CDMA Growth In US Is Very Strong [Archive]

Kris Kumar

07-28-2004, 01:00 PM

ShivShanks, the CDMA flag bearer for our site, had promised that he would provide us with some compelling numbers that would prove beyond doubt that CDMA is where the current US market is headed. And he has delivered on his promise :) I must admit that looking at the figures, one can tell that CDMA is growing at a faster pace. • <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/news/midcaps/verizon_wireless.reut/">Verizon</a> added 1.5 million new subscribers last quarter, the largest subscriber gain in the carrier's history, bringing the carrier's subscriber base to 40.4 million. • <a href="http://www3.sprint.com/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_Press_Releases_Detail/0,3681,1112118,00.html">Sprint</a> added about 0.9 million customers. The CDMA subscriber base grew by almost 2.4 million in the last quarter. The one thing that bugs me is that if the <a href="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5887">rumors</a> regarding Motorola's plans to shelf MPx100 are true, how come Motorola can design a GSM phone and give it up. And not consider trying out the same for the CDMA market? I hope Motorola and Samsung are keeping a close watch on these figures. And that these numbers are convincing enough for developing a Smartphone for the CDMA networks. I wish Verizon would provide numbers on how many of its customers have a data plan. That would give the Smartphone manufacturers an approximate idea of the market size. <!> • <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CINGUL1&STORY=/www/story/07-21-2004/0002215294&EDATE=Jul+21,+2004">Cingular Wireless</a>, Verizon's biggest rival, added 428,000 customers in the same period. • <a href="http://www.attwireless.com/press/releases/2004_releases/072104.jhtml">AT&T</a> the third-largest U.S. provider, added 15,000 customers as it began to reverse earlier losses. • T-Mobile numbers are awaited. And they would definitely be better than Cingular's numbers. Even with T-Mobile's good subscriber count, the combined subscriber base increase for GSM won't compare with that of CDMA. In ShivShanks own words "So all in all GSM still trails CDMA in the US, but for T-Mobile would have been slaughtered in terms of growth figures." Update: Sprint PCS subscriber count was incorrectly quoted as .5 million, instead of .9 million and has now been corrected. With the correction, the CDMA subscriber increase for the last quarter went up from 2 million to 2.4 million.

ben865

07-28-2004, 02:50 PM

how come Motorola can design a GSM phone and give it up. And not consider trying out the same for the CDMA market?

How about because GSM is a global standard?

Which means they could sell the phone virtually everywhere in the world.

This report is quite interesting : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-23-2004/0002114056&EDATE=

Thanks for the laugh at continuing introspective US thinking.

Kris Kumar

07-28-2004, 03:00 PM

This report is quite interesting : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-23-2004/0002114056&EDATE=

Thanks for the laugh at continuing introspective US thinking.

Nice link, just what I wanted, some fuel to start of this debate.

Will have to wait for ShivShanks to defend his turf ;-)

Kris Kumar

07-28-2004, 03:09 PM

how come Motorola can design a GSM phone and give it up. And not consider trying out the same for the CDMA market?

How about because GSM is a global standard?

Which means they could sell the phone virtually everywhere in the world.

My point was that Motorola is probably thinking that MPx100 will kill the MPx220 sales. That is Motorola will have two competing products in a market, that is not big, the market is growing, but have to admit the Smartphone market is not as big as vanilla phones or camera phones or simple messaging phones.

So if Motorola gambled on designing two phones with identical features for the same platform. How come they didn't try the gamble on the CDMA network. One phone for CDMA and one for GSM. I sure that during the early development stages, the fact that two Smartphones that will be released pretty much at the same time for the same market must have raised eyebrows in the upper product management levels.

I hope Motorola redesigns MPx100 and enable it for the CDMA networks ;-) I know I am dreaming :-)

And I am going Off Topic. The debate should be will CDMA become the superior network in the US and possibly the world?

Kris Kumar

07-28-2004, 03:19 PM

The other (the first one or major one being technology (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5809)) key point to keep in mind is that Verizon / CDMA is doing better than GSM in the US inspite of high costs. And if at any time Verizon feels threatened by GSM or T-Mobile, it can turn the tables and play the GSM strategy, i.e. lower its plan prices, make it more flexible.

I am surprised as to why Verizon is not doing the above already?

Janak Parekh

07-28-2004, 03:55 PM

ben865

07-28-2004, 04:31 PM

And I am going Off Topic. The debate should be will CDMA become the superior network in the US and possibly the world?

In a word NO. GSM is the global standard.

It's more a question of how long the US continues with CDMA surely?

Although I belive that Iraq will have a CDMA network so you will be able to use your phones there as well :wink:

rbrome

07-28-2004, 05:44 PM

I don't think either technology will "win". I think there is, and will continue to be, plenty of room in the market for both technologies. Both work well, and each has their strong points.

There's no compelling reason for any carrier to switch from one to the other. For every reason you might give for a carrier to switch to CDMA, there's an equally good reason to switch to GSM. And in the end, the cost of switching from one to the other - no matter which way you go - would be massive. It's never going to be worth the huge price.

If the U.S. does ever converge on one technology, it will be something new - beyond CDMA or GSM. It's too late for 3G - the paths have been chosen (WCDMA and EV-DO). It's possible with 4G - perhaps OFDM or some variant if that's the direction things go. Then we might see one standard, but not before. And one standard is not inevitable even for 4G - there will always be room in the market for two standards.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 05:52 PM

Sprint (http://www3.sprint.com/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_Press_Releases_Detail/0,3681,1112118,00.html) added 505,000 customers.

Actually Sprint PCS added 0.9 million customers -
"PCS also continued to achieve solid subscriber gains with the total base increasing by 897,000 subscribers in the quarter. The subscriber gains included 505,000 direct additions and 392,000 additions from our wholesale and affiliate partners. Sprint also acquired 91,000 subscribers from an affiliate during the quarter. This acquisition is not reflected in either direct or affiliate additions"

Hey Kris, how could you mix up something like that? :) So it is really 2.4 million CDMA additions. More if you actually add other 2nd tier CDMA carriers.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 05:57 PM

Which means they could sell the phone virtually everywhere in the world.

Yeah everywhere in the world if you exclude the huge US market (and some other parts of the world). Most GSM people are totally clueless that the US uses a totally incompatible GSM 850/1900. And it is only GSM 850 which will be used for wide coverage in the US. The older still incompatible GSM 1900 in the US has limited coverage. So your GSM tri band 900/1800/1900 phones will do scott in the US. You will actually need quad band phones which are expensive and very few. Heck, even tri band phones are not ubiquitous in the GSM world.

So it is actually not true that you can take your European GSM 900/1800 or even tri band phones and come and use it in the US. If you are going to be incompatible anyway then why not choose the technology that has better spectral efficiency, better upgrade paths, higher data speeds and seamless migration to 3G without the rip and replace that GSM will require.

aristoBrat

07-28-2004, 06:06 PM

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 06:11 PM

In a word NO. GSM is the global standard.

LOL! Now I have to laugh at this Euro centric view of the world. Yeah if anything European is a global then sure yes. When the GSM comittee was setup in the Europe in the 80's and they decided to select 900 and 1800 MHz bands, they were quite clearly warned by the US that it was incompatible with the US since the military used those bands. But the GSM camp went ahead and ignored the US anyway. World standard my @ss. Yeah that's why the US uses totally incompatible 1900 and 850 MHz bands for GSM. And if you are going to spend so much money over incompatible equipment then you might as well switch to the superior CDMA technology.

It's more a question of how long the US continues with CDMA surely?

Its not just the US for your information. North and South America, Korea, Japan lage parts of Asia including the biggest markets of India and China (where the biggest operators are all CDMA) all use CDMA quite a bit. In fact the only place where CDMA isn't strong is the Europe dominated EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) region. And CDMA has achieved all this inspite of being a comparatively recent technology of the late 90s.

Although I belive that Iraq will have a CDMA network so you will be able to use your phones there as well :wink:

You know if you are going to debate here you should at least get your facts straight. Iraq has selected GSM and not CDMA as its mobile phone technology for the simple reason that others around it have GSM and nothing else. Thats not a technical decision but rather based on other factors.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 06:19 PM

This report is quite interesting : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-23-2004/0002114056&EDATE=
I'm not sure whether or not that covers "TDMA converts" who were basically told to switch to GSM by Cingular/AT&T.

Actually it does. That is nothing but a PR fluff piece from the GSM camp. I said the same thing last year when that was shown, that the numbers were so inflated because both AT&T and Cingular switched wholesale to GSM and so the numbers were naturally skewed. And I also said that it was going to be very different this year and I was going to come and rub in the numbers when they come. So here I am ;) So far announced 2.4 million vs. 0.5 million. Where is the GSM PR fluff piece now? But for T-Mobile doing some good things, CDMA would have slaughtered GSM. And T-Mobile was never even the darling of the GSM world supposed to take over the US with GSM. That was supposed to be done by Cingular and AT&T. Yeah right! The numbers speak for themselves.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 06:29 PM

It's too late for 3G - the paths have been chosen (WCDMA and EV-DO).

Actually the WCDMA upgrade for GSM is nothing but an elaborate sham from the GSM association. It is basically a rip and replace of existing GSM infrastructure (totally incompatible technology and frequency bands from GSM). On the other hand 3G EV-DO for CDMA is a much smoother upgrade over existing CDMA 2000 infrastructure. And if you are going to as it is rip and replace for converting to 3G from GSM then you might as well do it once with CDMA and get over it. It laughable that Cingular and AT&T did a rip and replace from TDMA to GSM and then again they will need to do it again for GSM to WCDMA if they want nationwide 3G. Thats why Cingular doesn't have any roadmap for a nationwide WCDMA rollout since they cannot (not unless they want to lose tons of money).

Kris Kumar

07-28-2004, 06:30 PM

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 06:38 PM

Hey Kris, how could you mix up something like that? :) So it is really 2.4 million CDMA additions. More if you actually add other 2nd tier CDMA carriers.

Since childhood I have been terrible with numbers/figures. :confused totally: I always mix up years in history, population or stats in geography and maths, lets not even go there.

Sorry...I went back checked your mail, you had clearly mentioned Sprint PCS as 0.9 million and total CDMA size as 2.4 million :oops:

Ahh ... Then would you mind editing the original post and correcting the figures :) You can add a note in the end that you corrected it.

That way I can rub it in even more to the GSM folks :twisted:

Mr.Phil

07-28-2004, 07:38 PM

From the time I entered the cellular infrastructure world in 1992, there has always been competing technologies, starting with AMPS/TACS/DEC, moving to IS-54/IS-136/GSM and continuing on to the data world...1X/EVDO/GPRS/EDGE and into UMTS/EVDV. I think it has been proven that no one technology stream can be dominant as long as there are enough parties to back either one. Whereas 10 years ago, a country would only have one standard deployed, now most countries have many flavours deployed across several networks. In Canada, you still have AMPS/IS-136/GSM/CDMA coverage in many areas. I have deployed AMPS/IS-136/GSM/GSM1X/CDMA/UMTS networks in China. I would look for handsets to become more flexible in handling multiple standards, than one technology becoming dominant.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 08:11 PM

In Canada, you still have AMPS/IS-136/GSM/CDMA coverage in many areas.

