Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:34:36 -0500 From: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> To: FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Technology means nothing (GSM vs. CDMA) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010121192842.017a3458@mail.threespace.com> In-Reply-To: <20010122103136.L93049@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <v04220821b691222656eb@[10.0.1.2]> <200101211447.f0LElEk04073@mobile.wemm.org> <KAECKEJJOLGHAFGGNIKMAELICAAA.res02jw5@gte.net> <20010121145018.A73989@citusc17.usc.edu> <20010121165422.A44505@peorth.iteration.net> <v04220821b691222656eb@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Regardless of whichever is better, we all know that superior technology by itself is seldom a reason for anybody to implement anything, and it has probably never led to such technology having market dominance. Low-cost, ease of implementation, rapid availability--these are the things that ultimately sell. Besides, who wants to carry a bunch of SIMM chips around with their cellular phones too. ;-) --Chip Morton At 07:01 PM 1/21/2001, you wrote: >On Monday, 22 January 2001 at 0:46:38 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 4:54 PM -0600 2001/1/21, Michael C . Wu wrote: > > > >> I ask the same questions about why Americans not using > >> GSM but PCS cell phones. (FYI, the reason for using PCS in the U.S. > >> was a pure political reason, none other than America wanting > >> to "lead" the industry. :) ) > > > > Qualcomm invented Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), the > > superior digital cell phone technology that is the basis for all 3G > > projects around the world. CDMA is supplanting TDMA in the US, > > because it allows you to carry more calls in the same amount of > > frequency bandwidth than TDMA, the previous digital technology. > > > > Anybody that has to replace TDMA technology with CDMA technology > > winds up pretty much completely replacing the entire network they > > built, which is why it's still taking time to make this conversion in > > the US. > >Hmm. This doesn't tie in with what I've been told by people in the >business of developing the equipment. According to my information, >the reason they took CDMA in the US was because it *was* easier to >upgrade from analogue to TDMA to CDMA. > > > However, Europe made the "leap" to TDMA technology in GSM, before > > CDMA existed -- standard AMPS/NAMPS style analog cell phone > > technology had been stretched beyond its limits, and they had no > > choice but to go digital. > >It's true that GSM is a TDMA technology, but it's definitely not what >is called TDMA in the USA. > > > Therefore, pretty much all European companies will end up > > ripping out their entire set of existing TDMA-based GSM networks and > > replacing them with brand-new CDMA-based 3G equipment. > >Have you seen any evidence of this? In Australia, we have both, but >there appear to be no efforts to supplant GSM. I've just spoken to >Hugh Blemings, the author of gnokii, and he points out that other >features of GSM are far superior to CDMA. Bandwidth utilization isn't >the only factor. > > > The same will happen in the US, as 3G takes over from existing > > TDMA, CDMA, AMPS/NAMPS networks, but at least many of those > > companies will have relatively less money thrown down the TDMA hole > > which they then have to completely write off. > >Don't forget that they have recently started introducing GSM into the >USA. I've found that it works better than the CDMA service. This has >nothing to do with the relative merits of the technology, but with the >fact that the service providers learnt that their cell placement was >too sparse for the old analogue/*DMA network, and they placed them >closer for GSM. > > >> But since the rest of the world uses SI units and GSM phones, > >> there is not much "leading" there. > > > > At least if you're in the US and you're in an area supposedly > > served by your carrier but their signal is too weak, you can roam on > > the networks in that same area that are operated by their competitors > > -- you can't do that over here. > >I'm not sure to what extent it works in the USA. > > > Of course, US phones also have the concept of "multiple NAMs" > > (Number Assignment Modules, i.e., account numbers), so that you can > > actually have accounts on multiple different carriers, and switch > > between them at your leisure. Many allow up to 99 NAMs on a single > > phone. Just try that with a GSM. > >Not a problem. You store each of them on a SIMM. When I go to other >countries, I often borrow a local SIMM to save on costs. Just try >that with CDMA. > >Greg >-- >Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key >See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010121192842.017a3458>