 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / GSM / July 2004GSM AND CDMA ???
I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out for the GSM technology. Thanks in advance CDMA has the range and interference avoidance... GSM has the call density... They'd be complimentary if the whole cellular situation in the USA wasn't so screwed. Thanks FCC! JS > I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if > T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks in advance > I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if > T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have > better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on > CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it > that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out > for the GSM technology. I would say GSM has a bigger market share worldwide. It is the only standard used in Europe, as well as many other countries. So manufacturers, like Ericsson (Swedish), Nokia (Finnish) and Siemens (European) tend to focus on GSM. A lot of CDMA manufacturers are Korean, where CDMA is the only 2G network standard. Motorola seems to sit in both camps. >I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if >T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have >better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on >CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it >that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out >for the GSM technology. Perhaps in a minor way it might be the technology used, but it's more likely what kind of coverage a company has rather than the technology used. In Europe and in many Asian and middle eastern countries coverage is often times universally available everywhere even in areas that seem very remote. As far as why the latest phones with the latest features seem to be for GSM it's probably because for GSM there are almost a billion possible subscribers world-wide whereas for CDMA it's probably more on the order of 150 million. Economies of scale dictate that with more possible customers you're likely to get more choices from more manufacturers especially in Europe, Asia and Africa. The Americas were late adopting GSM and at a different frequency than Europe, Asia and Africa. That's also why for the GSM side there are a lot more handsets available but available for Euro/Asian/African as there are more people in those markets than in the Americas. The next generation (3G) for GSM will have some sort of CDMA interface (W-CDMA) because it manages spectrum more efficiently than the present Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) base of the current GSM systems. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if >T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks in advance At least in theory CDMA has some capacity advantages, plus the ability to degrade the voice quality b dynamically reducing the bit rate to Vocoder to allow more simultaneous calls. In very busy networks, CDMA calls are randomly dropped. On a GSM network, if you have a call, as long as you don't move out of the cell, short of the network crashing, calls are never dropped. THe wireless infrastructure to support a GSM call was allocated when the BTS began communicating with the phone. CDMA is a digital analog of synchronous detection. The call is splattered all over the spectrum, and reconstructed at the other end. Because of the way reconstruction is carried out, all calls except your appear as noise. The capacity limit is when the other calls on the network generate more noise than the link margin required. That is not a fixed number. With GSM it is, with FR/EFR, you get 8 calls per channel, period... CDMA handles multipath reflections a lot more gracefully than GSM. GSM has much better International roaming coverage than CDMA. The pickings on CDMA aren't all that good once you get past the USA, Canada and the CDMA kingdom (Korea). As the use of data services increases, the capacity advantage that CDMA offers is more than a little suspect. It comes from a form of statistical multiplexing, and when the statistics become unfavorable, ugly things happen. If what you are looking for is only service in the USA, pick the phone with the best call package to fit your needs, no matter what technology. Under good conditions, voice quality should be quite similiar. FELIX schrieb: > ... And why is it > that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out > for the GSM technology. One reason for the broader market of GSM is the use of SIM cards carrying the "identity", which can be switched freely to newer phones. So you can buy a newer GSM phone and use it immediately. As I read CDMA phones are starting with this feature also. But until then you had to go to a dealer to "switch" the identity to a new phone. So most people waited until the renewal until they got a new phone. Wolfgang On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:43:34 +0200, Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything: >FELIX schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >then you had to go to a dealer to "switch" the identity to a new phone. >So most people waited until the renewal until they got a new phone. With Verizon, at least, you can switch to a different phone in a couple of minutes on their web site. Still not as convenient as a SIM card, but it doesn't require a trip to the store.  SignatureDavid Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time. "Oh man, Leo, when I think of how hard you convinced me to run, when I think of all the work you did to get me elected, I could pummel your a.s with a baseball bat." - President Jed Bartlet > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:43:34 +0200, Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net> > chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Still not as convenient as a SIM card, but it doesn't require a trip to the > store. And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. AP This is a common misconception... > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. > > AP Literally you are correct. However in practice it is wrong.... I LOVE the idea of the SIM chip, however there seems to be one common misconception about it. While it will transfer your phone number to any phone you plug it into, sales reps also like to tell you it will also transfer your phonebook as well. This is not entirely correct. SIM's were designed a long time ago, and therefore the standard suffers a bit when it comes to the data it can store. Newer phones will allow you to store quite a bit of information about a contact. The information includes multiple phone numbers per contact, email address, home address, etc. SIM cards on the other hand were only designed to hold a name (only a certain number of characters long) and one phone number (only a certain number of numbers long). So while you can copy your more advanced phone book to your sim card, it jumbles the data when storing it. Truncating names to the set length the SIM card was designed to have and only storing one number per name. This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number of 123-123-1234, home phone of 789-789-7894, work number of 