Actually even in the US AMPS has wide coverage all over the US. In fact AMPS is king coverage wise with over 95% of the US covered! That is why again CDMA is better. It has builtin analog backup :) With my extra Analog roaming option for $10 extra I can honestly claim that I have coverage over 95% of the US including remote national parks and interior roads. Nothing in the GSM world can even come close to that level of coverage since they threw out backwards compatibility with Analog when they threw out TDMA and went to GSM. But of course GSM was created by the Europeans so why the heck would they even care about backwards compatibility with the widely deployed AMPS standard in the US? Sure they made a half hearted attempt at doing this with GAIT but it was nothing more than a joke with Cingular even refusing to sell you a GAIT phone in western US. There exists just one GAIT phone I think. In case anyone has any doubts about AMPS coverage esp in remote areas then please take a look these AMPS coverage maps before you utter a single word -
A Side
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-A.pdf
B Side
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-B.pdf
Now do people understand why you want a phone with AMPS (analog) capability?!

I have deployed AMPS/IS-136/GSM/GSM1X/CDMA/UMTS networks in China. I would look for handsets to become more flexible in handling multiple standards, than one technology becoming dominant.

Actaully both Sprint and Verizon are going to introduce phones with both GSM and CDMA capabilities in one phone. So that you can use superior CDMA in the US and use inferior GSM when you must in those parts of the world that are not lucky enough to have CDMA ;)

aristoBrat

07-28-2004, 08:19 PM

Actually even in the US AMPS has wide coverage all over the US. In fact AMPS is king coverage wise with over 95% of the US covered! That is why again CDMA is better. It has builtin analog backup :) With my extra Analog roaming option for $10 extra I can honestly claim that I have coverage over 95% of the US including remote national parks and interior roads.
In the context of Windows Mobile Smartphones, that's not true. The only CDMA WM Smartphone (the i600) doesn't have analog, so your coverage is going to look roughly like a GSM map.

I'm not going to argue that CDMA's upgrade path is smoother, or that 1xRTT isn't 2x-3x faster than GPRS. What I am going to argue is that it's too expensive (for me), so it doesn't matter.

If I switched to CDMA, I'd be able to choose from 1 WM Smartphone, and I'd be on Verizon's network because Sprint hasn't launched a WM Smartphone yet.

With CDMA, I'd get 33% fewer voice minutes a month, have to pay 250% more a month for an unlimited data plan, and I would have shelled out $300 more to buy a CDMA WM Smartphone than I would have to buy a GSM one.

This is like debating if a BMW 7 series has better quality/technology than a Honda Accord. It does. But if you can't afford it, what's the point?

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 08:27 PM

The fact of the matter remains that CDMA, as it stands, generally works better here, so yes, we have to think introspectively to some extent. ;)
--janak

Hey now don't you go on being defensive on the back foot when we have a superior infrastructure here in the US :) CDMA gives you today 3G data access coverage all over the US today, whereas Europe is still messed up with their WCDMA deployments since it isn't backwards compatible with GSM so very few towers have been put up to give wide 3G coverage. Plus they sank billions of dollars in the spectrum auction sillyness that happened. Here in the US we were smarter and just upgraded to CDMA 1xRTT seamlessly. And again come end of this year we will have broadband level 3G with CDMA EV-DO when both Verizon and Sprint deploy it. Again a much simpler upgrade of existing infrastructure and you'll get 2Mbps peak (500kps avg) data speeds. Plus with the much superior spectral efficiency CDMA, carriers can have more voice calls for the same amount of bandwidth. Do you think its a coincidence that Verizon kicks @ss with their network? No quite simply they have better technology (and wider coverage also) that allows them to have more phones out there for the same bandwidth. So who the heck cares if I can use my phone the world over if I can't use it in my own backyard and country? Plus prepaid GSM phone are quite cheap if you do need them. Moreover all this will become moot when Sprint and Verizon introduce the CDMA/GSM hybrid phones. Misinformed and misguided Europeans can smirk all they want but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that we actually have better networks here in the US.

ben865

07-28-2004, 08:36 PM

Iraq has selected GSM and not CDMA as its mobile phone technology for the simple reason that others around it have GSM and nothing else. Thats not a technical decision but rather based on other factors.

That's a sensible selection. The last report I read pointed to a CDMA network going because of favouritism towards US companies in the deals to 'rebuild' Iraq.

I thought Japan used something altogether different to both GSM and CDMA but to be honest I can't remember.

So you have CDMA in the US and Korea, something beginning with P(?) in Japan and then GSM everywhere else.

GSM may be EMEAcentric but then the EMEA mobile market is significantly larger than the US.

Right that'll keep Shasshanks going for a while... :lol:

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 09:41 PM

In the context of Windows Mobile Smartphones, that's not true. The only CDMA WM Smartphone (the i600) doesn't have analog, so your coverage is going to look roughly like a GSM map.

Thats only because for some reason Verizon chooses to disable (or not allow you to use) the Analog option in the i600. It is very much present in the phone and Sprint will allow its use when it launches the same phone.

If I switched to CDMA, I'd be able to choose from 1 WM Smartphone, and I'd be on Verizon's network because Sprint hasn't launched a WM Smartphone yet.

With CDMA, I'd get 33% fewer voice minutes a month, have to pay 250% more a month for an unlimited data plan, and I would have shelled out $300 more to buy a CDMA WM Smartphone than I would have to buy a GSM one.

Not if you came on the Sprint network which has better rates. And Sprint is soon going to launch the i600. As to the lack of options in phones, I couldn't agree more with you. This is something the mfrs and Microsoft in conjunction with the carriers need to fix. It's not a CDMA issue per se. OTOH you do need to pay a bit more for better service.

ShivShanks

07-28-2004, 10:18 PM

I thought Japan used something altogether different to both GSM and CDMA but to be honest I can't remember.

Japan used to use PDC in the olden days. However nowadays they have moved to CDMA and W-CDMA (3GSM). One major carrier (NTT DoCoMo) uses W-CDMA (they call it FOMA) and another one (KDDI) uses CDMA 1xRTT and EV-DO. In fact the CDMA carrier has had much more success with 3G than the W-CDMA one since original W-CDMA phones had issues with battery life etc.

So you have CDMA in the US and Korea, something beginning with P(?) in Japan and then GSM everywhere else.

CDMA is available and widely used in all of North and South America, Korea, Japan, Australia, China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe and large parts of Asia. In fact like I said the only region where it isn't strong is EMEA.

GSM may be EMEAcentric but then the EMEA mobile market is significantly larger than the US.

Well Africa is hardly much of a market since large parts of it are so underdeveloped, neither is the Middle East which though well off in some parts doesn't have much of a population. One western European region cannot hold a candle to the huge mobile growth regions of US, the North and South America (where CDMA is the dominant technology), China, India and the rest of Asia esp. considering the Western Europe is already saturated with mobile penetration. In one year, from March 2003 to 2004, the CDMA subscriber base grew by a record 43 million users, or 31 percent, representing the highest growth for any leading cellular technology, and significantly higher than the 21percent gain for the whole industry. CDMA is now used by 202 million people the world over (except EMEA). I have no doubts that CDMA will slowly catch up with GSM numbers esp. with the advanced data services coming up, plus its more cost effective to use spectrally efficient CDMA in emerging markets. Take a look at the numbers and statistics in this report before typically thinking like most GSM people that CDMA is only used in the US and Korea -
http://www.cdg.org/news/press/2004/may11_04.asp

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 12:51 AM

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 12:57 AM

I don't think either technology will "win". I think there is, and will continue to be, plenty of room in the market for both technologies. Both work well, and each has their strong points.

I was tempted to put a third option in the poll, which said "Neither, Dual Mode Handset will win". But decided not to, because I wanted to find out the technology that reader's favor the most.

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 12:59 AM

What about the things people (at least me) hate the most about CDMA:
- number portability or lack of SIM card like functionality.
- roaming arrangement between carriers.

:?:

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 01:04 AM

Ahh ... Then would you mind editing the original post and correcting the figures :) You can add a note in the end that you corrected it.

That way I can rub it in even more to the GSM folks :twisted:

Done, the main post has been updated :-)

Looks like your words are having some affect on the readers. I see that the gap in the poll has narrowed.

Thanks I wish the Carriers, Microsoft and phone mfrs would get it though. Compared to WM, the Palm camp seems to get the importance of CDMA much better. There have been no less than 7 Palm based smartphones in the past for CDMA and every cool Palm Smartphone comes first and foremost on CDMA. Till WM catches up on this aspect I'm afraid it hasn't really arrived.

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 01:15 AM

What about the things people (at least me) hate the most about CDMA:
- number portability or lack of SIM card like functionality.
- roaming arrangement between carriers.

:?:

I give you that the SIM like functionality is one big plus for GSM. However note that US carriers SIM lock phones and CDMA outside the US has SIM like mechanisms. Its more of political thing in the US that us consumers complaining loudly will force the FCC to rectify. And there are steps being taken towards this by Consumers Union et al. I didn't quite understand what you meant by number portability though. There is no problem doing that with CDMA. Perhaps you meant handset portability? That's also a flip side of the very same factor I mentioned above and even that is being worked on. Some CDMA carriers like Verizon will activate a different CDMA phone on its network.

I also didn't quite get your roaming arrangements comment. I have no problems roaming onto Verizon's network using my Sprint Free and Clear America option for which I pay just $5 extra. With that option I have no problems roaming all over the country on any CDMA or Analog network for that matter, upto half my plan minutes.

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 01:25 AM

Perhaps you meant handset portability?
You got that right, I meant handset portability. e.g. Take Sprint phone to Verizon.

I also didn't quite get your roaming arrangements comment. I have no problems roaming onto Verizon's network using my Sprint Free and Clear America option for which I pay just $5 extra. With that option I have no problems roaming all over the country on any CDMA or Analog network for that matter, upto half my plan minutes.
Didn't know that one could roam on Sprint network with Verizon phone or vice-versa. But I was talking more in terms of international roaming.

aristoBrat

07-29-2004, 02:14 AM

In the context of Windows Mobile Smartphones, that's not true. The only CDMA WM Smartphone (the i600) doesn't have analog, so your coverage is going to look roughly like a GSM map.

Thats only because for some reason Verizon chooses to disable (or not allow you to use) the Analog option in the i600. It is very much present in the phone and Sprint will allow its use when it launches the same phone.
Can you elaborate on this?

The Samsung website lists the i600 as Mode: Dual band/single mode (CDMA 1900 MHz; CDMA 800 MHz)

Doesn't that mean it's CDMA only (no AMPS)?

http://www.samsungusa.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?eUser=&prod_id=SCH-I600&selTab=Specifications

Same thing with the Treo 600. It's listed as "CDMA 800 / CDMA 1900", making it yet another device completely worthless on Verizon's analog network, correct?

