
http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/gettechnical/vision/overview.html
> >BTW, you have yet to
> >list what the dramatic differences are between UMTS and CDMA2000.
>
> "Google is your friend."
Except that you have refused repeated requests.
John Navas
In <null-D4389F.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
17:39:06 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <WTVRa.2947$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>Would you guess that more than 0.1% of the GSM phones in the US were
>unlocked, however?
I'd guess the percentage is somewhat higher, but still fairly low. The fact
remains that it is a readily available option.
>I *can* use any compatible, unlocked tri-mode CDMA
>phone on Verizon, ...
You can only use those phones that Verizon is willing to activate. I have a
pair of excellent Samsung CDMA phones that Verizon refused to active.
Interested?
The advantage of GSM is that no cooperation by the carrier is needed when you
have an unlocked phone.
>Well, it's equally as meaningful as TDMA, in that it describes the data
>transmission method, and that switching from GSM to any variety of CDMA
>(which includes every variety of 3G) conveys many of the benefits
>outlined here:
>
>http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/gettechnical/vision/overview.html
I disagree with pretty much all of the points, which are mostly CMDA hype:
* Clearer calling -- I get much clearer and more natural sounding calls in
this area on GSM than with either CDMA carrier. Many calls on Sprint sound
truly horrible to the point of being completely unintelligible.
* Fewer dropped calls -- I get about the same amount of dropped calls on GSM
as I do on CDMA.
* Improved security -- Neither GSM nor CDMA should be considered secure.
* Greater capacity -- There is somewhat greater capacity with CDMA, but
service *does* degrade with higher load; e.g., cell shrinkage. (See below)
* Big-time coverage -- GSM coverage is better than CDMA coverage in the areas
I care about.
What's missing of course are the advantages and benefits of GSM (e.g.,
guaranteed bandwidth).
In other words, it's not a balanced perspective.
>Except that you have refused repeated requests.
No, I simply haven't been willing to be sent on a fool's errand -- I don't
have time to waste on a lengthy and undoubtedly pointless technical debate.
From my prior posts:
Unlike a TDMA/GSM network, a CDMA network is interference-limited rather
than bandwidth-limited, and the Erlang capacity is calculated according
to the probability of blocking by the network, i.e., the probability
that a new mobile is denied access to the network.
The problem is that CDMA Erlang numbers don't take into account the
quality/usability of the call. CDMA networks can be loaded to the point
where quality is truly horrible, whereas TDMA/GSM networks guarantee
bandwidth to every call. Real world RF interference further muddies the
water.
The result is that claimed Erlangs (call capacity metrics) for CDMA
networks tend to be unrealistic (some would say wildly unrealistic);
i.e., they are not directly comparable to the capacity of GSM networks.
When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality comparable to GSM,
then capacity is roughly comparable.
Another problem with CDMA is "cell shrinkage" -- as cell call load goes
up, so does RF interference, which reduces the RF range of the cell. As
a result, callers near the edge of the cell may experience quality
degradation, or even dropped calls. This isn't a problem with GSM.
Notwithstanding the claims of CDMA boosters, There Is No Magic.(c)
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <null-1A7EA8.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
> 16:10:00 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >Did you miss my statement about how GSM phones are provider-locked in
> >the US?
>
> Only if you buy a subsidy locked phone. Unlocked phones are readily
> available, and some carriers will unlock phones on request.
"Readily available" is debatable. Unlocked CDMA phones are about as
readily available as unlocked GSM phones in the US. And carriers will
virtually *never* unlock phones. What's their incentive?
> >I don't understand what relevancy this has. 1) The US has plenty of
> >cellular/PCS spectrum,
>
> The USA is actually tight on spectrum. Considerable effort has been going
> into freeing up more spectrum.
There is not a single market where the US is tight on spectrum. Possibly
on spectrum *owned*, but certainly not on spectrum *used*. Source?
> >but that has nothing to do with getting customers
> >to replace handsets anyway. 2) AT&T is moving from IS-136 TDMA to GSM --
> >how would AT&T IS-136 customers not be "used to having access to Digital
> >services"?
>
> GSM services are greatly superior to TMDA services.
Which services are these? ATT had data services, text messaging, etc.
available on their IS-136 phones. Again, you throw out generalizations
without backing them up.
> >That doesn't make them any more likely to want to replace
> >their phones. Twice.
>
> Handsets tend to get replaced every couple of years in any event, making
> migration relatively easy.
>
> >So there's only one GSM carrier in NZ? The US has three: Cingular,
> >T-Mobile, and AT&T Wireless. You can't purchase a phone from one to use
> >on another's network.
>
> Actually you can, since some carriers (e.g., Cingular) will unlock phones on
> request.
Sometimes, if you pay them. They're locked because they're subsidized.
> >You can theoretically purchase phones from an
> >outside source and use them on the GSM networks, but in practice it
> >hardly ever happens.
>
> You can easily buy an unlocked phone (as I did). Most phones are purchased
> locked simply because of price and convenience.
>
> >But if you have no competition in GSM carriers,
> >that's irrelevant anyway.
>
> There is vigorous competition.
The discussion was regarding New Zealand. One carrier <> vigorous
competition.
> >You also seem to fail to acknowledge that UMTS *is* a separate network
> >technology, and all users will have to be migrated to UMTS at some
> >point, and the GSM networks will have to be shut off. ...
>
> On the contrary -- UMTS and GSM are designed to be complementary, and will
> undoubtedly coexist for many years to come.
What part of my statement were you contradicting? UMTS *is* a separate
network technology? Well, it's fundamentally separate, if for no other
reason than it can't run on the same spectrum. All users will have to be
migrated to UMTS at some point, and the GSM networks will have to be
shut off? Again true, just as ATT will shut off their IS-136 network.
