GSM Remains First Choice

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/344/C2875/' target='_blank'>http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/344/C2875/</a><br /><br /></div>"GSM is the technology used by more than one billion customers -- representing 73% of the digital wireless market today. Globally, GSM added 215.3 million new customers from March 2003 to March 2004, more than the total customer base of any other wireless technology in the world today. In the first quarter of 2004, new GSM customers throughout the world totaled nearly 55 million."<br /><br />I'm not looking to start another debate over which technology is the best. So let me just say this; GSM is doing very well. This is great news as a large portion of Smartphones are GSM based. The numbers in this news release are pretty staggering: 215.3 Million <i>new</i> customers! 8O

[greenmozart]

I don't understand why there is any debate over which wireless technology is "leading" the world in subscriptions. In much of the world you don't have a choice between GSM, CDMA and iDen. I only picked those three because as I understand it they are the three basic types of wireless networks upon which several iterations are built. To say it is leading CDMA and iDen is technically true, but it's like winning a Communist election where there is only 1 candidtae on the ballot! There is no comparison to make when all you have is one choice. Why is this even an issue? Are they trying to market GSM to everyone in Europe and parts of Asia that can't get anything else? What's the point?

[ShivShanks]

I'm not looking to start another debate over which technology is the best. So let me just say this; GSM is doing very well.

Huh? What was the need for this PR piece news from the GSM Association, if you didn't want to start another debate? Tsk tsk tsk ... Didn't expect this from you. If you want I can also start quoting tons of statistics from CDG.org for showing how CDMA is better and how great it is blah blah blah ... The fact of the matter is that GSM is old obsolete technology which cannot keep up with the advances of CDMA (and will never be able to without senseless costly rip and replace). And as far as we are concerned CDMA has got GSM beat here in the US.

Instead of being happy about most SmartPhones being GSM, instead you should be asking for more CDMA based SmartPhones in the US so that we have better competition and choice. SmartPhones being GSM only doesn't help anyone at all.

[Mike Temporale]

Huh? What was the need for this PR piece news from the GSM Association, if you didn't want to start another debate? Tsk tsk tsk ... Didn't expect this from you.

Slow news day? :D

If you want I can also start quoting tons of statistics from CDG.org for showing how CDMA is better and how great it is blah blah blah ...

eek! No please. I'm still a little dizzy from all the charts and stats from the last discussion. :wink:

The fact of the matter is that GSM is old obsolete technology which cannot keep up with the advances of CDMA (and will never be able to without senseless costly rip and replace). And as far as we are concerned CDMA has got GSM beat here in the US.

Fair enough. But VHS won out over Beta.... Not that these are the same things. Just saying that the best doesn't always win.

Instead of being happy about most SmartPhones being GSM, instead you should be asking for more CDMA based SmartPhones in the US so that we have better competition and choice. SmartPhones being GSM only doesn't help anyone at all.

I will cheer CDMA when carriers allow you to select whatever phone you want, and not restrict you to the handsets that they like. Say what you want about GSM. It wins hands down with flexibility of handsets. I can pick any GSM handset and plug in my SIM card and be off and running. CDMA is just too restrictive on this.

Personally, I couldn't care if my provider is GSM, CDMA, or something else. As long as the service is solid, and I can choose the phone I want. That's not too much to ask for, is it?? :lol: :wink:

[aristoBrat]

I don't understand why there is any debate over which wireless technology is "leading" the world in subscriptions.
How about because the technology with the most subscribers is the technology that most of the products will be designed for?

I agree that most people in the world DON'T have a choice, but there are quite a few areas (like pretty much the entire United States) where there is a choice.

If you're in this for a hobby, then it'd be a wise decision to choose the wireless service with the most subscribers (GSM, at this point) Then you can play with the SPV, e100, e200, (and the various rebranded models), MPx200, Mitac 8380, or the Mitac 8860. Or you could hold out for the Moto MPx100 or the HTC C500, which should be out soon. Oh yeah, don't forget the MPx220.

If you want to pick a wireless service with better technology, but with less subscribers, then pick CDMA -- and enjoy the i600.