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=342

zarakin

07-29-2004, 03:27 AM

Some CDMA carriers like Verizon will activate a different CDMA phone on its network.

Is it really a viable option to use a non-Verizon phone in Verizon network even if you get Verizon to activate your phone? You are in the mercy of the operator! What about the differences between phones - they are huge e.g. between Sprint+Verizon! You would be stuck on using your phone for basic calls only - even text messaging might not work!. In GSM (unless SIM locked) you have the freedom of using the same phone among different carriers... In CDMA most basic things are different, and the lack of proper signaling is that laughable (e.g. the phone has no real way of knowing if a multiparty call was successful or not, because the usage of flash in traffic channel - this alone is straight from the stone ages! In GSM this works flawlessly)

In my professional experience in both GSM and CDMA I can definitely say that CDMA is really backward technology if you look beyond the radio interface (that is the only good thing about it).

The different operators have different services and that really kills it for the consumers... There are no real benefits for the end users if you look beyond the coverage! A lot more vendor lock in and interoperability just sucks.

WCDMA has the benefits of GSM, signaling + service interoperability, no stone age flash hacks, and has the CDMA radio interface. WCDMA has been slow to take of because of the license silliness and that there has not been too much added benefits beyond GPRS/EDGE, but it will come.

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 03:28 AM

Can you elaborate on this?

The Samsung website lists the i600 as Mode: Dual band/single mode (CDMA 1900 MHz; CDMA 800 MHz)

Doesn't that mean it's CDMA only (no AMPS)?

http://www.samsungusa.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?eUser=&prod_id=SCH-I600&selTab=Specifications

Hmm ... That is strange. I did not check the Samsung website. My Sprint PCS contact gave me to believe that the i600 has analog support. There have been cases in the past where essentially the same phone was being offered by Sprint and Verizon but Sprint had Analog and Verizon didn't. I figured it was a simple case of Verizon not wanting it to to be used and getting it turned off. However if the Samsung site says otherwise then that's probably correct and my contact would be wrong.

However I just realised that there could be another explanation, althought its unlikely. It seems sometimes Samsung will offer slightly different versions of the very same phone with and without Analog. See these two phones -
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=231
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=257
So there is a remote chance that perhaps Sprint could offer an i610 perhaps with the Analog option. But considering that most people have been talking about i600 I think its unlikely :( Oh well ... I do know that my Samsung i500 (which is of the same generation and in some ways kind of like the Palm counterpart of i600), does support Analog and I've used it.

Same thing with the Treo 600. It's listed as "CDMA 800 / CDMA 1900", making it yet another device completely worthless on Verizon's analog network, correct?

http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=342

Correct. That's one of the many reasons why I stayed away from the Treo. This is really silly and stupid of Verizon and Samsung to make a phone like this. And I can't believe Sprint is falling in to the same when they have always had an analog option in their phones except when its a PPC or when the mfr doesn't have that capability and technology (like Handspring/PalmOne). However Samsung very well knows how to add Analog in their Smartphones so its silly that they are doing different for WM Smartphones. Again the upcoming Palm based killer Smartphone for Sprint, the i550 does indeed have Analog -
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=522

I know for a fact that unless its difficult due to other reasons. Sprint usually wants Analog for its phones. All its Palm based phones have had it.

I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the WM Options for CDMA :( Looks like I'm going to stay in the Palm camp for a while till something better comes along.

zarakin

07-29-2004, 03:35 AM

Take a look at the numbers and statistics in this report before typically thinking like most GSM people that CDMA is only used in the US and Korea -
http://www.cdg.org/news/press/2004/may11_04.asp

CDMA Development Group? Certainly a site for balanced information?

In my mind the CDMA offers no real benefits for the end user and that matters the most to me. I travel a lot and GSM is the only viable option, I just don't see CDMA ever catching up on GSM or WCDMA, it is the only true world standard and guarantees you a big interoperability level between carriers.

CDMA might be good for corporation point-of-view (propriarity standard galore), but I don't believe that is the right thing in the long run. Open standards and interoperability it the way to go - especially from the end user perspective and that is what should count!

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 03:44 AM

Is it really a viable option to use a non-Verizon phone in Verizon network even if you get Verizon to activate your phone? You are in the mercy of the operator! What about the differences between phones - they are huge e.g. between Sprint+Verizon! You would be stuck on using your phone for basic calls only - even text messaging might not work!. In GSM (unless SIM locked) you have the freedom of using the same phone among different carriers... In CDMA most basic things are different, and the lack of proper signaling is that laughable (e.g. the phone has no real way of knowing if a multiparty call was successful or not, because the usage of flash in traffic channel - this alone is straight from the stone ages! In GSM this works flawlessly)

In my professional experience in both GSM and CDMA I can definitely say that CDMA is really backward technology if you look beyond the radio interface (that is the only good thing about it).

The different operators have different services and that really kills it for the consumers... There are no real benefits for the end users if you look beyond the coverage! A lot more vendor lock in and interoperability just sucks.

WCDMA has the benefits of GSM, signaling + service interoperability, no stone age flash hacks, and has the CDMA radio interface. WCDMA has been slow to take of because of the license silliness and that there has not been too much added benefits beyond GPRS/EDGE, but it will come.

I never said that switching phones in that way is a viable solution. I concede that this is one area where GSM is better. I only gave that as an option. As regards the back end technologies, CDMA is a much newer standard and it will take some time before things stabilize and interoperate 100%. Even in the WCDMA and GSM world there are many differences like WCDMA in Japan having iMode instead of XHTML etc. Given a chance operators will always try and differentiate by doing things differently. This is where platforms like Palm and WM come in and throw all the operator and applications specific to a particular RF technology away. There it doesn't matter so much as to what the operator does.

Regarding WCDMA not taking off, its not just the license sillyness. The fact of the matter is that it is also not backwards compatible with existing GSM with totally different frequencies etc. So you need to set up all your RF infrastructure from scratch instead of upgrading existing ones and that takes time and money. In the CDMA world that is much simpler.

zarakin

07-29-2004, 03:54 AM

I never said that switching phones in that way is a viable solution. I concede that this is one area where GSM is better. I only gave that as an option. As regards the back end technologies, CDMA is a much newer standard and it will take some time before things stabilize and interoperate 100%.

I just don't believe this will happen anytime soon. The operators are entrenching themselves in competing camps (just look at picturemessaging and push-to-talk, jeesh). Sure they make some press announcements somewhere that are some people agreeing in commonalities, but I don't think this will work. The system is rigged currently so that in CDMA you end up in weird non-interoperable "standards" that are not going to benefit to anyone (and I've seen it happen multiple times already).

CDMA is going be a huge mess, unless they get their act together soon. I agree that GSM / WCDMA operators are showing same tendencies - especially the from the megaoperators and that is going to be a big problem there as well. Luckily some countries mandate that there can be no vendor SIM locks, which I believe is huge plus because it gives the power back to the consumer.

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 04:09 AM

CDMA Development Group? Certainly a site for balanced information?

I only quoted some subscriber statistics and countries where CDMA is deployed from that. Where do you see a problem in that? Are you trying to say the countries I claimed to have CDMA, don't have CDMA? Or that all the subscriber figures given there are bogus? If you can make specific criticism of what I quoted then please do so. People here quoted GSM PR press releases, but I gave targetted specific reasons as to why the numbers in that were anamolous and then I said I'd back that up with growth figures later on and I just did that. Unless you can show some problems with what I am quoting I don't see what the problem is.

In my mind the CDMA offers no real benefits for the end user and that matters the most to me. I travel a lot and GSM is the only viable option, I just don't see CDMA ever catching up on GSM or WCDMA, it is the only true world standard and guarantees you a big interoperability level between carriers.

Well perhaps in the Europe where you can enter a new country every few hundred kilometers this might a very big issue. But here in the US travelling all over the US and using CDMA is not an issue at all since the same carrier gives coverage all over the country. Sure it would be nice to switch phones but people can make do without it. More important to a user here IMHO are basic things like good coverage and data rates for there is no point of using phones which you can switch when you don't even have good coverage, data rates etc.

CDMA might be good for corporation point-of-view (propriarity standard galore), but I don't believe that is the right thing in the long run. Open standards and interoperability it the way to go - especially from the end user perspective and that is what should count!

None of this has anything to do with CDMA per se but government policies. Fact of the matter is that even US GSM carriers try to hinder whatever interoperability is built into GSM since the FCC is mum about it. Therefore the CDMA carriers here have no incentive to do it. However in places like China where the government mandates it, CDMA does have SIM like mechanisms. It becomes perhaps a bigger issue for people buying expensive phones, but most normal people can get phones very cheap due to subsidies when they sign up with a new operator so its not that much of an issue for them. They just sign up with the same number and get a new phone for free or cheap. I'm not saying all that is good, however that is the way it is and most people seem to have no problems going along with it. Otherwise more people would complain and something would be done. Its only a small minority that is rasing these issues so far.

zarakin

07-29-2004, 04:23 AM

I only quoted some subscriber statistics and countries where CDMA is deployed from that. Where do you see a problem in that? Are you trying to say the countries I claimed to have CDMA, don't have CDMA? Or that all the subscriber figures given there are bogus? If you can make specific criticism of what I quoted then please do so. People here quoted GSM PR press releases, but I gave targetted specific reasons as to why the numbers in that were anamolous and then I said I'd back that up with growth figures later on and I just did that. Unless you can show some problems with what I am quoting I don't see what the problem is.

To me those are CDMA "propaganda" - a specific view on figures. I'm not claiming that there is no CDMA in those countries, but the emphasis is definately slanted.

Well perhaps in the Europe where you can enter a new country every few hundred kilometers this might a very big issue. But here in the US travelling all over the US and using CDMA is not an issue at all since the same carrier gives coverage all over the country. Sure it would be nice to switch phones but people can make do without it. More important to a user here IMHO are basic things like good coverage and data rates for there is no point of using phones which you can switch when you don't even have good coverage, data rates etc.

Less choice is not good for the consumer. In GSM the user can make the carriers compete and is not necessarily locked in multi-year contracts.

I'm not saying all that is good, however that is the way it is and most people seem to have no problems going along with it. Otherwise more people would complain and something would be done. Its only a small minority that is rasing these issues so far.

The masses don't necessarily make vice choices and I bet when the competition would be regulated more it would evolve into a better environement for the end user. Carriers hide the subsidies in inflated data/voice rates (e.g. to pay for incoming calls as well totally weird for me) and lock you in the carrier.

Everytime I travel to Europe I'm amazed on the choice they have - I don't have to dump my phone if I don't need to, I don't need to sign multiyear contracts and in the US people are not even aware what is possible - how could they even complain about it.

These are not CDMA/GSM things as such, but CDMA inherintly makes it very difficult to do it anyway differently - GSM and WCDMA already work and provide all the benefits end-users could have!

