Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,

> For your info ....
 
> Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
> (Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
> and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
> technology.  Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
> Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
> systems to the GSM standard.  This really does not buy them any improvement
> from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
> are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. 

Tell me something I don't know. 

> They are doing this purely
> from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
> global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM  and also due to the fact that
> most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
> new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

Nothing I don't know. 
 
> That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
> even for GSM!.  While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
> of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
> "spread spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
> industry and provides technological superiority.  The simple fact of the
> matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
> move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of  UMTS
> (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System).  The major issue in wireless
> infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
> higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
> for the fewest dollars.

I referenced 3G in my previous post. 

> I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
> that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA"  are not
> consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
> telecommunication market.

My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the 
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that 
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the 
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it 
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make. 

Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and 
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or 
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans 
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more. 
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the 
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something 
that can actually turn and brake. 

Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one. 

The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies 
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA. 
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take 
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans 
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance 
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of 
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there. 

It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.