> >... If GSM carriers (and IS-136 carriers) moved directly
> >from GSM to CDMA2000, there would be none of the in-between GPRS/EDGE
> >mess either.
>
> Anything but -- GPRS and EDGE are relatively cheap and easy upgrades to GSM
> (and TDMA),
Again, what are you contradicting? Moving to CDMA2000 *would* have
eliminated the GPRS and EDGE transitions. So even if it's slightly
harder than moving to UMTS, the transition would only have to made once,
instead of three times.
> and EDGE is so good at satisfying market demands here in the USA
> that W-CDMA is being pushed back.
What do you mean "is so good"? What carrier has EDGE? WCDMA is being
pushed back because they can't get it to work correctly, and for a low
enough cost. Look at all the problems they've had in Japan.
> Carriers are going that way simply because
> it makes more sense to them than CDMA2000 (Qualcomm propaganda
> notwithstanding).
Carriers in Europe are going that way because they're required to, so
your statement may be true for the US, but even then it's dubious that
UMTS would be an easier upgrade for GSM (and *especially* for TDMA) in
the US if Europe weren't a test bed.
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Would you guess that more than 0.1% of the GSM phones in the US were
> >unlocked, however?
>
> I'd guess the percentage is somewhat higher, but still fairly low. The fact
> remains that it is a readily available option.
>
> >I *can* use any compatible, unlocked tri-mode CDMA
> >phone on Verizon, ...
>
> You can only use those phones that Verizon is willing to activate. I have a
> pair of excellent Samsung CDMA phones that Verizon refused to active.
> Interested?
Are they tri-mode? A friend who works for Verizon says they'll activate
any tri-mode phone. They just won't have Verizon's data features since
they don't have BREW.
> The advantage of GSM is that no cooperation by the carrier is needed when you
> have an unlocked phone.
I really don't understand how this argument can be so important, as
being able to move a phone is really more of a theoretical advantage.
1) The vast majority of phones in the US are carrier-locked, so yes, in
fact, they do require carrier cooperation if I'm able to switch them to
another network at all, exactly the same as CDMA. In the US, the only
practical advantage *to the vast majority of users* of a SIM card is
being able to quickly switch phones on the same carrier. Which is
something I can do with Sprint PCS anyway.
2) If I switch carriers, chances are the new carrier is going to give me
a (probably better) free or highly subsidized phone anyway.
> >Well, it's equally as meaningful as TDMA, in that it describes the data
> >transmission method, and that switching from GSM to any variety of CDMA
> >(which includes every variety of 3G) conveys many of the benefits
> >outlined here:
> >
> >http://www.sprint.com/pcsbusiness/gettechnical/vision/overview.html
>
> I disagree with pretty much all of the points, which are mostly CMDA hype:
>
> * Clearer calling -- I get much clearer and more natural sounding calls in
> this area on GSM than with either CDMA carrier. Many calls on Sprint sound
> truly horrible to the point of being completely unintelligible.
People can *never* tell that I'm on a cell phone when I use Sprint --
even when I'm in my car. The background noise suppression and voice
quality of my the CDMA codec and my A500 is so good that I have been
standing in the middle of a dance floor in a club talking on the phone
and the party on the other end was able to hear me clearly, with only a
tiny bit of background noise transmitted. The phone even has automatic
volume detection so that it automatically adjusted the earpiece volume
above the regular highest volume level so I could hear them clearly as
well.
> * Fewer dropped calls -- I get about the same amount of dropped calls on GSM
> as I do on CDMA.
Touche -- this is more theoretical, but the dropped calls I used to
experience with GSM tended to be with tower hand-offs, which was the
particular situation being referred to. This doesn't happen with
CDMA2000.
> * Improved security -- Neither GSM nor CDMA should be considered secure.
CDMA over the airwaves should be considered completely secure. Once it
hits POTS it's anybody's guess. CDMA is notably more secure than GSM,
however.
> * Greater capacity -- There is somewhat greater capacity with CDMA, but
> service *does* degrade with higher load; e.g., cell shrinkage. (See below)
The "greater capacity argument" includes this effect -- even CDMA One
has far greater capacity per area than GSM.
> * Big-time coverage -- GSM coverage is better than CDMA coverage in the areas
> I care about.
Then GSM is probably better for you.
> What's missing of course are the advantages and benefits of GSM (e.g.,
> guaranteed bandwidth).
> In other words, it's not a balanced perspective.
>
> >Except that you have refused repeated requests.
>
> No, I simply haven't been willing to be sent on a fool's errand -- I don't
> have time to waste on a lengthy and undoubtedly pointless technical debate.
>
> From my prior posts:
>
> Unlike a TDMA/GSM network, a CDMA network is interference-limited rather
> than bandwidth-limited, and the Erlang capacity is calculated according
> to the probability of blocking by the network, i.e., the probability
> that a new mobile is denied access to the network.
>
> The problem is that CDMA Erlang numbers don't take into account the
> quality/usability of the call. CDMA networks can be loaded to the point
> where quality is truly horrible, whereas TDMA/GSM networks guarantee
> bandwidth to every call. Real world RF interference further muddies the
> water.
Even by the most conservative estimates, CDMA One doubles or triples the
number of calls that can be held *at the same voice quality*. CDMA2000
1xRTT doubles that again. CDMA also *takes advantage of* certain types
of interference, such as multipath reception, that significantly degrade
GSM.
> When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality comparable to GSM,
> then capacity is roughly comparable.
No, and that doesn't even make sense, as 1) CDMA codecs are more
efficient at transmitting voice and 2) CDMA basically doesn't transmit
*any* data during silence. GSM, on the other hand, is using the same
bandwidth for both sides of the call, silence or not. So assuming that
people don't constantly talk over each other during a conversation, CDMA
will be over twice as efficient based on that facet alone.