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 04:29 AM

I just don't believe this will happen anytime soon. The operators are entrenching themselves in competing camps (just look at picturemessaging and push-to-talk, jeesh). Sure they make some press announcements somewhere that are some people agreeing in commonalities, but I don't think this will work. The system is rigged currently so that in CDMA you end up in weird non-interoperable "standards" that are not going to benefit to anyone (and I've seen it happen multiple times already).

Perhaps what you are saying could be a possibility, but progress has been made. For example MO SMS is now available on all CDMA carriers that interoperates. Yeah it took time blah blah blah but it did happen. Again if users and the government take such things seriously then there would be less chances of it happening.

CDMA is going be a huge mess, unless they get their act together soon. I agree that GSM / WCDMA operators are showing same tendencies - especially the from the megaoperators and that is going to be a big problem there as well. Luckily some countries mandate that there can be no vendor SIM locks, which I believe is huge plus because it gives the power back to the consumer.

Currently in my analysis for the benefits I get, I'd much rather stay in the "CDMA mess" as you call it it. I'm happy in there here in the US. I'd just lose too many things more important to me in GSM. Somebody else's perception and needs might be different, certainly in places like Europe. Europe has a natural need for things like interoperability with so many countries. The very fabric of socieity, needs and geography make it very different for the US so here priorities are different. The government would much rather have the network be built up much more rapidly for such a huge country with immense capital investments required. So they perhaps give the operators some leeway in not enforcing some things early on. In Europe each county can easily build up its network with its own operators spending money to build it up instead of one huge investment all over. Then its easier to make them interoperate. Here that can't be done easily for obvious reasons. But once things mature and networks are built up, the government can demand more. And they have like the recently introduced number portability. I'd much rather have some service being built up quickly all over the country than have many small interoperable carriers but low coverage since they can't all invest countrywide that much. Its tough to strike a fine balance.

BTW if GSM were truly an Open and World standard then the Europeans wouldn't have ignored US requests to not standardise on 900/1800 MHz was back in the 80's. It was nothing more than a European standard where they on purpose ignored the US. Is it any wonder that many here have no love lost for GSM. If a spectrum agreeable to both had been selected then this situation would never have happened and the US might have also used GSM. However I am happy that the US cared two hoots and developed its own advanced technologies and alternatives. I'm happy sipping my high speed data all over the country much earlier than any European can and will be able to :)

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 04:43 AM

To me those are CDMA "propaganda" - a specific view on figures. I'm not claiming that there is no CDMA in those countries, but the emphasis is definately slanted.

Then please show me where the specific issue is and I'll shut up. Otherwise you shouldn't be making an issue out of it. Wherever possible I have given figures directly from the carriers and I'm not trying to skew anything in any way.

Less choice is not good for the consumer. In GSM the user can make the carriers compete and is not necessarily locked in multi-year contracts.

Here in the US they are necessary even for GSM. Like I said that is orthogonal to GSM vs CDMA. BTW my CDMA carrier Sprint allows a no contracts option and I think its totally worth the $10 I pay extra for it, but most people don't.

The masses don't necessarily make vice choices and I bet when the competition would be regulated more it would evolve into a better environement for the end user. Carriers hide the subsidies in inflated data/voice rates (e.g. to pay for incoming calls as well totally weird for me) and lock you in the carrier.

Nextel has started giving free incoming minutes in the US. Its a matter of time since networks are newer here and capital investment needs to recovered in some way, not that I am saying that is good for consumers. But do you get unlimited night and weekend minutes, free long distance and unlimited mobile to mobile minutes in Europe? I think not AFAIK. So what about that?

These are not CDMA/GSM things as such, but CDMA inherintly makes it very difficult to do it anyway differently - GSM and WCDMA already work and provide all the benefits end-users could have!

There is nothing in CDMA that makes it difficult. The GSM carriers do the same sneaky things in the US that you are against. If anything CDMA carriers like Sprint give more freedom in some ways. Sure GSM works well in those regards in Europe but WCDMA hardly *works* all over Europe if you don't mind my saying so :) I'm happier with my CDMA non interoperable sitaution but with cool 3G access all over the US :)

zarakin

07-29-2004, 04:45 AM

Perhaps what you are saying could be a possibility, but progress has been made. For example MO SMS is now available on all CDMA carriers that interoperates. Yeah it took time blah blah blah but it did happen. Again if users and the government take such things seriously then there would be less chances of it happening.

The carriers are going in totally opposite directions in e.g. application distribution, picture messaging etc. It will take a heck lot longer to get those standardized. The mess will get bigger.

Currently in my analysis for the benefits I get, I'd much rather stay in the "CDMA mess" as you call it it. I'm happy in there here in the US. I'd just lose too many things more important to me in GSM. Somebody else's perception and needs might be different, certainly in places like Europe.
Europe has a natural need for things like interoperability with so many countries. The very fabric of socieity, needs and geography make it very different for the US so here priorities are different. The government would much rather have the network be built up much more rapidly for such a huge country with immense capital investments required. So they perhaps give the operators some leeway in not enforcing some things early on. In Europe each county can easily build up its network with its own operators spending money to build it up instead of one huge investment all over. Then its easier to make them interoperate. Here that can't be done easily for obvious reasons. But once things mature and networks are built up, the government can demand more. And they have like the recently introduced number portability. I'd much rather have some service being built up quickly all over the country than have many small interoperable carriers but low coverage since they can't all invest countrywide that much. Its tough to strike a fine balance.

Well, I'm happy to stay here in Canada :-) I do hate the look of the current CDMA mess. The local Canadian/US GSM operators seem to have some of the right stuff in, but are somewhat behind Europe in interoperability and openness. In general the cellular market is not as mature or diverse as the European one.

BTW if GSM were truly an Open and World standard then the Europeans wouldn't have ignored US requests to not standardise on 900/1800 MHz was back in the 80's. It was nothing more than a European standard where they on purpose ignored the US. Is it any wonder that many here have no love lost for GSM. If a spectrum agreeable to both had been selected then this situation would never have happened and the US might have also used GSM. However I am happy that the US cared two hoots and developed its own advanced technologies and alternatives. I'm happy sipping my high speed data all over the country much earlier than any European can and will be able to :)

Truly American comment and somewhat distorted view of history. In my mind US has always tried to bully their views through and I was happy to see that Europe gived two hoots on Americans and rolled out their advanced digital networks when US was in analog TDMA and ignored GSM. WCDMA is a cool technology that has adopted the good things on both camps - CDMA and GSM. I'm happy to use my phone and high speed WCDMA/GSM access in e.g Japan, Africa, Australia, US and in Europe :-).

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 05:14 AM

zarakin

07-29-2004, 07:25 AM

Truly American comment and somewhat distorted view of history. In my mind US has always tried to bully their views through and I was happy to see that Europe gived two hoots on Americans and rolled out their advanced digital networks when US was in analog TDMA and ignored GSM.

First of all you should really get your facts straight if you want to argue here. The fact of the matter is that the GSM camp ignored US requests for a common interoperable spectrum. Period. Please show me where and how this is a "distorted view of history"?! Secondly TDMA is digital not analog. And how exactly do you think the US could have moved to GSM when the frequencies couldn't be used due to the US Military owning them? Also FYI (digital) TDMA deployments started happening before GSM got finalized so there is no question of the US deliberately ignoring GSM for that. You know you should at least get your facts straight before saying something. Otherwise you should refrain from talking about things you aren't aware of.

My mistake... My mind was saying AMPS and I typed TDMA :-/. When was the first IS-54 active in US? First GSM network was active in 1991. I'd say they were finalized around the same time. Coming up with a common frequency for GSM as European standard was the main goal at the time. European countries had their own freq limits and Americans where headed into their own direction with IS-54.

You are distorting the history by picturing the "GSM camp" as the "bad boys". I've always seen the US as the 1000 pound gorilla in the standardization issues.

WCDMA is a cool technology that has adopted the good things on both camps - CDMA and GSM. I'm happy to use my phone and high speed WCDMA/GSM access in e.g Japan, Africa, Australia, US and in Europe :-).

Yeah when you can actually get good WCDMA coverage anywhere (other than Japan) :)[/quote]

Well, it is expanding and getting pretty good in Europe and in Japan. Lets see what AT&T does in US in regards of its WCDMA deployment.

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 08:25 AM

My mistake... My mind was saying AMPS and I typed TDMA :-/. When was the first IS-54 active in US? First GSM network was active in 1991.

The first IS-54 network was activated in the US in early 1990. The first GSM networks became active in Europe in mid 1991. So TDMA preceded GSM by about 18 months. In any case at that time GSM was only defined for 900 MHz which the US couldn't use and knew beforehand that they couldn't use.

I'd say they were finalized around the same time. Coming up with a common frequency for GSM as European standard was the main goal at the time. European countries had their own freq limits and Americans where headed into their own direction with IS-54.
You are distorting the history by picturing the "GSM camp" as the "bad boys". I've always seen the US as the 1000 pound gorilla in the standardization issues.

My point is quite simply that the GSM camp cannot claim GSM to have been developed as world standard when history clearly shows that they knowingly disregarded US compulsions (for whatever reasons) and selected a frequency spectrum incompatible with the US. They first and foremost only wanted to solve their problems. If they had chosen a middle ground and tried to choose a frequency palatable to both sides even if both sides had to make some adjustments then that would have been different and a world standard. Otherwise its just a European standard. At that time only US, Europe and Japan had advanced mobile phone networks worth talking about. Japan already had something incompatible. By ignoring the other major force in wireless they weren't creating any world standard. It just so happened that CDMA came later than GSM so GSM had a chance to spread to the rest of the world faster and got the first mover advantage which is why they have a bigger installed base now. Had CDMA come earlier then there would have been competition and GSM wouldn't have spread that easily and then claimed to be a world standard.

Well, it is expanding and getting pretty good in Europe and in Japan. Lets see what AT&T does in US in regards of its WCDMA deployment.

Due to fundamental reasons I have given earlier W-CDMA deployments will be slow. No easy getting around it. 3G CDMA is already way ahead in terms of deployment. As regards WCDMA in the US, AT&T only deployed in 4 cities since their contract with Japan's NTT DoCoMo forced them to only tham much, due to the billions that NTT invested a couple of years ago in AT&T and made them move to GSM instead of CDMA as they had already decided to. AT&T has made it clear that they aren't going to do any more deployments. In any case once Cingular completes its takeover of AT&T then everything is up in the air since Cingular is widely known not to have the spectrum for deploying WCDMA nationwide.

ben865

07-29-2004, 09:51 AM

ShivShanks - do you have a vested interest in CDMA? Did you invent it? Do you have shares in a telco?

I've never seen anybody defend a technology so vigourously - very amusing reading.

Zarakin appears to have a world view of what works for the modern traveller. You can quote stats and the CDMA Org all you like but real world experience speaks volumes.

I have a GSM phone - every country that I have been to on business or pleasure I've switched it on and it worked - even the USA.