456-456-4561, and email address of joeblow@hotmail.com. When you transfer this users info to the Sim card it come accross with a trunctated name, and looses info such as whether a number was cell, work, or home. It will come across as Joe B 123-123-1234, Joe B2 789-789-7894, Joe B3 456-456-4561. The email address is totally lost, as the SIM has no way of storing this information. This can be particularly bad if you have multiple users with similar first names, and it truncates their full name to only be part of their first name. So now you have a bunch of first names and numbers, with no way to differentiate whether a number was a work number, cell, or home number, or even worse, which Joe you saved. My example is a little extreme, as it will let you store more than 5 letters for a name in the SIM, but trust me, I've experienced this before, and it made all of my contact info almost useless. Its not nearly as cool as the sales reps would have you think, or as it could be today if they would just come up with an update SIM standard. >This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An >example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >123-123-1234, Joe B2 789-789-7894, Joe B3 456-456-4561. The email address >is totally lost, as the SIM has no way of storing this information. But a SIM card is infinitely more useful if you wish to use multiple phones/devices. With phone only memory devices (non SIM) you can't take the data with you either! Sure the SIM memory isn't perfect, but it's got more to offer than the phone only memory of other non GSM devices. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, they can't do everything people say they can do. Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and information to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true. Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM cards being one of them. > >This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An > >example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and information >to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true. They transfer your whole identity. But the "information" part is somewhat missing. Most phones will allow you to put your phone book from the phone on the SIM. However multiple numbers for a name usually then come out as Becky1, Becky2 etc...... on the new phone. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, they >can't do everything people say they can do. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM >cards being one of them. I really doubt whether people actually believe that *every* detail of their account is carried over with a SIM card's memory. There may be people who do not know that their SIM card can retain any phone data and will have everything saved to their phone only. In that case all having a SIM card will do for them is allow them to use another device at their whim and not much more than that. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do. I've had ATT reps tell me (incorrectly) before when switching phones that I can take my phone book with me without any problems. However that is only partially correct, which is what my original post try to convey. When copying data from internal memory of a phone to a SIM card, quite a bit of information will not transfer. I'm referring to caller groups, phone number type, multiple numbers per name, etc. > >My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, they > >can't do everything people say they can do. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply >My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of information will not transfer. I'm referring to caller groups, phone >number type, multiple numbers per name, etc. OK so it's imperfect. Name something that does it better! Take your time I can wait. >> >My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, >they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply I never said anything else was better. In fact I pointed out that I liked GSM and its SIM cards. The whole point of this thread was to clarify that people have a common misconception of how SIM cards are used. I would say that most users take advantage of the more advanced features of their built in storage on their current phones and end up not storing much if anything on their SIM cards. Therefore making SIM cards really only useful to transfer your identity from one phone to another (aka take your phone number with you, not your phonebook). Things may have been different in the past, but I am speaking about the present. > >My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Take your time I can wait. > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:19:03 -0700, "Halogen8" > <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote: > >My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do. > >I've had ATT reps tell me (incorrectly) before when switching phones that <snip> > OK so it's imperfect. Name something that does it better! > > Take your time I can wait. Apple's iSync. And, presumably, similar software on other platforms. It is possible for something to be flawed, imperfect, useful, and the best currently available solution to a problem at the same time! Oh, and a comment for the silly complaints about SIM prices, as if this was inherent in the design of SIM cards: the price varies enormously. I've seen T-Mobile SIM cards in the Czech Republic, from the T-Mobile shop, for under US$10, with about half the price being credit. The pricing of SIMs is much more related to the packaging, database entry and other overheads than the cost of the chip itself. When you buy a replacement SIM from your provider for a lot one, the cost of re-entering your data into their database is built in to that price. Very well put, I fully agree. > It is possible for something to be flawed, imperfect, useful, and the > best currently available solution to a problem at the same time! > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:19:03 -0700, "Halogen8" > > <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cost of re-entering your data into their database is built in to that > price. > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and sometimes even specific model. There is *barely* a standard for how the information is stored. Now, if there is a standard for CDMA SIM-equivs in the future, well, another mark against GSM. Personally I've had little trouble exporting my addressbook and shoving it onto another phone (via MS Outlook and software for both phones), except for the fact my voicedial stuff didn't transfer. JS > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. > > This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and > sometimes even specific model. Not that I expirienced that limitation. I lived in Europe for few years. And I had at least 4 diffrent phone models from 4 diffrent manufacturers - everytime phonebook stored on SIM card worked perfectly. AP It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same standard. That is what makes them universal. You may not have experieced the limitiation if you didn't use the advanced phonebook features of your phone. (eg. storing more than one number, type of number, email address, etc, per contact) It IS possible to store some of your phonebook on the phones internal memory, and some on the SIM card. This would allow you to have more complete information for some contacts that are stored on the phones internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal phonebook to your SIM you will run into the problems I described. > > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > AP > It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same > standard. That is what makes them universal. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal phonebook > to your SIM you will run into the problems I described. I understand THIS limitation .... but poster that I was replaying to suggested that phonebook on SIM card feature works only between THE SAME brand phones. AP > > > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > > > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > AP >>It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same >>standard. That is what makes them universal. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > suggested that phonebook on SIM card feature works only between THE SAME > brand phones. This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware. JS > This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old > technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for > a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what > happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware. Erm, in the UK, O2 routinely give their SIM away for free! Failing that, they are usually on sale for GBP0.99 (about US$1.80)! I think calling GSM "20 year old euro-reject hardware" is pretty harsh and mostly untrue. While the SIM standard could be updated, and the price of them could be lower, they offer quite a bit more overall, in my opinion, than current CDMA. The features that currently come to mind is call control. IE. GSM can hold AND CONTROL up to 6 calls concurrently. I realize 6 may be overkill, but unarguably its much better than Verizons CDMA control, which seems to be almost non-existent. If I'm on the phone with caller1 and caller2 rings through, I can answer, and switch back and forth between the two, but I cannot join the two calls together, and I cannot specify which call to drop, put on hold, or talk to. GSM also offers text message delivery notification, which I found very useful, as text messaging can be useless if your not sure the recipient recieved the message. I don't believe CDMA has this capability currently. These are just a few of the features that come to mind when comparing the capabilities between the two technologies. > This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old > technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for > a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what > happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware. > > JS >This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old >technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for >a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what >happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware. You call it as a slam "euro-reject" hardware yet you don't have anything better to show for it do you, eh? Why are the CDMA operators so slow in offering anything other than phone memory to store phone data? R-UIM is available but do any North American operators use it? No! It seems silly to "bash" another technology when the "superior" technology is illusive. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply I'm sorry, I missunderstood. Your point is very valid. > > It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same > > standard. That is what makes them universal. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > > > AP > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you. > > This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and > sometimes even specific model. > There is *barely* a standard for how the information is stored. Not true. The phonebook in the SIM is defined by standard, therefore will work across all GSM phones. However, there are different SIMs around (lower voltages, more memory, etc) and generally you cannot use a new SIM standard in an older phone, but since the new standards are all backwards compatible, a newer phone should accept an older SIM. I have had over 20 GSM phones to play with over the last 3 years, and so far my trusty old SIM hasn't failed me yet (however I could do with a new SIM with the larger memory bank as my phonebook is almost full). > Now, if there is a standard for CDMA SIM-equivs in the future, well, > another mark against GSM. Why do you consider this to be a mark against GSM? It is good to see a telephone standard adopting useful features from another telephone standard (despite the typical "not invented here" syndrome). In my opinion this is a mark for GSM - I think this only one of many reasons why GSM is so sucessful, another being the SMS message system. > Personally I've had little trouble exporting > my addressbook and shoving it onto another phone (via MS Outlook and > software for both phones), except for the fact my voicedial stuff didn't > transfer. If you store your information in Outlook and keep it up to date than this is generally not an issue until your phone packs up on you on the road and you need make an important call having inserted your SIM into another phone you have just bought/borrowed/stolen!!! This happened to me on a recent business trip to HK (without my laptop), phone working fine at LHR, switch off phone when they closed the cabin door, arrived in HK switch on phone, dead. Bought new phone at local store in HK, insert SIM bingo - able to roam and make calls immediately from the phonebook in my SIM card. Imagine explaining this expense item to the accounts department back home!!! Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA? GSM is royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the reason Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place. > I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if > T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks in advance > Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA? Yes. >GSM is > royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the reason > Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place. Yes and No. I think the protocols described in the GSM standards are free (if you are using them in a GSM product), and with some exception, this is the basis when someone offers an algorithm for adoption by GSM. As least for phase-I. Hhowever during implementation many companies have patents on the actual implementation. So in reality GSM is not completely royalty free, and this is a very complex area. >Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA? GSM is >royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the reason >Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place. They have to for 3G. UMTS relies on CDMA technology, licensed from Qualcomm. -- John Bartley K7AAY http://celdata.cjb.net This post quad-ROT-13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA. Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.