Various Topics on CDMA

..L..

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

..c.. ..t..

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


FELIX wrote:

..tth.. ..i..

In article <87e0800a.0407151057.6e7a9a4a@posting.google.com ,
EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:
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.

..se..

On 15 Jul 2004 11:57:15 -0700, EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:
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

.... ..b..

On 15 Jul 2004 11:57:15 -0700, EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:
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.

..lfga.. ..r..

FELIX schrieb:
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

..v.. ..

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:
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.

--
David 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 ***
with a baseball bat." - President Jed Bartlet

..

In article <s6chf0tc0pvfh1l17o6cv5drj5pmkaeagd@4ax.com,
dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net says... And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.

AP

..loge..

This is a common misconception...


"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.orgwrote in message
news:MPG.1b627a42c42efd09897c6@news.dallas.sbcglob al.net...
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.

..c.. ..t..

AP wrote:
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