I wish I could quote stats as there are some great ones about how few Americans leave their own state let alone their country and I'ms ure there is an even better one about how few of you have passports.

You managed to elect a man as President that had only been as far as Mexico and thought Amsterdam was a country....

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 10:43 AM

The only complaint I have against have against the GSM folks in US is the shoddy coverage/signal strength. And that is not because of GSM per se. I wish the carriers, especially T-Mobile, had chosen the 800Mhz route instead of 1900Mhz.

Everywhere else I have been to, I have had no problem with the coverage or signal quality.

And in case of CDMA US may be a bright example, and elsewhere also it may have registered good subscriber gains. But it still has to go a long way.

In India, the CDMA growth has been primarily because of two reasons.
a. The company that started the CDMA based network has the "financial muscle" to roll out nationwide. Instead of growing with the subscribers, they decided to setup infrastructure and then grow the subscriber. Which is good because otherwise they would have been routed for lack of having nationwide coverage.
b. Aggressively priced plans and contracts. I have heard of a lot of cases where people fell for it and are stuck. And not many I spoke to are happy with the service, at least for now. I am sure it has nothing to do with the CDMA, but I wanted to mention that it is not a rosy picture.

And I sure the company chose CDMA because of strategic reasons like keeping the subscribers with them for longer periods. I know that there are so many GSM carriers and pre-paid plans that people keep moving between carriers. And a new carrier would not want to lose its customers. Hence go for the competing technology - CDMA. Of course I would grant some technical credit to CDMA that it must made it easy for the company to set up the nationwide coverage, and will easier for them to upgrade. Also the fact that CDMA can handle more calls and with better quality has its benefits.

The reason for the above para...well..to the end user, at least for now the technology does not matter. Coverage and Price is what matters the most. Give them one of the two, they are happy. Give them both, they are really happy. In US the coverage has won hearts for the CDMA camp. Elsewhere in the world, in India, its the price/plans. But technology even though it is advertised by the carriers as a better technology, does not matter much to the average customer. Even in the GSM camp I am sure the number of subscribers that opt for GSM, because its a technology accessible world wide, is less.

Ramin

07-29-2004, 10:55 AM

I would have to agree with "Zensbikeshop".

I live in Malaysia, and basically South East Asia has GSM coverage everywhere (and to my knowledge, there are no CDMA carriers). From what I have read, CDMA (with 1xRTT) sounds cool, but where I live we have GSM (with EDGE) which really rocks - we have a carrier (DiGi) (http://www.digi.com.my) which offers "all you can eat" GPRS/EDGE data service for RM99 per month (~US$25/month) - so I am really quite happy with GSM at the moment.

Speaking from experience, I have used various tri-band GSM phones (mostly Sony Ericsson handsets) in the United States without any issue - I have never once had to consider renting a CDMA phone, so I guess... for most business travellers like myself, GSM serves its purpose well.

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 11:52 AM

"all you can eat" GPRS/EDGE data service for RM99 per month (~US$25/month)

Wow..when will we get it in US...

If CDMA is cheaper in terms of infrastructure cost, in terms of upgrade and if CDMA can handle lot more subscribers per channel. How come the CDMA operators don't offer than cost advantage to the subscribers. I know Sprint does it to some extent but how Verizon doesn't.

ShivShanks

07-29-2004, 12:27 PM

ShivShanks - do you have a vested interest in CDMA? Did you invent it? Do you have shares in a telco?

I've never seen anybody defend a technology so vigourously - very amusing reading.

No I don't have any vested interest in CDMA other than my current CDMA phone :) And no I most certainly did not invent it and neither do I have any shares in any Telco or even work in an area related to it. Its just that I personally like CDMA and since I've been championing it here I just got into this debate and was having some fun :twisted: A guy can't even do that without all kinds of aspersions being cast? :)

I wish I could quote stats as there are some great ones about how few Americans leave their own state let alone their country and I'ms ure there is an even better one about how few of you have passports.

You managed to elect a man as President that had only been as far as Mexico and thought Amsterdam was a country....

I must quite honestly say that those are some pretty low blow, below the belt comments. I can also make comments about how typically European view of the US that is etc, however I won't since I know better than to make silly generalisations. And I say this inspite of not even being from the US originally.

Also you seem to act as if the wrong people never get to power and government anywhere in the world. I can give some very well known examples from Europe but again I will refrain since I do not believe that such things reflect upon an average European. (FWIW I don't consider the current president to actually have won the election. IMO he became president inspite of losing the vote but that would take us way off topic and would be a totally inappropriate topic for this forum)

You know if you had any technical arguments to make here or otherwise say things within the context of this discussion then that would have been fine. I'm sad this has to come to this when people don't seem to have anything else to say. After this I don't quite have much of a stomach to continue since people can't seem to take things in the right spirit.

Ramin

07-29-2004, 12:31 PM

If CDMA is cheaper in terms of infrastructure cost, in terms of upgrade and if CDMA can handle lot more subscribers per channel. How come the CDMA operators don't offer than cost advantage to the subscribers. I know Sprint does it to some extent but how Verizon doesn't.
Is CDMA infrastructure cost really cheaper? Is this calculated on a per subscriber basis? How many million subscribers does the average CDMA deployment need to be cheaper than GSM for the same coverage area (say, for example a 100,000 square miles country/state)? Quoting ShivShanks (Smartphone Thought's CDMA guru :) ) from one of his earlier posts (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5984&p=40264)...
Its not just the US for your information. North and South America, Korea, Japan lage parts of Asia including the biggest markets of India and China (where the biggest operators are all CDMA) all use CDMA quite a bit. In fact the only place where CDMA isn't strong is the Europe dominated EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) region. All the countries mentioned above (that have CDMA deployments) are large (both in terms population and/or geographic area). So, is CDMA really cheaper than GSM? And if so, under what circumstances/conditions?

Also, in your original post (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5984), you mentioned...
The one thing that bugs me is that if the rumors (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5887) regarding Motorola's plans to shelf MPx100 are true, how come Motorola can design a GSM phone and give it up. And not consider trying out the same for the CDMA market?
I don't understand how this issue relates to the CDMA vs GSM debate. Would you be able to elaborate on that? Thanks! :)

Kris Kumar

07-29-2004, 01:11 PM

Also, in your original post (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5984), you mentioned...
The one thing that bugs me is that if the rumors (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5887) regarding Motorola's plans to shelf MPx100 are true, how come Motorola can design a GSM phone and give it up. And not consider trying out the same for the CDMA market?
I don't understand how this issue relates to the CDMA vs GSM debate. Would you be able to elaborate on that? Thanks! :)

The reason for quoting that was if CDMA is truely having an explosive growth in the US market (and worldwide), doesn't it make sense for Motorola to start investing in CDMA Smartphone market-space. If they can develop 2-3 Smartphones for the GSM world, can't they develop one Smartphone for the CDMA world. If they can take the risk of having 2 models that are pretty much identical for the GSM market, why can't they risk developing one for the CDMA market. I am sure they can take the chances. This was more in reference to my earlier debate "Where are the CDMA Smartphones?" (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5809)

You are right, MPx100 rumor is not directly related to this debate. But I was using it to fuel the point that CDMA inspite of its so called explosive growth is being ignored by the Smartphone manufacturers. Instead of playing catch later on and letting Treo win the CDMA PDA phone market. manufacturers and Microsoft should try, and have at least one more model for the CDMA. Preferably something that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Or is it because manufacturers think that CDMA does not have a bright future ;-) Or that the growth even though good, is not significant enough?

One point that came out of the last debate was that there are not enough CDMA manufacturers as compared to GSM. And since manufacturers are at the mercy of operators/carriers, they won't work on a new model till they know it will get adopted.

So it brings up another question to my mind: If the CDMA world is truely technologically advanced. And if the carriers have adopted CDMA because of its technical edge. Why don't they ask for Smartphones? Aren't Smartphones technologically advanced? Wouldn't a tech lover support good tech;-)

dskaff

07-29-2004, 01:44 PM

Please excuse my ignorance in this matter, but as I understand it, there are different systems depending on the carrier you have. I'm with Verison and have thought them to be CDMA. As I read about the new Motorola MPX PDA/Phone, it appears not to work on Verison's system. (Please correct me if I am wrong). After all this waiting (which has been way too long as it is) for what appears to be the ideal phone for someone like myself who wants complete PPC capability (handwriting technology, etc.) within a cell phone it seems that I will have to wait even longer and maybe forever unless I switch systems (which I don't intend to do). If this is correct, does anyone know of a good quality product that will work on Verison's system, that has quality of a Motorola (Have used Audiovox and Kyocera and don't like them) that is due to come out soon having the same featuresas the MPX? :?:

Mike Temporale

07-29-2004, 02:33 PM

Sorry dskaff, the MPx is one of a kind, and it is GSM based. The next closest Pocket PC Phone Edition device, would be the new iPAQ 6300. However, that too is GSM. I currently don't know of any upcoming WM devices for Verizon/CDMA-based networks.

This is the point of Kris's comments. If CDMA is growing so fast and strong here in North America, why aren't the manufacturers supporting it? The coverage for me is the same, regardless of GSM or CDMA. All I want is the ability to swap phones at my discression. So, that means I must use GSM.

I would be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 mobile phone users don't know what type of network they are using.

yslee

07-29-2004, 05:58 PM

Well, GSM still enjoys a pretty strong customer base, so manufacturers will make phones for that, and the Europeans and Asians (still quite a strong GSM presence, despite Korea and China) are known to be pretty fanatic over their phones..

That said, I wish that you guys could somehow force your CDMA carriers to have SIM card mechanisms (and compatible with the ones used in Asia now). As it is the current model simply doesn't favour manufactuers, so I can understand why they'd be reluctant to build new devices for CDMA networks (note all the cool CDMA phones are from Korea, where there's a strong CDMA presence, and they use SIM card mechanisms for their networks).

Ramin, damn, you guys have EDGE already?!?! At 99 Ringgit too?!?! I AM JEALOUS! :(

zarakin

07-29-2004, 06:59 PM

So it brings up another question to my mind: If the CDMA world is truely technologically advanced. And if the carriers have adopted CDMA because of its technical edge. Why don't they ask for Smartphones? Aren't Smartphones technologically advanced? Wouldn't a tech lover support good tech;-)

The technical edge against GSM ends at the radio interface. The differences between operators make any investments on CDMA phones huge! You could make one GSM phone and sell it through 100 operators addressing 100 million people or you can make one CDMA phone addressing 30 million and having to spend more money doing it.

zarakin

07-29-2004, 07:15 PM

My point is quite simply that the GSM camp cannot claim GSM to have been developed as world standard when history clearly shows that they knowingly disregarded US compulsions (for whatever reasons) and selected a frequency spectrum incompatible with the US. They first and foremost only wanted to solve their problems.

I'd be interested to see specifics on how US tried to talk to GSM camp at times - some references would be nice. I'm not too much aware of the politics at that time.