> Another problem with CDMA is "cell shrinkage" -- as cell call load goes
> up, so does RF interference, which reduces the RF range of the cell. As
> a result, callers near the edge of the cell may experience quality
> degradation, or even dropped calls. This isn't a problem with GSM.
Yet worst-case scenario is that a CDMA tower handles the same area as a
GSM tower. If a carrier doesn't put enough towers in, that's another
instance of a Carrier Problem, not a Technology Problem. And remind me
what GSM would do in such an overload situation -- oh yes, that's right,
it just wouldn't let you make the call in the first place. And there
would be *more* people who couldn't make calls because of the
aforementioned capacity limitations.
John Navas
In <null-0B16D4.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
18:21:58 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <8sVRa.2937$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Only if you buy a subsidy locked phone. Unlocked phones are readily
>> available, and some carriers will unlock phones on request.
>
>"Readily available" is debatable.
Anything is debatable, but it's easy to find dozens of sources in a few
minutes.
>Unlocked CDMA phones are about as
>readily available as unlocked GSM phones in the US.
Perhaps, but, unlike GSM, the cooperation of the carrier is needed.
>And carriers will
>virtually *never* unlock phones.
Some will, as I wrote, including Cingular.
>What's their incentive?
Yo permit use of local prepaid SIMs when out of the country, among other
things.
>> The USA is actually tight on spectrum. Considerable effort has been going
>> into freeing up more spectrum.
>
>There is not a single market where the US is tight on spectrum. Possibly
>on spectrum *owned*, but certainly not on spectrum *used*. Source?
"No more room at the mobile inn?"
<http://news.com.com/2100-1033-275991.html?legacy=cnet>
>> GSM services are greatly superior to TMDA services.
>
>Which services are these? ATT had data services, text messaging, etc.
>available on their IS-136 phones. ...
ATTWS (not ATT) didn't even offer TDMA data, and GSM is superior in other
ways, which is why ATTWS is now able to tout so many digital benefits (e.g.,
GPRS, with EDGE on the way).
>> Actually you can, since some carriers (e.g., Cingular) will unlock phones on
>> request.
>
>Sometimes, if you pay them. ...
No fee.
>> On the contrary -- UMTS and GSM are designed to be complementary, and will
>> undoubtedly coexist for many years to come.
>
>What part of my statement were you contradicting? ...
What I wrote speaks for itself.
>> Anything but -- GPRS and EDGE are relatively cheap and easy upgrades to GSM
>> (and TDMA),
>
>Again, what are you contradicting?
Again, what I wrote speaks for itself.
>Moving to CDMA2000 *would* have
>eliminated the GPRS and EDGE transitions.
It would have been a much bigger transition, which is why carriers didn't do
it.
>So even if it's slightly
>harder than moving to UMTS, the transition would only have to made once,
>instead of three times.
At most twice (TDMA->GSM->WCDMA), and probably only once (TDMA->GSM) for the
foreseeable future, since EDGE seems to be enough for foreseeable demand.
>> and EDGE is so good at satisfying market demands here in the USA
>> that W-CDMA is being pushed back.
>
>What do you mean "is so good"?
Large improvement in GSM efficiency and functionality that satisfies apparent
market demand.
>What carrier has EDGE?
* Cingular: Already live in Indianapolis, with rollout to continue throughout
2003-2004.
* ATTWS: 93% of sites are EDGE-equipped and will be deployed and ready to
launch in all major markets by end of the year
* T-Mobile: Has announced that it will deploy EDGE, and is installing EDGE
support, but no date has yet been announced.
>WCDMA is being
>pushed back because they can't get it to work correctly, and for a low
>enough cost. ...
WCDMA is being pushed back here in the USA by spectrum issues, and by lack of
perceived demand.
Michael B. Blake
"null" <nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:null-30BF6C.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > * Clearer calling -- I get much clearer and more natural sounding calls
in
> > this area on GSM than with either CDMA carrier. Many calls on Sprint
sound
> > truly horrible to the point of being completely unintelligible.
>
> People can *never* tell that I'm on a cell phone when I use Sprint --
> even when I'm in my car. The background noise suppression and voice
> quality of my the CDMA codec and my A500 is so good that I have been
> standing in the middle of a dance floor in a club talking on the phone
> and the party on the other end was able to hear me clearly, with only a
> tiny bit of background noise transmitted. The phone even has automatic
> volume detection so that it automatically adjusted the earpiece volume
> above the regular highest volume level so I could hear them clearly as
> well.
>
> > * Fewer dropped calls -- I get about the same amount of dropped calls on
GSM
> > as I do on CDMA.
>
3595) handsets and I can tell you that there is a tremendous transmission
quality difference in favor of the GSM handset. Both systems have full
scale signal strength in my home and my wife talks to her sister regularly.
Her sister commented, on the very first GSM call, that the quality was so
much better that she could not believe it.
They will talk for up to an hour at a time and it was just expected that
Sprint would drop the call at some point. She has not had a single dropped
call on the GSM handset. This is but one experience and it is in
Indianapolis, IN where Cingular has a well developed GSM network. Our
perception is that the GSM system is clearly superior based on having a
"good telephone call".
Incidently I am a recently retired SBC Ameritech, Network Switching
Operations Manager and I am very familar with the technology but to me, and
most telephone customers, the technology is of no importance. It is the
quality of the call that is being purchased and the Sprint CDMA syatem, in
Indianapolis, appears to be distinctly inferior to the Cingular GSM system
from a "telephone call quality" perspective.
Mike - K9JRI
Quick
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The advantage of GSM is that no cooperation by the carrier is needed
when you
> > have an unlocked phone.
>
> I really don't understand how this argument can be so important, as
> being able to move a phone is really more of a theoretical advantage.
