CDMA...........GPRS?????

[thunderck]

I have a beef... There seems to be so few CDMA based wireless PPCs out there. (In the US) I know...I know the G1000, Toshiba 2032, (but you cannot really count this :? ) ,and i700. I use my Sanyo 8100 with data cable on the go and consistently get over 100 kbs with it on Sprints network linked to my laptop. I have not been able to get close to that with T-mobile, ATT.. ect. Of course GPRS is not rated for speeds that mach 1x. When you just need E-mail some internet and the like GPRS is great. However more bandwidth is always better especially if you plan on SSL VPN into corporate network for admin access. Beside that, (because I realize you cannot support a market with just site admin tool that use lots of bandwidth), would it not be nice to surf the net faster or get attachments to the handheld that are larger, (PDF)? What I am trying to pose is this....are all you out there in GPRS world happy with your data speeds or do you have GPRS because the device you like only works on GPRS and would have CDMA 1X if you could get it? (I know 1X-DO and 1X-EV and Edge are all close at hand but for now) More would always be great but unless you are craving real-time gaming or video streams does it serve you well? I just wish Europe was not so much into GSM and had more CDMA carriers, that way hardware companies would be more inclined to include CDMA modules with there handhelds. I would love to see the Treo 6xx as a PPC.. PLEASE>>PLEASE>>PLEASE :werenotworthy: That would get the blood flowing for me!! With the post this week about the Treo maybe it will happen. :D


Just wondering if I'm alone in all this :?:

[Janak Parekh]

You're not the only one -- Verizon provides the best coverage where I live. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait -- CDMA is, worldwide, not a dominant protocol, so phone manufacturers generally target GSM first.

To the best of my knowledge, there is a 1xEVDO Pocket PC Phone under development by HTC, and to be rebranded by Audiovox. Unfortunately, it's not as slick-looking as units like the MPx.

--janak

[thunderck]

I would love to use some Asian market devices but that is a different world, as you know. I have seen the HTC you speek of, if we are talking about that same device. I just hope the Treo comes PPC ready, SOOON! :roll: I also hope that CDMA continues to gain ground in the EU and that the EU looses its grip on CDMA and lets it play alone side GSM all over Europe, not just in UK. I do feel that CDMA is better than GPRS because voice and data are one and not seperate technologies as with GSM (voice)- GPRS/Edge/CDMA (Data). I really like Verizon coverage but I prefer Sprint on the device side. Sprint can push devices down its production pipeline faster becuese they have less testing due to their all standard network. :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Sprint can push devices down its production pipeline faster becuese they have less testing due to their all standard network. :wink:
It's nothing to do with that. It's just that Verizon's ultra-conservative. Which I don't entirely mind, but their so-called "testing" frequently breaks down, like the caller ID issue on the Samsung i600. :roll:

--janak

[thunderck]

When I say the pipeline I mean the abliity to test and get to market. I agree about Verizon being conservative but Verizon does have more than one standard they have to conform to, at lease on the voice site. I had an Engineer tell me that the data network was all verizon with no nick-nack networks thrown in. However for devices that are voice and data (I know of one other types :? prity sure about that) Verizon has to make sure it will work cross network. I'm just saying that even the conservative devices they go after take them longer to bring to market. The Push To Talk problems they had in parts of the network. My rep tells me that they have wanted to bring the Treo 600 along but have had some non-standards issues. With all due respect Verizons network is nick-nack in some places because of different standard and this does slow testing down with more factors to consider, but believe me I'm with you that I would rather see a good unit late than to see it early and not work! 8O . Did somebody say Microsoft. 8) It just seams to me to be a little-bit of both.

[Janak Parekh]

However for devices that are voice and data (I know of one other types :? prity sure about that) Verizon has to make sure it will work cross network.
They do have different network IDs and use multiple spectrum, and they have analog networks, but ultimately the digital network is all CDMA. It's all the same standard. All of that programming has to be done in the firmware, and while it may add some time it's not significant -- Verizon gets phones "developed for it", much like Sprint does, and both do heavy customization over a generic CDMA chipset. In fact, it is possible to unlock a Sprint phone and use it on Verizon (with limitations, but it works).

The biggest difference is that these kinds of customizations are much more optional on GSM networks, since GSM phones are more standardized, and SIM cards make phone mobility much simpler.

--janak

[thunderck]

So do you like the more standard GSM err standard or the more customizable CDMA standard. I personally like the ability to have greater customization on a CDMA chipset. This makes for more possibilities to the customer (per carrier). But if I did more world travel I think I would prefer the latter. One can more between CDMA networks but it some places because of different mhz a soft handoff is hard to do. GSM however seems to handle these issue better. Even though Sprint is a PRL of US Cell the different mhz's of the networks make it much harder to negotiate a soft handoff. CDMA has a mechanism for this but it is not widely implemented, because of the standards with the phones and the CDMA chipset, as you mentioned. Not all phones capable of different mhz. Thanks for your sage imput. :D

[Janak Parekh]

So do you like the more standard GSM err standard or the more customizable CDMA standard.
Without a question, I prefer CDMA from a technological standpoint. Better spectral efficiency, better 1st-gen packet data technologies, and smoother transition to 3G. But I very much prefer the standardization GSM has. If CDMA was standardized with a SIM, I'd be very happy. ;)

Of course, this argument is moot, as GSM is moving to its version of CDMA over the next 5-10 years. We'll see what happens long-term.