I don't think it would've been easy to come up with a "common frequency" at the time. France / Germany / UK have their own military freqs that certainly affected the GSM standardisation... and at the time I don't think it was an European standard that evolved into a world standard! The most of the rest of the world was happy with 900Mhz/(and later 1800 MHz frequency).

Having lived in multiple countries in Europe and now lately in Americas I have seen the evolution of cellular standards in the last decade or so, currently I think Americas is still behind on lot of things cellular. The way services are used, billed and the way technology is handled in Americas is something that happened ~five years ago in European markets. Its amazing how much things are behind on some areas. I'd say living outside of America for few years would be healthy to any CDMA pundit :-).

ShivShanks

07-30-2004, 12:02 AM

Well I wasn't going to get back in this discussion but I wanted throw light on some questions being asked.

So it brings up another question to my mind: If the CDMA world is truely technologically advanced. And if the carriers have adopted CDMA because of its technical edge. Why don't they ask for Smartphones? Aren't Smartphones technologically advanced? Wouldn't a tech lover support good tech;-)

There is one thing you are missing here. The CDMA world has plenty of "technologically advanced" Smartphones. Its just that they are from the Palm camp and not WM. There have been no less than 7 Palm based Smartphones for CDMA in past years and no less than 3 confirmed upcoming new ones. In fact these phones have been available for a lot longer than WM phones. For some reason Microsoft hasn't been able to put the same enthusiasm for WM in CDMA carriers and manufacturers. And lets be honest, other than Motorola no other Tier 1 mfr has shown great enthusiasm for WM. I'm discounting Samsung due to the very weak effort they have put in so far considering they are capable of so much more and in fact doing it for Palm. It just seems to me that the US Smartphone market is slipping away with Palm being much active in the important CDMA market what with the Treo's success. More needs to be done and someone needs to prop up WM presence in the CDMA world and Microsoft should at least be leading that charge.

ShivShanks

07-30-2004, 12:47 AM

I'd be interested to see specifics on how US tried to talk to GSM camp at times - some references would be nice. I'm not too much aware of the politics at that time.

I've tried to search for the link to where I read it but I couldn't find it. Trust me this is well known in the industry that the US informed them about the incompatiblity and they chose to ignore it for whatever reasons.

I don't think it would've been easy to come up with a "common frequency" at the time. France / Germany / UK have their own military freqs that certainly affected the GSM standardisation... and at the time I don't think it was an European standard that evolved into a world standard! The most of the rest of the world was happy with 900Mhz/(and later 1800 MHz frequency).

Most of the rest of the world was happy since they didn't have a lot of existing usage of spectrum and or could easily relocate the small amount of use, since they obviously coudn't develop advanced mobile phone equipment on their own for a different frequency. The major regions were Japan, Europe and the US. So it was a matter of who came first to market with solutions. BTW even though the GSM association didn't listen to US requests, they did later on agree to UK's requests for a higher band 1800 MHz spectrum, so its not like they weren't totally unwilling to look at different spectrum. BTW you should read this funny, but true account of the GSM misinformation campaign about CDMA -
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.shtml

Having lived in multiple countries in Europe and now lately in Americas I have seen the evolution of cellular standards in the last decade or so, currently I think Americas is still behind on lot of things cellular. The way services are used, billed and the way technology is handled in Americas is something that happened ~five years ago in European markets. Its amazing how much things are behind on some areas. I'd say living outside of America for few years would be healthy to any CDMA pundit :-).

I don't quite agree with this assesment of yours. The US had a successfull nationwide AMPS mobile phone system long before the Europeans and a lot of key mobile phone technology work like CDMA was all done in the US. In fact its ironic that GSM has itself chosen CDMA for its evolution using W-CDMA. Its just that some GSM proponents are so convinced in their own belief that GSM is so superior that they are unwilling to see what has happened elsewhere. BTW how come no one answered my questions about whether Europe has the free long distance, unlimited night and weekend and unlimited mobile to mobile minutes that the US has? How come we have all that if we are so "behind". Actually I'm amazed that in 3G deployments and data services Europe is so behind the US inspite of having such a head start.

And for what its worth I have lived outside the US for quite some time, so do not try to paint me as someone who hasn't seen other countries. Again its funny that it shows presumption on people's part where they think they know things about me :) Its just that like I explained earlier some of the compulsions in the US are quite different from those in Europe so its but natural that things will be done differently here. Some tend to mistake that for being "behind" etc, when the truth is far from that and has already been proven in terms of things being much more advanced here for 3G coverage and data services etc.

zarakin

07-30-2004, 02:15 AM

I've tried to search for the link to where I read it but I couldn't find it. Trust me this is well known in the industry that the US informed them about the incompatiblity and they chose to ignore it for whatever reasons.

I've worked in the industry for about ten years (in both GSM and CDMA) and you're the first one I've seen who try to make things so overly black'n'white - a real (independent) reference would be nice. Even though I currently work in CDMA, I'm not going to going to be blind on GSM/WCDMA benefits. You sound like the "GSM camp" has kidnapped your only child when I read your flames :-).

Qualcomm in my mind has contributed much on the dislike of CDMA in other countries. Funny to read the opposite from a Qualcomm employee (in the link you provided) about European "not invented here" attitude - that is not perception of my chain of events. There are always politics in the standardization discussions, but when a Qualcomm employee accuses Europe for "not invented here" attitude I must object - that is not the perception in the industry in general. Qualcomm with their patent portfolio is bully that has driven a lot of companies to look for alternatives.

I don't quite agree with this assesment of yours. The US had a successfull nationwide AMPS mobile phone system long before the Europeans and a lot of key mobile phone technology work like CDMA was all done in the US. In fact its ironic that GSM has itself chosen CDMA for its evolution using W-CDMA. Its just that some GSM proponents are so convinced in their own belief that GSM is so superior that they are unwilling to see what has happened elsewhere.

And NMT was invented in Northen Europe and the first multinational cellular network and key mobile technologies were invented by European companies (Ericsson, Nokia).

Also you again convolute the message. CDMA air interface is a good thing and that why it has been chosen to be the evolutionary step in the GSM. CDMA wasn't there yet when GSM was invented. The GSM is superior behind that interface - a lot of good things in the signaling and network services. You yourself admitted that few times already. Why is it so hard to look behind the radio interface? CDMA2000 and its predecessors are not superior in that area at all.

Taking of CDMA into WCDMA to me proves that they are looking for technologies elsewhere as well. Strange way of thinking that it is "ironic" when they CDMA as their choice for 3G and then blaming them for been closed! TDMA at the time was a good technology and not tied into one company (Qualcomm). Nowadays the cellular companies have more muscle and CDMA is a good thing to have in the radio interface.

BTW how come no one answered my questions about whether Europe has the free long distance, unlimited night and weekend and unlimited mobile to mobile minutes that the US has? How come we have all that if we are so "behind". Actually I'm amazed that in 3G deployments and data services Europe is so behind the US inspite of having such a head start.

"Free unlimited night" - those are not really free. You pay them in your monthly contract fee. I wouldn't call that advanced - that is one way to fool your customer into paying something. In Europe you get the lowest call prices anywhere in the world with a lot more options than the Americans currently have (and no multiyear contracts). There are free unlimited call options also if you really want to - Europe is ahead on the options consumers have.

And for what its worth I have lived outside the US for quite some time, so do not try to paint me as someone who hasn't seen other countries. Again its funny that it shows presumption on people's part where they think they know things about me :)

Well, I would recommend a mirror if people have presumptions about you - people don't make those presumptions without your input.

ShivShanks

07-30-2004, 04:00 AM

I've worked in the industry for about ten years (in both GSM and CDMA) and you're the first one I've seen who try to make things so overly black'n'white - a real (independent) reference would be nice. Even though I currently work in CDMA, I'm not going to going to be blind on GSM/WCDMA benefits. You sound like the "GSM camp" has kidnapped your only child when I read your flames :-).

The fact that you've worked in the GSM industry for quite a while doesn't exactly make you an impartial observer I might add, and its but natural that would have only heard good things about GSM. I think people here are making a big deal about me rooting for CDMA just because so few people really know the details behind it and I'm the only one here speaking about its benefits. On the other hand some GSM supporters seem to think that it is the one God given chosen mobile phone technology :)

Qualcomm in my mind has contributed much on the dislike of CDMA in other countries. Funny to read the opposite from a Qualcomm employee (in the link you provided) about European "not invented here" attitude - that is not perception of my chain of events. There are always politics in the standardization discussions, but when a Qualcomm employee accuses Europe for "not invented here" attitude I must object - that is not the perception in the industry in general. Qualcomm with their patent portfolio is bully that has driven a lot of companies to look for alternatives.

You can discount that as a Qualcomm employee's ramblings all you want but that article has been quoted by many sources. In any case if you prefer you can read this Australian Guy's (who worked in the Aus. telecom industry) commentary on that, where he agrees to a lot of what the Qualcomm guy says -
http://michaeljennings.blogspot.com/2002_10_06_michaeljennings_archive.html#82598395

And NMT was invented in Northen Europe and the first multinational cellular network and key mobile technologies were invented by European companies (Ericsson, Nokia).

I don't disagree that Europe was involved in a lot of mobile phone technology, however the way you put it originally you seemed to be painting a very revisionist history as though most the key work was done in Europe. That's discounting tons of work done in the US by Bell Labs, Motorola, AT&T etc. I invite the interested reader to read this and form his own opinion about whether mobile phone technology would have been possible without work done in the US (of course alongwith work done in Europe) -
http://www.privateline.com/PCS/history4.htm
(Its fairly long but do go through it a couple of pages)

Also you again convolute the message. CDMA air interface is a good thing and that why it has been chosen to be the evolutionary step in the GSM. CDMA wasn't there yet when GSM was invented. The GSM is superior behind that interface - a lot of good things in the signaling and network services. You yourself admitted that few times already. Why is it so hard to look behind the radio interface? CDMA2000 and its predecessors are not superior in that area at all.

Things above the air interface are much easier to change. And things aren't as bad behind the air interface as you are painting it to be. Sure there are some things that are better in GSM but its not an insurmountable problem to fix them.

"Free unlimited night" - those are not really free. You pay them in your monthly contract fee. I wouldn't call that advanced - that is one way to fool your customer into paying something. In Europe you get the lowest call prices anywhere in the world with a lot more options than the Americans currently have (and no multiyear contracts). There are free unlimited call options also if you really want to - Europe is ahead on the options consumers have.

I never said "Free unlimited night" I said "free long distance, unlimited night and weekend and unlimited mobile to mobile minutes ".

I qualified only the long distance as free. The night and weekend minutes I talked of as unlimited so I don't see what the issue is. The long distance part can be truly talked of as free since you'd have to pay for normal local calls as it is anyway and longdistance is usually an additional charge on top of that. BTW with which mobile operator in Europe do you get the abiliity to call anyone all over Europe without long distance charge? Here in the US most mobile phone users get to call anyone in the US without long distance charges. There are some carriers here who will give you a contractless option. In any case most people get hefty discounts (or free phones) for signing a contract so even though I consider them to be bad, a lot of people have no problems with that. I don't think you would get free phones etc in Europe. My point is that even though things could be improved here, it isn't so bad here as you make it out to be and things are constantly improving. Also its different and better here compared to Europe in many ways (again 3G for example).