For some reason, I don't think that "asking for more CDMA based phones" is what drives manufacturers to market. Maybe when CDMA gets more subscribers in markets likely to buy Smartphones (hello, Europe?!), manufacturers will start making more.

[ShivShanks]

I agree that most people in the world DON'T have a choice, but there are quite a few areas (like pretty much the entire United States) where there is a choice.


What choice? GSM in the US uses incompatible 1900 and 850MHz bands. In fact after Cingular moves to 850MHz fully, the US will be mostly 850 MHz (and 1900 MHz in well populated areas). There are only a handful of quad band 850/900/1800/1900 MHz phones which work all over the world. And anyone who needs good coverage in the US would be silly to ignore the 850Mhz band for GSM. So using GSM in the US (with good coverage so that means 850MHz) means hardly anything much in terms of advantages elsewhere for now. Something like that can easily be achieved the GSM/CDMA hybrid phones (Verizon introduced it this week for business customers).


If you want to pick a wireless service with better technology, but with less subscribers, then pick CDMA -- and enjoy the i600.


Less subscribers?! LOL! The US has more CDMA subscribers.


For some reason, I don't think that "asking for more CDMA based phones" is what drives manufacturers to market. Maybe when CDMA gets more subscribers in markets likely to buy Smartphones (hello, Europe?!), manufacturers will start making more.

You know I might be a CDMA supporter but I don't go to the extent of saying that there should be only phones for one particular technology. I think you are being really disingenuous if you think that having more CDMA SmartPones will not help the market and foster competition by letting people choose what they want instead of being forced to go with GSM carriers for cool SmartPhones. You know there is no point in driving that shiny Jaguar only on potholed road :)

[ShivShanks]

Fair enough. But VHS won out over Beta.... Not that these are the same things. Just saying that the best doesn't always win.


Hah! Totally wrong analogy! VHS was one world wide standard. GSM in the US is incompatible with the rest of the world. Secondly Betamax never succeeded anywhere. CDMA is a huge sucess in US (dominant tech), China (huge numbers), India (largest mobile carrier), Korea (the land of CDMA domination), Japan (latest 3G tech and phone deployments). The only place where CDMA isn't present really is Western Europe and Middle East. That does not make the whole world! The GSM association would have you believe the world domination of GSM but the truth is far from that. Wait till capacities start to strain and newer generation data access technologies are needed. We'll see how fast the tired GSM horse can run then. And we'll also see how much money the GSM carriers will have to rip and replace everything for WCDMA.


I will cheer CDMA when carriers allow you to select whatever phone you want, and not restrict you to the handsets that they like. Say what you want about GSM. It wins hands down with flexibility of handsets. I can pick any GSM handset and plug in my SIM card and be off and running. CDMA is just too restrictive on this.


That is something that has to do with FCC and carrier politics and not the technology per se. I do believe that the FCC will step in eventually. Many people are already lobbying. China already has SIM like mechanisms for CDMA phone.


Personally, I couldn't care if my provider is GSM, CDMA, or something else. As long as the service is solid, and I can choose the phone I want. That's not too much to ask for, is it?? :lol: :wink:

I wish you lots of fun trying to find solid service in the GSM camp in the US. CDMA is where the US customers are moving to :)

[aristoBrat]

I wish you lots of fun trying to find solid service in the GSM camp in the US. CDMA is where the US customers are moving to :)
Hmmmmm. Nobody has good "US" stats, so let's use North America:

19.3 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '03
33.7 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '04
--- GSM added 14.4 million North Americans last year

64.5 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 03
81.4 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 04
--- CDMA added 16.9 million North Americans last year

That's a 2% difference, and if CDMA/GSM continue along the same growth patterns, this will be the last year you'll be able to say "CDMA is where the US customers are moving to." ;)

I think you are being really disingenuous if you think that having more CDMA SmartPones will not help the market and foster competition by letting people choose what they want instead of being forced to go with GSM carriers for cool SmartPhones.
I have nothing against CDMA Smartphones. I was just pointing out that if you're into this as a hobby, GSM is the place to be today. Will that change in the future? Almost certainly.

Personally, I couldn't care if my provider is GSM, CDMA, or something else. As long as the service is solid, and I can choose the phone I want. That's not too much to ask for, is it?? :lol: :wink:
I totally agree. As long as I can find a phone that I like, and it works, I don't care about the technology (or how much a provider is going to have to pay to upgrade it in the future).