Re handoffs: CDMA, technologically, is quite a bit superior when it comes to handoffs. The problem is that roaming partnerships in this country are a tricky thing from a business standpoint...

--janak

[thunderck]

I'll have to lookup the roaming standards on CDG.org again. It looked very tight. I got finger pointing with Sprint and US cell pointing to stectrim jumping as the reason there roaming agreement does not soft handover. From what I gather from you that is BS :?:

[Janak Parekh]

I got finger pointing with Sprint and US cell pointing to stectrim jumping as the reason there roaming agreement does not soft handover. From what I gather from you that is BS :?:
Well, it's entirely possible I'm wrong, because I've never roamed myself between frequency bands -- all the areas I inhabit are blanketed by Verizon's 800MHz coverage. If you come across a link, feel free to share. ;)

--janak

[thunderck]

Roaming with SIMs on CDMA (http://www.cdg.org/resources/white_papers/files/Smart_Cards_for_CDMA_Gemplus.pdf)

There are many more white papers on roaming at the CDMA Dev Group (www.cdg.org)

I have an e-mail out to a couple people on this issue.

[Janak Parekh]

Roaming with SIMs on CDMA (http://www.cdg.org/resources/white_papers/files/Smart_Cards_for_CDMA_Gemplus.pdf)
Ah, right, you're referring to international roaming. I'm hopeful that we eventually see R-UIMs in the US, but I don't see it happening in the immediate future. :| Meanwhile, within-US roaming should be pretty good on CDMA.

--janak

[thunderck]

International ---- National they can both use the same tech for roaming and have the same inter-operability problems.

[Janak Parekh]

International ---- National they can both use the same tech for roaming and have the same inter-operability problems.
Perhaps, but I don't think you'll see Verizon roaming on AT&T/Cingular/T-Mobile GSM anytime soon in the US. Their coverage (and, if necessary, combined with Sprint's CDMA network) is good enough to not make it worth the cost...

--janak

[thunderck]

I agree but the sortcomings Sprint claims about roaming on US Cell seem suspect to me. The roaming link talks about three differnet PRL types. I wonder if the type used here does not enable soft handoffs between different frequency. I'm looking for something more specific to inter-CDMA roaming. :roll:

[thunderck]

Interesting question. Since Sprint PCS is 1900MHz, and USCC is 800MHz, I'm
not sure if there is inter-system hand-off in-between. It's more RF
related, and not so much ANSI-41 signaling related which is what we
specialize in. I would think Sprint's engineers would know what they are
talking about.

By the way, TSI changed its name to Syniverse. If there's anything else we
can help you with, pls let me know.

Regards,
Windy Zou
Director, Asia Pacific
Syniverse Technologies (formerly TSI)



This is what I got back, maybe I should ask somebody else. :roll:

[tw]

Without a question, I prefer CDMA from a technological standpoint. Better spectral efficiency, better 1st-gen packet data technologies, and smoother transition to 3G. But I very much prefer the standardization GSM has. If CDMA was standardized with a SIM, I'd be very happy. ;)

Of course, this argument is moot, as GSM is moving to its version of CDMA over the next 5-10 years. We'll see what happens long-term.

I think that there will be no surprises. Long-term the whole world will be moving to CDMA-based technologies.

But the problem is that there are many different variants of 3G CDMA. There is CDMA2000 by Qualcomm used in the US and Korea. There is W-CDMA (Wideband CDMA) selected by the GSM Association (also called 3GSM or UMTS) and by most countries. Many European countries, like Austria, Italy, Germany, Spain, UK etc. already have W-CDMA networks running in addition to the classical GSM networks. They sell dual-mode handsets (3GSM + GSM) since 3GSM coverage will be limited in the first years.

Then there is FOMA in Japan and the Chinese have also their own flavor, called TD-SCDMA developed for them by Siemens. TD-SCDMA is actually a variant of W-CDMA but which uses the same channel (freq. band) for sending and receiving, which is done by using an additional time division scheme.

Technically W-CDMA based technologies might have the edge in the future because with HSDPA packet-based data service they will support up to 8..10 MBit/s downlinks and later even 20 MBit/s.

But in reality also the new CDMA-based mobile world will remain splitted. :( All these CDMA-based technologies are not compatible to each other as far as I know.

[Janak Parekh]

Technically W-CDMA based technologies might have the edge in the future because with HSDPA packet-based data service they will support up to 8..10 MBit/s downlinks and later even 20 MBit/s.
Maybe. We don't know cdma2000's or FOMA's long-term plans, though. Qualcomm claims that cdma2000 is a bit more spectrally efficient than wCDMA, but the practical implications of this have yet to be determined.

But in reality also the new CDMA-based mobile world will remain splitted. :( All these CDMA-based technologies are not compatible to each other as far as I know.
Yep, you're right. :| The only upshot is that with miniturization, it will be more possible to build multiple-mode chipsets. In fact, Qualcomm has already built a CDMA-GSM combo chipset, which Verizon will be using in one of its upcoming phones to support European roaming despite the fact that they're a cdma2000 network.

--janak