Well, I would recommend a mirror if people have presumptions about you - people don't make those presumptions without your input.

Except unlike you I wasn't making presumptions about you inspite of your inputs. It's surprising that some here even went to the extent of saying unpleasant things about all Americans here. I'm even more surprised that Americans reading that here didn't have anything to say.

Kris Kumar

07-30-2004, 04:10 AM

There is one thing you are missing here. The CDMA world has plenty of "technologically advanced" Smartphones. Its just that they are from the Palm camp and not WM. There have been no less than 7 Palm based Smartphones for CDMA in past years and no less than 3 confirmed upcoming new ones.

Smartphones are not Smartphones until they are running WM ;-)

Jokes apart, I think that could well explain why Motorola, Samsung and other manufacturers are not entering the CDMA market with WM Smartphones.

Glad that you came back and pointed this out.

For an average user it doesn't matter if the phone is running Palm or WM. They want PDA functionality and want it in a small form factor. Palm had an early start, and I agree they are well entrenched in the US market.

Verizon and Sprint PCS may not be interested because they feel that they are already carrying Smartphones, why carry another one.

aristoBrat

07-30-2004, 02:39 PM

For an average user it doesn't matter if the phone is running Palm or WM. They want PDA functionality and want it in a small form factor. Palm had an early start, and I agree they are well entrenched in the US market.

Verizon and Sprint PCS may not be interested because they feel that they are already carrying Smartphones, why carry another one.
I'm pretty sure that I don't work for the only fairly-large enterprise business that's decided to support a single mobile platform: Microsoft.

Kris Kumar

07-31-2004, 04:29 AM

ShivShanks

08-01-2004, 02:04 AM

I'm pretty sure that I don't work for the only fairly-large enterprise business that's decided to support a single mobile platform: Microsoft.

I am sure your company is not alone. But I am afraid that company like yours are few.

Enterprises would love to go the Microsoft way because of its a powerful and easy platform, which makes writing custom apps a breeze. But lack of solid e-mail mechanism (read push e-mail) and to some extent the stabilty, has eroded a lot of sales. Hopefully BlackBerry Connect and Motorola MPx220 (also MPx) will fix it.

Enterprises I know are mostly on BlackBerry devices.

BTW another thing is that many business people buy their own Smartphone devices regardless of the company IT standardization. Certainly I see many people around me having Palm based smartphones (the Treo 600 seems popular), inspite of us having all Microsoft Technologies. The Palm platform just seems to have more mindshare in Smartphones from what I can see. Microsoft certainly has work to do before they can equal that. Heck even the choices are so limited compared to the Palm world. IMHO it will take 1-2 years for it catch up if this galatial pace of new phone introductions continue. And by that I mean Tier 1 mfrs. One Motorola I'm afraid will not cut it. They at least need to get Samsung more excited about WM. A lot of people I know will not buy something as expensive as a Smartphone from some no name company. Just won't happen in large enough numbers to make a dent. You need the brand name of a Motorola or Samsung et al behind it.

aristoBrat

08-01-2004, 02:05 AM

Kris Kumar

08-01-2004, 04:07 AM

Motorola announced 3 new and 2 updated phones last Tuesday. Oddly enough all 5 are quad-band GSM.

It appears now that GSM in the US is taking off, manufacturers are taking note and producing appropriately.

Motorola has made it clear that all GSM phones that it will be launching this year and in the future, will be Quad band. Come to think of it, that may be the reason, why MPx100 got canned. It is a tri-band model. US carriers would not have carried it, at least Motorola's current Smartphone buddy AT&T (Cingular) will not have carried it.

ShivShanks

08-01-2004, 06:51 AM

Most GSM people are totally clueless that the US uses a totally incompatible GSM 850/1900. And it is only GSM 850 which will be used for wide coverage in the US. The older still incompatible GSM 1900 in the US has limited coverage. So your GSM tri band 900/1800/1900 phones will do scott in the US. You will actually need quad band phones which are expensive and very few.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=922

Motorola announced 3 new and 2 updated phones last Tuesday. Oddly enough all 5 are quad-band GSM.

It appears now that GSM in the US is taking off, manufacturers are taking note and producing appropriately.

Well I never claimed that in future there wouldn't start appearing some more Quad band phones. It is indeed good that more quad band phones are now available for the GSM folks. However I note that till today its only Motorola that is producing Quad band phones. Nothing is mentioned about the price of these phones so that's an important factor that's not even known. The installed base is still overwhelmingly not Quad Band. Moreover Motorola only has a certain %age of the market hence the majority of the new phones sales are still not quad band. So why don't other mfrs come up with quad band phones? Or for that matter why isn't every GSM phone sold today even tri-band at least? It should be illuminating for people to read this comment -
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/discuss.php?fm=m&ff=922&fi=71778

BTW if you need a phone to use in the rest of the world and you are going to buy a new phone in any case and pay extra for it, then why not the upcoming CDMA/GSM phone? After all that would give you full CDMA coverage with 3G in the US (and abroad where CDMA is avl) and GSM coverage when you are abroad.

P.S. BTW as far as I can make out from information on that page only 3 of the 5 phones are mentioned as Quad Band. Where did you get the informaion that all 5 are Quad Band?

Janak Parekh

08-02-2004, 03:50 PM

I'm even more surprised that Americans reading that here didn't have anything to say.
I totally forgot about this conversation. Long conversation it's been, too. 8O I'm going to put a watch on it, now.

P.S. BTW as far as I can make out from information on that page only 3 of the 5 phones are mentioned as Quad Band. Where did you get the informaion that all 5 are Quad Band?
Agreed -- in particular, the MPx will be triband, which is a huge blow for US adoption. :( Rich Brome of Phone Scoop mentioned on PPCT that quadband is actually rather unpopular because it's difficult to make an antenna that works well for all four frequencies. In fact, very few GSM phones coming out today are quadband -- most are being released as two triband versions (800/1800/1900 and 900/1800/1900). I'm hoping they'll eventually make an 800/1800/1900 version if not a quadband version.

Anyway, I think the reason you're seeing less adoption for Smartphones in CDMA markets is because the #1 market is the US, and to get a phone (especially CDMA) approved here for carrier sales takes a ridiculous amount of testing. It's easier to push phones out in Europe and other markets than here, so it's relatively cheaper for a manufacturer to initially market a device as GSM, as they know they'll be able to get it to consumers' hands quicker. This is not a fault of the technology per se -- I've reported amazingly advanced Windows CE-based phones in Korea many times -- all running in CDMA -- but rather the way the two technologies have evolved across the globe. It is quite frankly a shame that consumers here don't have SIM-like technologies in CDMA, as I think it would have immensely helped manufacturer interest and the speed of phone deployment. That is the one advantage I see in the GSM consortium, and the CDMA Development Group doesn't have the same muscle.

As for Palm CDMA smartphone popularity, that's largely due to the fact that Palm smartphones have been developed longer than WM Smartphones. Qualcomm started the trend by developing the pdQ -- the first Palm smartphone ever -- and guess what? It was CDMA. Many years ago -- I got mine in '98 or '99. (Huge, too, at 10.4 oz. 8O) They sold the business to Kyocera, who has continued to churn out Palm smartphones. WM Smartphones are a relatively new business -- 2 years old?

--janak

p.s. One interesting note on bands -- I've read the same story as ShivShanks, a long time ago, but I'll have to spend time digging it up. The irony is that wCDMA is going to run on different frequencies, and I believe cdma2000 1xEV-DO will run on the same frequencies it's running now (i.e., 800/1900 in the US)... so much for consistency. ;) Long-term, the entire market is going to fracture, as we're going to need more wireless spectrum. You'll eventually see mobile carriers in the US adopt 700MHz when the analog TV networks die in favor of digital TV (say, around 2010).

yslee

08-02-2004, 04:26 PM

Janak Parekh

08-02-2004, 04:28 PM

Exactly what I've said in my (largely ignored) post. Push for it. Don't be a slave to the carriers!
Easier said than done, especially when Verizon has the best coverage and service for me. :(

I'm hoping that as GSM carriers' coverage here increases, the CDMA carriers will wake up to the advantages. We'll see.

--janak

Duncan

08-02-2004, 04:43 PM

FTR -

GSM was designed purely as a European standard (long before it was renamed from Groupe Spéciale Mobile). The intention was to enable mobile phones across Europe to interoperate across networks.

CDMA was rejected in part because it is not an open standard.

It was Australia, and later other nations, that chose to adopt the GSM standard and make it global.

The US did indeed ask that 1800 not be used as a frequency. However - this was a) some time after the intial 900 networks had been rolled out and 1800 was already agreed as best for Euope (so the US were very late to he party) and b) came with an astonishingly arrogant sting - they wanted Europe to change its plans to go for 1800Mhz, for what was intended as a European standard, but refused to confirm that GSM would be approved...! In short - the US govt. wanted Europe to change its plans to suit them, without offering any incentive.

It was pointed out, way back then, that this was unreasonable and since various European countries had had to make changes to accommodate the agreed frequencies - so could the US if it wanted to join in.

It was also recognised, even back then, that by the time the US was ready to adopt GSM, tri-band phones would be perfectly feasible. The need for quad-band phones? - well that was never actually necessary... The US could easily have standardised on one frequency.

So - let's not have any of this silly revisionist history about Europe developing a global standard and not listening to the poor Americans. As the recent silly demands over biometric passports, customs info and GPS show - the US govt. frequently demands that everyone else fits in with them, no matter what the inconvenience/expense to others - and are more than capable of thowing their toys out of the pram when they don't get their way. The case of GSM is simply another example (hardly surpising when some US Republican senators seem to be under the impression that GSM is a French created, managed and owned technology still under the Groupe Spéciale Mobile).

This isn't US bashing - I never hold a people responsible for decisions made by their stupid governments - especially when there is rarely a sensible choice...!

Oh and - GSM had 500 million subscribers in 2001, over 1 billion in 2004. The mobile phone companies see this, look at the figures for CDMA, and then get on with designing GSM phones that will sell more, have no expensive proprietary fees (Qulacomm) to accommodate and be used on more countries. Capabilities of the technologies, bands etc. - all relatively meaningless to be frank...

Janak Parekh

08-02-2004, 04:58 PM

Thanks for your points. I may have heard differently, but I don't have any evidence as of this moment to back it up, so I'll assume the case is as you state. ;) Two minor nits:

CDMA was rejected in part because it is not an open standard.
I know that's one reason, but isn't it pretty well documented that obstinance on the part of Ericsson played a substantial role as well?