I had Sprint (CDMA) for several years and have been using T-Mobile (GSM) for coming up on one year, and where I live (Hampton Roads, VA) and travel (Chicago, DC, Portland OR, Boston), the service is the same -- solid. GSM is no better than CDMA is no better than GSM.

[ShivShanks]

I wish you lots of fun trying to find solid service in the GSM camp in the US. CDMA is where the US customers are moving to :)
Hmmmmm. Nobody has good "US" stats, so let's use North America:

19.3 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '03
33.7 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '04
--- GSM added 14.4 million North Americans last year

64.5 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 03
81.4 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 04
--- CDMA added 16.9 million North Americans last year

That's a 2% difference, and if CDMA/GSM continue along the same growth patterns, this will be the last year you'll be able to say "CDMA is where the US customers are moving to." ;)



Actually I'll surely come here and rub it in even more when the next year's statistics come in ;) Quite simply the numbers will be much better as the Q1 numbers already show. CDMA has already registered an 8% growth in NA in Q1. Thats better than last year. AT&T Wireless is stumbling around like a bumbling inept fool and losing customers by the boatloads. Not everyone is going to relish the prospect of joining Cingular when the AT&T merger with it is approved. The real AT&T will make an entrance with CDMA and take even more customers away from Cingular. Not to mention that Verizon is setting a blistering pace of customer additions. Based on all this CDMA will do very well this year.

[Mike Temporale]

Fair enough. But VHS won out over Beta.... Not that these are the same things. Just saying that the best doesn't always win.


Hah! Totally wrong analogy!

Ya, I know it's not the same thing. However my point is just that the best isn't always the winner.


I will cheer CDMA when carriers allow you to select whatever phone you want, and not restrict you to the handsets that they like. Say what you want about GSM. It wins hands down with flexibility of handsets. I can pick any GSM handset and plug in my SIM card and be off and running. CDMA is just too restrictive on this.


That is something that has to do with FCC and carrier politics and not the technology per se. I do believe that the FCC will step in eventually. Many people are already lobbying. China already has SIM like mechanisms for CDMA phone.

Go China!! There needs to be more SIM love in this world.


Personally, I couldn't care if my provider is GSM, CDMA, or something else. As long as the service is solid, and I can choose the phone I want. That's not too much to ask for, is it?? :lol: :wink:

I wish you lots of fun trying to find solid service in the GSM camp in the US. CDMA is where the US customers are moving to :)

CDMA is bigger in Canada too. However, If I went CDMA I can't use ANY Smartphone. The carriers up here will never activate a non-supported handset. So my only choice is GSM. This is why GSM is #1 for me right now. I don't think there is a single smartphone (big or small s) offered on CDMA in Canada.

[Mike Temporale]

Personally, I couldn't care if my provider is GSM, CDMA, or something else. As long as the service is solid, and I can choose the phone I want. That's not too much to ask for, is it?? :lol: :wink:
I totally agree. As long as I can find a phone that I like, and it works, I don't care about the technology (or how much a provider is going to have to pay to upgrade it in the future).

This is how it should be. Who cares what the technology is. I just want it to work with a phone that I have selected and not the carrier.

[Mike Temporale]

The real AT&T will make an entrance with CDMA and take even more customers away from Cingular. Not to mention that Verizon is setting a blistering pace of customer additions. Based on all this CDMA will do very well this year.

I agree here. The new AT&T will steal an awful lot of people back from Cingular. I really don't think Cingular has a solid grasp on what they are doing. Makes sense that they take over AT&T eh?

[Mike Temporale]

I'm not looking to start another debate over which technology is the best. So let me just say this; GSM is doing very well.

Huh? What was the need for this PR piece news from the GSM Association, if you didn't want to start another debate?

Seriously ShivShanks, I didn't post this for another debate. It was a slow news day, and I happened across some GSM numbers. I wasn't looking to "pick" a fight or anything. :wink: I have to bow to your knowledge on which is technically better. All I know, is that I need GSM at this point in time, if I want any smartphone. Simple as that.