Actually it is more than theoretical with a not-so-small
*dis*advantage to it. Phones with SIMs become much more
valuable target to theives. A stolen CDMA phone is of little
value since the ESN can't be changed and it will be deactivated
and "blacklisted" as soon as its reported. With an unlocked GSM
phone its simply a matter of replacing the SIM and there is no way
for a carrier to identify it as a stolen phone. This is becomming quite
a problem overseas.
-Quick
null
"Michael B. Blake" <k9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I have two Sprint (Samsung SCH-8500) as well as two Cingular GSM (Nokia
> 3595) handsets and I can tell you that there is a tremendous transmission
> quality difference in favor of the GSM handset.
You're comparing a 3-year-old Sprint PCS phone to a brand new GSM phone.
Even the best phones degrade over time, and the 8500 certainly never was
the best phone in terms of reception, voice quality, or longevity. I
have a friend who dropped calls constantly until he replaced his 8500
with an A460. Sanyo and Nokia phones are supposed to be even better on
SPCS.
> Both systems have full
> scale signal strength in my home and my wife talks to her sister regularly.
I've never had *any* Sprint phone drop the call with full signal
strength. Strike two against the phone.
> Her sister commented, on the very first GSM call, that the quality was so
> much better that she could not believe it.
Sound quality depends on various factors, such as microphone quality,
speaker quality, version of the CDMA codec (I've heard that CDMA-CDMA
calls used on older CDMA phones sounded better than CDMA-GSM calls due
to codec differences), lint in the microphone, etc. Again, sound quality
on a phone also degrades over time.
When I had a Nokia GSM phone, a friend of mine had a GSM StarTac of some
persuasion, and I was startled at how much better the Nok's sound
quality was. Obviously not a network issue.
> Incidently I am a recently retired SBC Ameritech, Network Switching
> Operations Manager and I am very familar with the technology but to me, and
> most telephone customers, the technology is of no importance. It is the
> quality of the call that is being purchased and the Sprint CDMA syatem, in
> Indianapolis, appears to be distinctly inferior to the Cingular GSM system
> from a "telephone call quality" perspective.
If GSM is working for you then you probably have little incentive to try
another Sprint phone, but I almost guarantee if you try something like a
Samsung A500 or Nokia 3585i on Sprint you'll be astonished at how good
CDMA can sound.
John Navas
In <null-30BF6C.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
19:00:18 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <iRWRa.2972$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> You can only use those phones that Verizon is willing to activate. I have a
>> pair of excellent Samsung CDMA phones that Verizon refused to active.
>> Interested?
>
>Are they tri-mode?
Dual Band / Dual Mode.
>A friend who works for Verizon says they'll activate
>any tri-mode phone. They just won't have Verizon's data features since
>they don't have BREW.
As I said, Verizon refused.
>> The advantage of GSM is that no cooperation by the carrier is needed when you
>> have an unlocked phone.
>
>I really don't understand how this argument can be so important, as
>being able to move a phone is really more of a theoretical advantage.
So noted.
>2) If I switch carriers, chances are the new carrier is going to give me
>a (probably better) free or highly subsidized phone anyway.
Not if you don't sign a contract. It's a tradeoff.
>> * Clearer calling -- I get much clearer and more natural sounding calls in
>> this area on GSM than with either CDMA carrier. Many calls on Sprint sound
>> truly horrible to the point of being completely unintelligible.
>
>People can *never* tell that I'm on a cell phone when I use Sprint ...
Good for you, but not for me. This is function of location and capacity, not
an inherent benefit of CDMA.
>> * Improved security -- Neither GSM nor CDMA should be considered secure.
>
>CDMA over the airwaves should be considered completely secure. Once it
>hits POTS it's anybody's guess. CDMA is notably more secure than GSM,
>however.
As I wrote, neither GSM nor CDMA should be considered secure, in part because
there's much more to network security than the air interface. That's why
Qualcomm sells "secure" CDMA phones.
>> When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality comparable to GSM,
>> then capacity is roughly comparable.
>
>No, and that doesn't even make sense, as 1) CDMA codecs are more
>efficient at transmitting voice and ...
Not true.
>> Another problem with CDMA is "cell shrinkage" -- as cell call load goes
>> up, so does RF interference, which reduces the RF range of the cell. As
>> a result, callers near the edge of the cell may experience quality
>> degradation, or even dropped calls. This isn't a problem with GSM.
>
>Yet worst-case scenario is that a CDMA tower handles the same area as a
>GSM tower. If a carrier doesn't put enough towers in, that's another
>instance of a Carrier Problem, not a Technology Problem. And remind me
>what GSM would do in such an overload situation -- oh yes, that's right,
>it just wouldn't let you make the call in the first place. And there
>would be *more* people who couldn't make calls because of the
>aforementioned capacity limitations.
You don't seem to understand the issue, so I'll try one more time: With
higher loads on a CDMA tower, range decreases due to increased interference, a
phenomenon called "cell shrinkage" that doesn't affect GSM. When a caller is
near the limit of a CDMA tower, cell shrinkage can result in degradation or
even call drops. It's a real problem -- I've experienced it.
True, the problem can be minimized by such things as closer tower spacing, but
that offsets the claimed capacity advantage for CDMA, may not be practical,
and is expensive for the carrier.
GSM, on the other hand, guarantees bandwidth to every connection, so calls
don't degrade or get dropped as load increases. True, a GSM system can run
out of capacity and block calls (just like CDMA), but at least connected calls
won't suffer (unlike CDMA), and any capacity issues can be minimized in the
same ways as CDMA (e.g., more towers).
Which outcome is worse is, I guess, a matter of personal taste. I personally
hate having calls degrade to the point that it's hard or even impossible to
continue the conversation, an all too common problem in this area with both
CDMA carriers. And I almost never get a system busy with GSM, so I'm paying
no price for the guaranteed bandwidth.