The need for quad-band phones? - well that was never actually necessary... The US could easily have standardised on one frequency.
Nope - 1900MHz doesn't have enough bandwidth. We use two bands largely for the same reason you guys do.

--janak

Duncan

08-02-2004, 05:12 PM

I know that's one reason, but isn't it pretty well documented that obstinance on the part of Ericsson played a substantial role as well?

They were one of several European mobile phone manufacturers to point out, not unreasonably, that they would prefer a non-proprietary standard to having a potential competitor hold them over a barrel. I imagine it was seen as obstinance from certain perspectives - but common sense really...!

Nope - 1900MHz doesn't have enough bandwidth. We use two bands largely for the same reason you guys do.

I don't have the reference to hand - but that comes from a speech given by a rep from a US GSM network at a GSM conference a couple of years ago. There was an alternative that was denied to GSM networks in the US.

ShivShanks

08-02-2004, 05:53 PM

Nope - 1900MHz doesn't have enough bandwidth. We use two bands largely for the same reason you guys do.

--janak

You are correct but the reasons are slightly different. The US doesn't have enough bandwidth in the 800MHz spectrum. That's why 1900 MHz was introduced.

ShivShanks

08-02-2004, 06:36 PM

Duncan

08-02-2004, 07:06 PM

ShivShanks

08-02-2004, 08:51 PM

I don't have the reference to hand - but that comes from a speech given by a rep from a US GSM network at a GSM conference a couple of years ago. There was an alternative that was denied to GSM networks in the US.

I'm afraid you are either confused about something, mistaken or misinformed. The fact of the matter is that the 800MHz spectrum in the US doesn't have enough bandwidth. The reason is that many emergency and public safety radio communications happen on that band. If you were to even do a cursory search you will realise the FCC has been trying to reslove this issue for many years but it is not a simple task moving all thess people and equipment used since years -
http://www.fix800mhznow.com/
http://www.911dispatch.com/information/nextel/nextel_plan.html
So you see this has been an issue since 1987. Way before GSM was finalized. So there is no way the US could have moved to a 800 MHz only frequency spectrum for mobile communications. There was no option but to open up 1900MHz also.

As I recall the point she made was that there was a better alternative before either 850 or 1900Mhz were chosen. I said nothing about sticking to 850...

Huh? How and what was a better alternative before 850 and 1900 MHz were chosen? Like I told you the US military had been using 900 and 1800 MHz for a long time so that couldn't be chosen. The 800 MHz band was being used for public safety much before GSM was finalized and therefore did not have enough bandwidth. The only solution was to open up the 1900 MHz band to give wide enough spectrum. What exactly are you suggesting could have been done? I'm afraid I don't quite see what is the point you are trying to make.

When the same thing happened in Europe due to UK wanting 1800MHz then that is pragamatism but when a similar issue exists here in the US it is arrogance? What more can I say ...

Oh dear - hard to discuss points with someone who has misread one's post...

The UK developed the 1800 standard yes. It was, as you say, purely pragmatic and was readily adopted by the GSM standards body. The point you've missed is - the UK was part of the GSM group, were involved in planning and creating it (at the heart of the process in fact), had every intention of using it and, being European, were part of the 'target audience' of GSM. The US, as I've already pointed out, came late to the party, expected others to change long crafted plans to suit them, refused to commit to approving GSM and, to be clear, were not European and so not what GSM was then developed for. How hard is that to grasp?

LOL! So then you yourself say that GSM was a European standard? Then the GSM folks should quit calling it a World Standard if it was only meant for Europeans. The spectrum incompatibility issue was known at the very onset of the GSM work. So when the US expresses its practical ground reality of not being able to use the GSM spectrums then it is being a bully? If the Europeans really wanted a world standard then they would have worked with the US in resolving the issue and finding a common middle ground. I have no problems in GSM being a standard to solve Europe's diverse mobile phone technologies at that time. But quit pretending that it was the one ordained technology for the whole world. It wasn't and it isn't.

Instead of understanding these issues its very easy for some Europeans to misunderstand everything and show their prejudice against the US when the ground reality and facts are very different.

It is on matters such as this that the US developed a reputation for arrogance in the first place. It is far too easy for *some* in the US to see prejudice rather than acknowledge how much their government has a tendency to throw its weight around and try to bully other nations.

Could be in some cases. However you haven't shown any proof so far that such was the case in this context of the GSM standards. You behave as if the Europeans are saints and don't throw about their own weight when it comes to it. This would be getting off topic but who were the countries that which colonised much of the developing world and opressed them till they all achieved independence one by one? And it hasn't even been 60 years since then.

I have been backing most of my contentions with links wherever possible. I haven't seen anything in support of this so called supposed heavy handdedness of the US w.r.t. Mobile Standards.

Frankly life is too short to go around obsessing every little detail. You quote as many links as you like...! :) Nothing you have referenced yet denies a single word of the official GSM history (Google it - learn something).

Very funny. Supposedly my posting links in support of my position is strange and you arguing without showing any links in support of your position is fine. And I'm supposed to look for links in support of your position? I doubt you'd do very well in moderated debates :)

To me it seems like its very difficult for the Europeans to understand the compulsions and the groundrealities here in the US and quite simply blame it on US arrogance.

Not on US arrogance - on the stupidity of US government and the absurd fear of industry regulation that led to the telecoms being such a mess in the first place...

Whatever be the history, the current policy of letting market forces determine what happens (but under an independent agency oversight) is the best in the long run IMHO. That's how most advances in the West have come about with a free market economy and competition. If the Europeans want to get into the whole mess of a socialist style goverment mandated technologies then that's their choice. That's not how the US wants to do things now.

ShivShanks

08-02-2004, 09:03 PM

It is quite frankly a shame that consumers here don't have SIM-like technologies in CDMA, as I think it would have immensely helped manufacturer interest and the speed of phone deployment. That is the one advantage I see in the GSM consortium, and the CDMA Development Group doesn't have the same muscle.

Exactly what I've said in my (largely ignored) post. Push for it. Don't be a slave to the carriers!

We are pushing for it. Some of us don't like it one bit and are pressing for changes -
http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/handset%20locking%20letter%20FCC%20-%20mar%2011%2004.pdf

I should mention that it is due to concerns and pressures like these that phone number portability was allowed last year. So its not like nothing happens here. For some time the carriers had some leeway in building up their networks due to the huge amount of investments required in a country the size of the US. If the stage was highly regulated from the very begining then few companies would have wanted to invest. Now that the network is quite a bit built up and competition is very healthy, changes can and are being made.

Duncan

08-02-2004, 09:48 PM

I did start to draft a point by point repsonse (frankly largely pointing out how you seem to have wilfully misread and misrepresented the content of my previous posts). Then I saw this: Whatever be the history, the current policy of letting market forces determine what happens (but under an independent agency oversight) is the best in the long run IMHO. That's how most advances in the West have come about with a free market economy and competition. If the Europeans want to get into the whole mess of a socialist style goverment mandated technologies then that's their choice. That's not how the US wants to do things now. and suddenly I just can't take *anything* you say seriously. :lol:

lorienferris

08-03-2004, 01:23 AM

Wow, you guy are really impassioned about this!

Kris Kumar

08-03-2004, 06:17 AM

Oh and - GSM had 500 million subscribers in 2001, over 1 billion in 2004. The mobile phone companies see this, look at the figures for CDMA, and then get on with designing GSM phones that will sell more, have no expensive proprietary fees (Qulacomm) to accommodate and be used on more countries. Capabilities of the technologies, bands etc. - all relatively meaningless to be frank...

Couple of good points...I totally forgot about Qualcomm royalty.

Kris Kumar

08-03-2004, 06:22 AM

After reading all the interesting points, the history, the figures...I feel that there may be one more thing that may help CDMA succeed.

Since CDMA is smaller in terms of carrier adoption, and smaller means it can move faster in terms of technology adoption and standardization. As for GSM, because it is spread over many countries, many bands, it may have trouble in the future agreeing on common standards. I am sure the GSM body will guide the standards, but adaption by the carriers will not happen as quickly as in the CDMA world.

scoopster

08-04-2004, 01:25 AM

Regulation is sometimes a good thing. Less silly squabbling over the 'how' of mobile communicatons - more concentration on building up the industry.

No kidding. Ever wonder why South Korea leads the world in high-speed wireless/mobile services? Because the government declared 1700MHz CDMA was the only thing the country was going to use.

GSMfan

08-09-2004, 02:18 PM

Okay, I like GSM. I work with GSM. CDMA has some benefits too. However, there are some blatant lies being told in this thread that I feel is my duty to clear up. 1. GSM will never go 3G because it is too expensive to upgrade GSM towers. This is competely untrue. This has been proven very recently with the launch of UMTS (on existing GSM towers) in Seattle by AT&T Wireless. For those of you who are not aware, AT&T Wireless does not have a whole lot of money to be spending on network upgrades. Poor cashflow is one of the key reasons they put themselves up for sale earlier in the year. Cingular also began its launch of UMTS in Atlanta. Where is Verizon's high-speed data network? One of the key reasons that GSM was picked as the global standard is because it is an easily scaleable platform. The only reason that UMTS isn't in all markets yet is the majority of American wireless customers don't care about data. They are only interested in having a phone they can annoy people with by screaming into it in inappropriate locations. The decision has been made to introduce the technology slowly. Most people think that WAP is the sound that their trailer door makes in the wind, that XHTML is a dirty movie, and that UMTS and WCDMA are diseases you get from sleeping with your cousin. (Sorry, I'm an American and I don't mean to stereotype, but we seem to have an inherent fear of technology.) Those who post to this site and care about Smart Phones and data transfer speeds and all of the possibilities the technology has to offer are in the vast minority. 2. Someone posted that CDMA is just as available internationally as GSM. That is just not true. While it is true that CDMA is available in other countries, some even in countries with GSM, the fact is that GSM covers more square miles world-wide than CDMA. CDMA is not even close in this category. In most countries with both technologies, the coverage area of GSM is roughly 3 times that of the CDMA coverage(US excluded). As for the rarity of phones that can roam internationally, this is not true either. Even my lousy old Nokia 3200 can roam in Europe. While the US uses 850, 1800, and 1900Mhz, Europe and almost everyone else uses 900 and 1850, so the "tri-band" phones that have 900, 1800, and 1900 or any combo. of 2 US frequencies and 1 Euro. will work just about anywhere. The phones do not have to be "quad-band." Plus, most phones coming out now are enabled on all GSM frequencies. The US did not originally have the 850 Mhz range for GSM. 850 was overlaid in major markets only recently by the GSM carriers because the 1900 frequency range that GSM was originally allocated for does not penetrate walls as well. Analog networks were allocated 850 originally. 3. The last point of contention is one that should seem obvious. Just because the US CDMA carriers are growing faster than the US GSM carriers does not mean it has ANYTHING to do technology. The fact is the CDMA leader (Verizon), has a MUCH BETTER customer service reputation than the GSM carriers. Both technologies will continue to grow and thrive provided the operators don't screw over their customers.