[ShivShanks]

19.3 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '03
33.7 million North American GSM subscribers in Jan '04
--- GSM added 14.4 million North Americans last year

64.5 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 03
81.4 million North American CDMA subscribers in 'Mar 04


Oh and one small clarification I forgot to do last time. These GSM growth figures you are quoting are a one time anamoly. You see last year Cingular and AT&T started moving most of thier large TDMA customer base over to GSM. Thats why you see such a sudden lurch in the no of GSM customers. This process has been done to a large extent and should be more or less complete by Q3 this year. So you aren't going to see such growth figures again. This combined with weak a AT&T WS and strong CDMA carrier growth already seen means that the CDMA figures will be much better this year. There is no way that GSM will overtake CDMA. Just imagine the noise CDMA carriers will start making once they have even higher speed CDMA 1xEV-DO and EV-DV services up. The snazzy phones they will release will make the GSM ones feel like a poor country cousin. Plus even Europe will move to such snazzy devices with W-CDMA. Its ironic that when Europe is moving from old GSM to new fangled W-CDMA, its only now that the poor US TDMA customers are moving to GSM. There is going to be some serious phony envy and heartburn among the US GSM crowd (I mean the general phone crowd and not the tiny smartphone loving one) in Q4 when they see how left out they are :twisted:
Mark my words ... I'll be back to rub it in :D

[ShivShanks]

I'm not looking to start another debate over which technology is the best. So let me just say this; GSM is doing very well.

Huh? What was the need for this PR piece news from the GSM Association, if you didn't want to start another debate?

Seriously ShivShanks, I didn't post this for another debate. It was a slow news day, and I happened across some GSM numbers. I wasn't looking to "pick" a fight or anything. :wink: I have to bow to your knowledge on which is technically better. All I know, is that I need GSM at this point in time, if I want any smartphone. Simple as that.

Ahh! No problem. Peace :) I gotta start packing for the long weekend anyway ... I hope all you guys have a great holiday weekend.

[Mike Temporale]

Ahh! No problem. Peace :) I gotta start packing for the long weekend anyway ... I hope all you guys have a great holiday weekend.

Long weekend?! Ours was this past Monday. Enjoy, and try not to party too hard. :drinking:

[greenmozart]

If you're in this for a hobby, then it'd be a wise decision to choose the wireless service with the most subscribers...
Well, that explains why I don't care - I'm not in this for a hobby, I'm in it because the Smartphone is a fabulous business tool that allows me to be more productive. If you're in this for more productive reasons than a hobby, it would be wise to choose the wireless service that actually has coverage where you live and work. If you happen to be in an area where this is not an issue, then I'm happy for you... but I still don't believe that GSM's claim of world-domination should have any effect on which wireless technology you choose.

[aristoBrat]

If you're in this for more productive reasons than a hobby, it would be wise to choose the wireless service that actually has coverage where you live and work.
Chosing a wireless service that actually works where you live and work is such a basic ("no brainer") that I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

My point was that if you're in a market where there is little difference in CDMA coverage vs GSM coverage, chosing GSM gives you access to a larger variety of devices (including more "fabulous business tools that allow you to be more productive").

[maxnix]

Thank God (or your diety of choice, if you have one) I live in the USA and can choose CDMA. GSM is a more widely available but inferior technology for delivering not only voice, but data also.

[zarakin]

Hah! Totally wrong analogy! VHS was one world wide standard. GSM in the US is incompatible with the rest of the world. Secondly Betamax never succeeded anywhere. CDMA is a huge sucess in US (dominant tech), China (huge numbers), India (largest mobile carrier), Korea (the land of CDMA domination), Japan (latest 3G tech and phone deployments). The only place where CDMA isn't present really is Western Europe and Middle East. That does not make the whole world! The GSM association would have you believe the world domination of GSM but the truth is far from that. Wait till capacities start to strain and newer generation data access technologies are needed. We'll see how fast the tired GSM horse can run then. And we'll also see how much money the GSM carriers will have to rip and replace everything for WCDMA.


I always find the CDMA pundit rants interesting where the GSM is slanted as an old and backward technology and CDMA something which is sooo much better. I find that amazing when you look how crappy the CDMA interoperability is and how crappy the network is behind the air interface! I've been part of creation of multiple GSM products and when doing similar products for CDMA, I can say it is like going back to the stone ages!