The bottom line is that one *technology* isn't automatically better than the
other from the subscriber point of view. What matters is the type and quality
of service offered by the particular *carrier* in that particular geographic
*area*. CDMA with carrier X may be better for a given subscriber than GSM
with carrier Y in one area, and the opposite may be true in some other area.
Quick
Its pretty much reversed here in San Jose. Cingular sucks from every
perspective,
VZW CDMA is great and Sprint has good quality when you have coverage...
There is a distinct difference in "telephone call quality" when you go from
AMPS
to digital (AMPS being capable of the best voice quality). Otherwise it
simply
depends on equipment and network coverage and load. There is the tangible
effect of signal attenuation with networks using the higher frequency
ranges.
-Quick
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >And carriers will
> >virtually *never* unlock phones.
>
> Some will, as I wrote, including Cingular.
And, as I wrote, only sometimes, and only if you pay them, negating any
advantage.
> >What's their incentive?
>
> Yo permit use of local prepaid SIMs when out of the country, among other
> things.
This is certainly not an advantage to the carrier to whom the phone is
locked. That was the question.
> >> The USA is actually tight on spectrum. Considerable effort has been going
> >> into freeing up more spectrum.
> >
> >There is not a single market where the US is tight on spectrum. Possibly
> >on spectrum *owned*, but certainly not on spectrum *used*. Source?
>
> "No more room at the mobile inn?"
> <http://news.com.com/2100-1033-275991.html?legacy=cnet>
This is an article from two years ago, and isn't even intelligent enough
to separate current capacity issues (where it citing the 9/11 overload,
and which can be solved by adding more towers, or, ironically, switching
to CDMA2000 or WCDMA) from available spectrum. Like I said, there is no
market that is tight on spectrum *used*.
> >> GSM services are greatly superior to TMDA services.
> >
> >Which services are these? ATT had data services, text messaging, etc.
> >available on their IS-136 phones. ...
>
> ATTWS (not ATT) didn't even offer TDMA data,
I never said they used TDMA data -- I said they had data on IS-136
phones. Used CDPD network. Same to the consumer.
> and GSM is superior in other
> ways, which is why ATTWS is now able to tout so many digital benefits (e.g.,
> GPRS, with EDGE on the way).
>
> >> Actually you can, since some carriers (e.g., Cingular) will unlock phones
> >> on
> >> request.
> >
> >Sometimes, if you pay them. ...
>
> No fee.
Nope, sorry, I know people who have tried. The stores confirm that
Cingular's policy is to not unlock phones. Now, I'm sure they couldn't
find out or do anything about it if a rogue employee unlocked someone's
phone, but why on earth would Cingular give you a subsidized phone just
to unlock it so you could take it somewhere else?
> >> On the contrary -- UMTS and GSM are designed to be complementary, and will
> >> undoubtedly coexist for many years to come.
> >
> >What part of my statement were you contradicting? ...
>
> What I wrote speaks for itself.
Well, then it spoke in vague, unsupported generalizations, and didn't in
fact contradict *anything* I said.
> >Moving to CDMA2000 *would* have
> >eliminated the GPRS and EDGE transitions.
>
> It would have been a much bigger transition, which is why carriers didn't do
> it.
Again, European carriers' upgrade path is WCDMA because of European
regulations, as noted in the oft-cited Economist article.
> At most twice (TDMA->GSM->WCDMA), and probably only once (TDMA->GSM) for the
> foreseeable future, since EDGE seems to be enough for foreseeable demand.
Sorry, TDMA->GSM->GPRS->EDGE->WCDMA.
EDGE will basically keep up with 1xRTT Rev. A (to be deployed
network-wide on Sprint in the next couple of months, not sure about VZW)
which the vast majority of existing CDMA2000 1xRTT phones either already
support or will support with a software upgrade. EDGE will require new
phones for full support, and by the point it arrives, VZW will have
CDMA2000 1x EV-DO well on its way to full deployment (though I believe
SPCS is skipping EV-DO for the voice compatible, faster EV-DV), and will
be up to 10X as fast as EDGE (fast enough to allow users to reconsider
the merits of WiFi hotspots, and in some areas to even reconsider wired
broadband).
> >What carrier has EDGE?
>
> * Cingular: Already live in Indianapolis, with rollout to continue throughout
> 2003-2004.
Interesting. But is one city on one network really enough for you to
make generalizations about the bandwidth needs of the entire country on
three nationwide networks?
> WCDMA is being pushed back here in the USA by spectrum issues, and by lack of
> perceived demand.
No carrier has indicated that they don't have the spectrum to support
WCDMA. And I would think that if lack of spectrum *were* the case, then
they would want to get as many voice users onto a UMTS network as
possible as it uses less spectrum per call.
Maybe ATTWS is rolling back their plans because of such customer
confusion and disappointment over how little extra they got and how much
was taken away by moving to what AT&T already called their "Next
Generation Network"?
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> * Clearer calling -- I get much clearer and more natural sounding calls in
> >> this area on GSM than with either CDMA carrier. Many calls on Sprint
> >> sound
> >> truly horrible to the point of being completely unintelligible.
> >
> >People can *never* tell that I'm on a cell phone when I use Sprint ...
>
> Good for you, but not for me. This is function of location and capacity, not
> an inherent benefit of CDMA.
Not necessarily, as CDMA uses different codecs from GSM, and the most
recent CDMA codec versions have fantastic voice quality and far better
background noise supression than GSM codecs.
> >> When CDMA calls are limited to those with quality comparable to GSM,
> >> then capacity is roughly comparable.
> >
> >No, and that doesn't even make sense, as 1) CDMA codecs are more
> >efficient at transmitting voice and ...
>
> Not true.
Very true. CDMA codecs run at lower Kbps. Less data = less tower
activity.