Customers lose in almost all of the areas in CDMA in terms of flexibility. The incompatibilities between carriers, different standards on all major services MMS/Application Management/SMS interoperability/Supplementary services. Different terminology and different ways of implementing the same service. Pain in the a**. In GSM you can buy a SIM free phone and choose the best service provider much easier. In US can you use the nice Sprint phone in Verizon network? No, you have to hope that Verizon will provide you with a similar phone. Where's the benefit for the customer in this? Though, some GSM operators are expressing similar intentions in terms of customer lock-in, but that is a lot more difficult when GSM is standard between operators.

The air interface is nice, but the network service standardisation in GSM/WCDMA is light years ahead of anything CDMA 1x has to offer. The air interface advantage is gone with WCDMA, but you still have all the nice benefits of GSM network services!

The money GSM operators need to spend for moving to WCDMA has gone mostly to the stupid "air space" fees. The WCDMA network infrastructure follows the similar structure as GSM... major change happening naturally a the base station.

[ShivShanks]

I always find the CDMA pundit rants interesting where the GSM is slanted as an old and backward technology and CDMA something which is sooo much better. I find that amazing when you look how crappy the CDMA interoperability is and how crappy the network is behind the air interface! I've been part of creation of multiple GSM products and when doing similar products for CDMA, I can say it is like going back to the stone ages!


I wonder how much of that is coming from the GSM camp and NIH syndrome and just a different way of doing things. As for interoperability between different CDMA providers, that has more to do with operator politics than anything inherent in the technology being used and can easily be whipped into shape by diktats from the FCC. There is also the argument of having more options technologically fostering more competition instead if the GSM mandate of everything being done the "one right way". Also the customer hardly cares about interoperability when he cannot get a decent enough signal or good data rates, not to mention the lack of life saving Analog backup for remote areas.


Customers lose in almost all of the areas in CDMA in terms of flexibility. The incompatibilities between carriers, different standards on all major services MMS/Application Management/SMS interoperability/Supplementary services. Different terminology and different ways of implementing the same service. Pain in the a**.


CDMA is much much younger standard than the old GSM standard. To expect it to not having any teething troubles is not being realistic. However none of these issues are really a big issue for the end user customer as such and its only poeple like you, who have to deal with it in making products work across both technologies, who complain a lot.


In GSM you can buy a SIM free phone and choose the best service provider much easier.


What bull ****. Let me see you try that with a Tri-Band GSM phone in a GSM 850 area in the US. Let me also see you try that anywhere in the US with a Dual band GSM phone. True Quad band world phones are rarity and very expensive. As far as the US goes its not at all true that you can take any GSM phone and make it work here.


In US can you use the nice Sprint phone in Verizon network? No, you have to hope that Verizon will provide you with a similar phone.


Actually you can. A Sprint CDMA phone will work just fine in a Verizon network if they activate it for you. Again this is mostly politics and not technology. In fact if you pester them Verizon will actually activate a Sprint phone. With the coming Palm and MS Smartphone based "Smart" phones and TCP/IP standards based content who the heck cares about the operators cute applications and closetted walled garden content? I can go to the whole WWW and buy any standard app from any independent developer or develop it myself.


Where's the benefit for the customer in this? Though, some GSM operators are expressing similar intentions in terms of customer lock-in, but that is a lot more difficult when GSM is standard between operators.


Sure it would be nice to take your phone with you in CDMA (and people are lobbying for this), however the majority of people signing up for free phones could care less about this, so its not like everyone is up in arms due to this.


The air interface is nice, but the network service standardisation in GSM/WCDMA is light years ahead of anything CDMA 1x has to offer. The air interface advantage is gone with WCDMA, but you still have all the nice benefits of GSM network services!


Who the heck cares about a slower, older less featurefull mobile technology even if it is standardised to the point of cookie cutterism without any customization. I'll bet that consumers will pick better coverage and better data rates over any interoperability pipe dreams (and it is just that in the US with GSM 850).