> >Yet worst-case scenario is that a CDMA tower handles the same area as a
> >GSM tower. If a carrier doesn't put enough towers in, that's another
> >instance of a Carrier Problem, not a Technology Problem. And remind me
> >what GSM would do in such an overload situation -- oh yes, that's right,
> >it just wouldn't let you make the call in the first place. And there
> >would be *more* people who couldn't make calls because of the
> >aforementioned capacity limitations.
>
> You don't seem to understand the issue, so I'll try one more time: With
> higher loads on a CDMA tower, range decreases due to increased interference,
> a
> phenomenon called "cell shrinkage" that doesn't affect GSM.
Oh, I fully understand the issue, and I experienced it too -- a couple
of years ago. You don't seem to understand that there has to be more
*data* being transferred, though, to cause the shrinkage -- and CDMA
transfers less *data* per call. Hence, more calls per area, and more
calls per tower.
And it still stands that worst-case scenario is that a CDMA tower's
footprint is approximately equal to a GSM tower's footprint.
> True, the problem can be minimized by such things as closer tower spacing,
> but
> that offsets the claimed capacity advantage for CDMA, may not be practical,
> and is expensive for the carrier.
No, because when the tower footprint is at its GSM-tower footprint size,
the CDMA tower is handling far more calls than the GSM tower is. So in
effect, CDMA is cheaper in locations with lower capacity requirements
because it allows the towers to extend farther, and it's cheaper in
higher capacity requirements because each tower can handle more calls.
> GSM, on the other hand, guarantees bandwidth to every connection, so calls
> don't degrade or get dropped as load increases.
True. Which is why CDMA2000 and WCDMA have added QoS features to help
prevent the call from degrading past a predetermined acceptable level,
and to even be able to provide certain customers higher QoS than others.
> True, a GSM system can run
> out of capacity and block calls (just like CDMA), but at least connected
> calls
> won't suffer (unlike CDMA), and any capacity issues can be minimized in the
> same ways as CDMA (e.g., more towers).
>
> Which outcome is worse is, I guess, a matter of personal taste. I personally
> hate having calls degrade to the point that it's hard or even impossible to
> continue the conversation, an all too common problem in this area with both
> CDMA carriers.
I've actually never had this problem -- I've only had calls drop because
of cell shrinkage. And even that, not in years.
> And I almost never get a system busy with GSM, so I'm paying
> no price for the guaranteed bandwidth.
Good -- especially when I roamed on Pac Bell, I could *never* make a
call on GSM. I'd much rather get through and be able to convey something
than not be able to make a call at all. Of course, being able to get
through and get a good quality connection is ideal. And it sounds like
that's what we both have.
> The bottom line is that one *technology* isn't automatically better than the
> other from the subscriber point of view.
Were we ever arguing from the subscriber point of view? I thought it was
a given that no matter what the network technology, there's no
replacement for adding towers. From a carrier standpoint, however, CDMA
is more efficient on many levels, which is why every 3G standard is
CDMA-based. And on some level, the cost of a network will eventually
have to be passed down to the subscribers, so the most efficient network
which gets the most done with the least hardware *will* be better from
the subscriber's point of view.
>What matters is the type and
> quality
> of service offered by the particular *carrier* in that particular geographic
> *area*. CDMA with carrier X may be better for a given subscriber than GSM
> with carrier Y in one area, and the opposite may be true in some other area.
And no one has ever argued differently.
John Navas
In <null-B51F37.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
20:25:43 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <%KXRa.2997$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Some will, as I wrote, including Cingular.
>
>And, as I wrote, only sometimes, and only if you pay them, negating any
>advantage.
[sigh] As I wrote, Cingular will and has, and without charge. I hear that
T-Mobile will as well, and that ATTWS will not, but can't confirm that.
>> >What's their incentive?
>>
>> [To] permit use of local prepaid SIMs when out of the country, among other
>> things.
>
>This is certainly not an advantage to the carrier to whom the phone is
>locked. ...
Of course it is. It's called reasonable customer satisfaction, which beats
the heck out of losing the customer.
>> "No more room at the mobile inn?"
>> <http://news.com.com/2100-1033-275991.html?legacy=cnet>
>
>This is an article from two years ago, and isn't even intelligent enough
>to separate current capacity issues (where it citing the 9/11 overload,
>and which can be solved by adding more towers, or, ironically, switching
>to CDMA2000 or WCDMA) from available spectrum. Like I said, there is no
>market that is tight on spectrum *used*.
[sigh] We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>> ATTWS (not ATT) didn't even offer TDMA data,
>
>I never said they used TDMA data -- I said they had data on IS-136
>phones. Used CDPD network. Same to the consumer.
Sorry, but TDMA handset CSD is quite different from CDPD.
>> >Sometimes, if you pay them. ...
>>
>> No fee.
>
>Nope, sorry, I know people who have tried. ...
Then they didn't try very hard and/or they didn't have world standard phones
and/or they didn't give a good reason (e.g., "unlock my phone so I can switch
to T-Mobile"). I know people that had world standard phones unlocked without
difficulty and at no charge for the purpose of using their phones outside of
the country. I also know people that had non-world standard phones unlocked
at no charge once the subsidy period was up.
>> What I wrote speaks for itself.
>
>Well, then it spoke in vague, unsupported generalizations, and didn't in
>fact contradict *anything* I said.
Think what you will.
>> At most twice (TDMA->GSM->WCDMA), and probably only once (TDMA->GSM) for the
>> foreseeable future, since EDGE seems to be enough for foreseeable demand.
>
>Sorry, TDMA->GSM->GPRS->EDGE->WCDMA.
No, sorry, TDMA->GSM->WCDMA. GPRS and EDGE are comparatively easy and cheap
upgrades to GSM, particularly for US carriers that have fairly recent
equipment.
>[SNIP CMDA advocacy]
>> >What carrier has EDGE?
>>
>> * Cingular: Already live in Indianapolis, with rollout to continue throughout
>> 2003-2004.
>
>Interesting. But is one city on one network really enough for you to
>make generalizations about the bandwidth needs of the entire country on
>three nationwide networks?
I'm making generalizations from technical specs, not from that one deployment
alone, although that deployment does validate the technical specs.
>> WCDMA is being pushed back here in the USA by spectrum issues, and by lack of
>> perceived demand.
>
>No carrier has indicated that they don't have the spectrum to support
>WCDMA.
Quite the contrary. There's been a huge push over the past few years to free
up the needed spectrum, particularly from the military.
"Senators At Odds Over 3G Spectrum"
<http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA150023>
The military defended itself last week against a second wave of attacks from
the wireless industry, which is eager to get its hands on the Department of
Defense's coveted 1755-1850 MHz spectrum for commercial third-generation
wireless services.
[MORE]
John Navas
In <null-7D89A4.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
19:52:40 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>In article <QMXRa.11089$Vx2.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Michael B. Blake" <k9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I have two Sprint (Samsung SCH-8500) as well as two Cingular GSM (Nokia
>> 3595) handsets and I can tell you that there is a tremendous transmission
>> quality difference in favor of the GSM handset.
>
>You're comparing a 3-year-old Sprint PCS phone to a brand new GSM phone.
>Even the best phones degrade over time, and the 8500 certainly never was
>the best phone in terms of reception, voice quality, or longevity. ...
The SCH-8500 is actually very good, equaling or beating the other CDMA phones
I've tested.
>I've never had *any* Sprint phone drop the call with full signal
>strength. Strike two against the phone.
I have. Strikes against Sprint.
John Navas
In <1058559336.417354@sj-nntpcache-3> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:14:38 -0700,
"Quick" <dhor...@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
>Its pretty much reversed here in San Jose. Cingular sucks from every
>perspective, ...
Depends on where in San Jose you are. Many areas are good, but there are some
weak areas and holes.
John Navas
In <1058556495.251890@sj-nntpcache-5> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:29:20 -0700,
"Quick" <dhor...@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:
>Actually it is more than theoretical with a not-so-small
>*dis*advantage to it. Phones with SIMs become much more
>valuable target to theives. A stolen CDMA phone is of little
>value since the ESN can't be changed and it will be deactivated
>and "blacklisted" as soon as its reported. With an unlocked GSM
>phone its simply a matter of replacing the SIM and there is no way
>for a carrier to identify it as a stolen phone. This is becomming quite
>a problem overseas.
So your claim is that thieves stop to see what kind of phone you have before
stealing it? Really? :-)
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <null-7D89A4.1...@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003
> 19:52:40 GMT, null <nu...@null.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <QMXRa.11089$Vx2.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Michael B. Blake" <k9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have two Sprint (Samsung SCH-8500) as well as two Cingular GSM (Nokia
> >> 3595) handsets and I can tell you that there is a tremendous transmission
> >> quality difference in favor of the GSM handset.
> >
> >You're comparing a 3-year-old Sprint PCS phone to a brand new GSM phone.
> >Even the best phones degrade over time, and the 8500 certainly never was
> >the best phone in terms of reception, voice quality, or longevity. ...
>
> The SCH-8500 is actually very good, equaling or beating the other CDMA phones
> I've tested.
Which other CMDA phones are these? I haven't seen a phone that has been
released in the past 1.5 years that couldn't handily beat the 8500 in
every respect. And I knew several people who had 8500s, so it wasn't
limited to a specific instance.
I even had a single-band Samsung 6100 that would hold a call without
dropouts in the same car that a friend's brand new 8500 would search for
signal.
James Pole
> Isn't that because they have phones which have both UMTS and GSM? I
> think you have to or the UMTS phone can't work on GSM. Doesn't the
> carrier have to maintain a GSM system to keep folks on the air who don't
> want to upgrade to a UMTS phone? And isn't UMTS going to be in the 2.1
> band in most places?
Hutchinson doesn't have to maintain a GSM system, they simply roam on to
Vodafone's or O2's GSM network -- like I've said before. UMTS has been
designed to fall back on to GSM when GSM available where UMTS is not
available. This is quite similar to the way CDMA/TDMA falls back on to
AMPS Analogue service when there is no CDMA or TDMA signal.
It probably is going to be in the 2GHz band, whats your point? The phone
will use 800/900/1800/1900 for GSM and whatever other band for UMTS. The
frequencies that are going to be used is not an issue here.
> Backward compatibility is the big advantage of the CDMA2000/IS-95
> system, that the old phones work on the new network and the news ones
> work on the old networks (and analong as well in most cases). It makes
> the steps forward a lot easier for carriers and subscribers.
The old phones will *not* work on the new systems. This is true for
AMPS/TDMA, AMPS/CDMA, GSM/UMTS. However, for each of those combinations it
is possible for the newer phone to roam back on to the old system -- for
example CDMA and TDMA phones can roam onto Analogue AMPS and UMTS phone
can roam onto the older GSM system.
It's the same thing. I find it difficult to understand why people can't
understand that UMTS is compatible with GSM in the same way CDMA/TDMA is
compatible with Analogue AMPS.
> In truth, most subscribers could care less about technology unless
> they
> use data, in which case, they can get much better service (in my area at
> least) with a CDMA2000 carrier. I have tried GPRS and it does not
> compare to 1x in Tampa.
Most people don't bother with Data services, at least here in New
Zealand. All most people want is decent voice services, good coverage and
the ability to send text messages. GSM fulfills that requirement well. And
when people start using data services, UMTS will be an excellent migration
path for those people because they can stick with the same provider and
keep their sim card which means they can keep their phone number.
- James
--
James Pole
Email: james [at] pole.net.nz
Website: http://james.pole.net.nz/
null
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [sigh] As I wrote, Cingular will and has, and without charge. I hear that
> T-Mobile will as well, and that ATTWS will not, but can't confirm that.