The money GSM operators need to spend for moving to WCDMA has gone mostly to the stupid "air space" fees. The WCDMA network infrastructure follows the similar structure as GSM... major change happening naturally a the base station.

LOL! The money has so far only gone to the "air space" fees. Who the heck cares about the network infrastructure when the major cost is in preparing new towers or upgrading towers for W-CDMA. Thats where the real money needs to be spent doing a lot of rip and replace. Are you even aware that W-CDMA uses a totally incompatible frequency spectrum?

[refnulf]

Only gsm in my country :(

[zarakin]

I always find the CDMA pundit rants interesting where the GSM is slanted as an old and backward technology and CDMA something which is sooo much better. I find that amazing when you look how crappy the CDMA interoperability is and how crappy the network is behind the air interface! I've been part of creation of multiple GSM products and when doing similar products for CDMA, I can say it is like going back to the stone ages!


I wonder how much of that is coming from the GSM camp and NIH syndrome and just a different way of doing things. As for interoperability between different CDMA providers, that has more to do with operator politics than anything inherent in the technology being used and can easily be whipped into shape by diktats from the FCC. There is also the argument of having more options technologically fostering more competition instead if the GSM mandate of everything being done the "one right way". Also the customer hardly cares about interoperability when he cannot get a decent enough signal or good data rates, not to mention the lack of life saving Analog backup for remote areas.


The CDMA standards are inherently weak and give the control to the carriers. FCC has no power in South-America/Asia where they also have interoperability problems. And customers do care about interoperability, you clearly have a very US centric narrow view - the inbuilt "openness" in the standards is creating nothing but interoperability problems and that is clearly evident in the current CDMA carrier mess.


CDMA is much much younger standard than the old GSM standard. To expect it to not having any teething troubles is not being realistic. However none of these issues are really a big issue for the end user customer as such and its only poeple like you, who have to deal with it in making products work across both technologies, who complain a lot.


Not really... People don't realise in Americas what they are missing. Honestly, the situation in Americas is a complete mess in cellular markets. No good standardization and no real compition that would benefit the end user. The consumers have no real say on the matter with long contracts and subsidized phones that skew the market.



In GSM you can buy a SIM free phone and choose the best service provider much easier.


What bull ****. Let me see you try that with a Tri-Band GSM phone in a GSM 850 area in the US. Let me also see you try that anywhere in the US with a Dual band GSM phone. True Quad band world phones are rarity and very expensive. As far as the US goes its not at all true that you can take any GSM phone and make it work here.


What does this have anything to do with tri-band/quad-band? The point was about the freedom of choice in your country. You can take the SIM out and switch the operator.



In US can you use the nice Sprint phone in Verizon network? No, you have to hope that Verizon will provide you with a similar phone.


Actually you can. A Sprint CDMA phone will work just fine in a Verizon network if they activate it for you. Again this is mostly politics and not technology. In fact if you pester them Verizon will actually activate a Sprint phone.


That is exactly the problem. You the consumer need to contact Verizon to be merciful enough to activate your Sprint phone. In GSM/WCDMA you just switch the SIMs from one phone to another and away you go... Even though there have been progress in CDMA SIM, I don't see that coming to US anytime soon!

Also what about 60% of the features that differ between Verizon and Sprint? You cannot download SW from Verizon with Sprint phone, you cannot send MMSs in Verizon network - most likely your data services don't even work...


Who the heck cares about a slower, older less featurefull mobile technology even if it is standardised to the point of cookie cutterism without any customization. I'll bet that consumers will pick better coverage and better data rates over any interoperability pipe dreams (and it is just that in the US with GSM 850).


Less featurefull? In GSM there are still tons of more features that are not available in CDMA. E.g. Supplementary services . The CDMA services as they currently stand are still behind GSM.


LOL! The money has so far only gone to the "air space" fees. Who the heck cares about the network infrastructure when the major cost is in preparing new towers or upgrading towers for W-CDMA. Thats where the real money needs to be spent doing a lot of rip and replace. Are you even aware that W-CDMA uses a totally incompatible frequency spectrum?

Of course that is a cost, but a lot less than converting the whole network infrastucture and you get the nice services that CDMA is still trying to standardize (if they ever get there).

WCDMA freq spectrum - incompatible against what?