Maybe representatives from Cingular and T-Mobile can fill us in here
regarding their policy.
> >> >What's their incentive?
> >>
> >> [To] permit use of local prepaid SIMs when out of the country, among other
> >> things.
>
> >This is certainly not an advantage to the carrier to whom the phone is
> >locked. ...
>
> Of course it is. It's called reasonable customer satisfaction, which beats
> the heck out of losing the customer.
Let's think for a minute -- if they were actually more likely to lose a
customer over not being able to use their phone internationally than to
lose a customer (and money) by unlocking their phone to wander to any
carrier, wouldn't the phones be unlocked out of the box? No? Ding!
> >I never said they used TDMA data -- I said they had data on IS-136
> >phones. Used CDPD network. Same to the consumer.
>
> Sorry, but TDMA handset CSD is quite different from CDPD.
Without being familiar with CSD, I'm not sure what you're arguing --
that "TDMA data" is different from CDPD or that ATTWS didn't use CDPD
for their wireless web. At any rate, I wasn't arguing option one (again,
I *never* stated that ATTWS used "TDMA data") and option 2 isn't
arguable -- ATTWS definitely used BellSouth's CDPD network and not the
ATT TDMA network for their PocketNet service because it their data
service was available in some places digital phone service was not, and
vice versa.
> >> What I wrote speaks for itself.
> >
> >Well, then it spoke in vague, unsupported generalizations, and didn't in
> >fact contradict *anything* I said.
>
> Think what you will.
>
> >> At most twice (TDMA->GSM->WCDMA), and probably only once (TDMA->GSM) for
> >> the
> >> foreseeable future, since EDGE seems to be enough for foreseeable demand.
> >
> >Sorry, TDMA->GSM->GPRS->EDGE->WCDMA.
>
> No, sorry, TDMA->GSM->WCDMA. GPRS and EDGE are comparatively easy and cheap
> upgrades to GSM, particularly for US carriers that have fairly recent
> equipment.
They require network and phone upgrades, no? What more does it take to
be considered significant?
> >> WCDMA is being pushed back here in the USA by spectrum issues, and by lack
> >> of
> >> perceived demand.
> >
> >No carrier has indicated that they don't have the spectrum to support
> >WCDMA.
>
> Quite the contrary. There's been a huge push over the past few years to free
> up the needed spectrum, particularly from the military.
>
> "Senators At Odds Over 3G Spectrum"
> <http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA150023>
>
> The military defended itself last week against a second wave of attacks from
> the wireless industry, which is eager to get its hands on the Department of
> Defense's coveted 1755-1850 MHz spectrum for commercial third-generation
> wireless services.
Are you quoting 2-year-old articles again? As far as I know, there is no
market where even half of the existing 1900MHz band is being used. And
the only significant quote in that article was the CEO of VZW stating
that capacity in certain areas would be exhausted in 18 to 24 months.
Two problems: 1) It's been 24 months, and VZW isn't close to running out
of spectrum; 2) If the situation had actually been that dire, then why
didn't VZW buy more spectrum at prior auctions? Clearly a play to get
spectrum cheaper.
Sprint PCS didn't even participate in the last round of spectrum
auctions because they stated they owned enough capacity to deploy 3G
everywhere.
Let's just say for argument's sake that the US *is* running out of
unused spectrum. Well, it still stands that switching to any 3G
technology will *alleviate* that problem, not aggrivate it, as 3G
networks are more efficient.
Michael Lynch
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:nqZRa.3040$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
phones
> I've tested.
>
Then you haven't tried anything lately. I had (some) dropped calls with my
8500. Since August of 2002, when I switched to a Sanyo 4900 (and now an
8100), I haven't had a single dropped call. Former no-signal areas suddenly
worked just fine too. All because of a change in phones.
The 8500 is known to drop calls ("Signal Faded"). Does that make it a bad
phone? Well, it was better than my crummy-but-sharp-looking Nokia TDMA phone
that it replaced; used with ATTWS. It's all relative, naturally.
--
Mike
Chris Russell
a 5 MHZ channel. It has nothing to do with time division GSM. The fact
it might use a SIM card for programming like my Nokia 6340i does not
affect the air interface. It is still code division which is a
completely different animal than time division.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
<h1KRa.2766$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> As I said, 3G WCDMA is largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite
> different from current CDMA.
>
> In <vheq24e...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:23:48 -0000,
> no...@nospam.nospam (Chris Russell) wrote:
>
> >WCDMA has nothing to do with GSM. It is wideband CDMA with the
> >frequency width four times larger than existing cellular services.
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
> ><VNoRa.2465$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>
> >> 3G is WCDMA, largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite different from
> >> current CDMA.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
> CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
John Navas
We may be getting hung up on terms and semantics, so in the hope of more light
and less heat, I'll switch to more precise terms.
To restate what I wrote: UMTS is based on GSM infrastructure, is designed to
be complementary to GSM systems, incorporates a type of CDMA air interface
technology, and is quite different from cdmaOne (IS-95A & IS-95B), cdma2000 1x
RTT, EV-DO & EV-DV, and 3x, not to mention TDMA (IS-136).
>> different from current CDMA.
In <vhgr3hh...@corp.supernews.com> on Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:53:53 -0000,
no...@nospam.nospam (Chris Russell) wrote:
>I disagree, WCDMA is wide-band CDMA. It will use a spread spectrum over
>a 5 MHZ channel. It has nothing to do with time division GSM. The fact
>it might use a SIM card for programming like my Nokia 6340i does not
>affect the air interface. It is still code division which is a
>completely different animal than time division.
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in article
><h1KRa.2766$dk4.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>:
>>
>> As I said, 3G WCDMA is largely based on GSM infrastructure, and quite
>> different from current CDMA.
--