Show me actual scientific proof of it

yeah its true right now if you took a vote since most of the world is on GSM, GSM would win. But, India and China are both going CDMA and since those are the number 1 & 2 most populated countries in the world, in a few years most of the world will be on CDMA.

Thats more oppinion then proff. Those same countrys may deploy more GSM coverage to. I think GSM will be out for a while.

no thats fact. india and china are already putting up tons of cdma towers.

Don't forget Russia with their intentions of putting up a nationwide CDMA450 network.
The real problem with GSM is it is not adequate for the future, it has gone as far as it can. UMTS has proven to be an expensive dog that doesn't work as well as CDMA. Compare what DoCoMo users in Tokyo experience with what SK telecom users experience in Seoul. In a few years CDMA will have about the same amount of users as GSM/UMTS. In developing countries it is all about the money and CDMA is much more cost effective than GSM or UMTS.

In my OPINION GSM reception sux. With CDMA, you pretty much either have a signal or you don't. In other words, in my experiences, 1 bar is just as clear as 6, whereas GSM 1 bar of reception can have somewhat of a delay or sound like its going in/out on you. what have others experienced?

are india and china putting up cdma or wcdma towers?

wolfsong said:
are india and china putting up cdma or wcdma towers?

Both.

I agree with the sound quality but can anyone prove it with any evidence other than the number of people per channel on CDMA. I have had both and I think CDMA is much clearer and less staticky but evidence is nice to see if anyone can give a link or credible reasons why?

remember gsm is nothing more then a different type of tdma. it is a digital technology.

actually gsm used to be able to support 3 calls per channel. as gsm got more and more crowded they had to find a way to increase capacity so what they did is they literally cut the call quality in half. now gsm can handle 6 calls per channel. gsm is a spectrum hog. in addition to the low call quality it has reached the peek of its data capabilities with edge. And edge is approximately the same data speeds as 1x. gsm is a dead end technology that is why world wide they are switching to wcdma which is not backwards compatable with gsm. in addition to this gsm has no natural inscription. What gsm uses for encryption is a fixed key that is saved to the s...
(continues)

That post was full of total bullshit. 😳 Unbelievable.

stevelvl said:
gsm is a dead end technology that is why world wide they are switching to wcdma which is not backwards compatable with gsm.

WCDMA is backwards compatible with GSM. WCDMA is nothing more than the GSM core technology with an overlay of the coded air-interface that is used by CDMA. WCDMA is very much the forward evolution of GSM. After WCDMA, there are upgrades such as HSDPA and HSUPA (more than double the speeds of HSDPA) that will keep GSM technology alive. On the other hand, CDMA is coming to an end. So far, the only true CDMA technologies that are the future of CDMA are EV-DO and EV-DV. However, the EV-DV standard has b...
(continues)

What you don't seem to understand is that the air interface is the only thing that distinguishes which cellular system is used. GSM uses multiple frequencies at the same time with up to six users/channel. CDMA has only one frequency that is used by all the users at the same time with a code for each particular conversation (theoretically unlimited, but in the real world somewhere between 25-35 users at the same time before excessive interference occurs). WCDMA will be doing the same thing on a wider channel-the GSM interface disappears when there are no longer individual channels in use. In addition to the soft handoffs by CDMA (the phone is in touch with 1-4 towers at the same time) dropped calls are fewer under normal situations. I've...
(continues)

Chris Russell said:
What you don't seem to understand is that the air interface is the only thing that distinguishes which cellular system is used.

So according to your method of thinking, since CDMA and WCDMA both have the coded air-interface, they are the same exact technology? There is not destinction between them? 🤣 That's funny.


Parts of the WCDMA standard are based on GSM technology. WCDMA borrows certain technology ideas from CDMA, as the name implies, but is in fact very different and incompatible with phones and networks using "CDMA" technology.

The air interface of a technology is ONE VERY SMALL aspect of the different types of systems that are out there. Adding a coded a...
(continues)

Well, if you check the WCDMA info, you will see that it uses 'spread spectrum'. GSM is 'discrete spectrum', CDMA is 'spread spectrum'. The individual channels will be eliminated in WCDMA and one wide (about 5-6 times wider {the former GSM channels} than a CDMA channel) 'spread spectrum' channel will be used. You are very correct that CDMA2000 and WCDMA are incompatible, the channel widths are vastly different.

GSM as implemented by Cingular ( Nokia 6140i) sucked, ATTWS and T-Mobile GSM as roaming were slightly better, but SprintPCS always had better sound quality since 1988 with an old Samsung and a Nokia 3588i for the last two years. You all need to read this even though it is almost two years old, it is still relevant:

http://den »...
(continues)

I confess to a deep feeling of satisfaction about this on a personal level, primarily because of all the horseshit I put up with from GSM fans over the years when they talked about how superior the European approach to this was.

Talk about a biased article. Sure, I could write an entire chapter on why CDMA is bogus too. Doesn't make any of it more valid. 🤣

1. GSM is not TDMA. It borrows principles from TDMA but it works much more efficiently. Just as WCDMA is not CDMA. It borrows principles from CDMA but it works much more efficiently.
2. He is ragging on GPRS for carrying data only? What about EV-DO? Data only...
3. A lot of things have changed in that two years. Read the article again and see how dumb it look...
(continues)

RUFF1415 said:
I confess to a deep feeling of satisfaction about this on a personal level, primarily because of all the horse**** I put up with from GSM fans over the years when they talked about how superior the European approach to this was.

Talk about a biased article. Sure, I could write an entire chapter on why CDMA is bogus too. Doesn't make any of it more valid. 🤣

1. GSM is not TDMA. It borrows principles from TDMA but it works much more efficiently. Just as WCDMA is not CDMA. It borrows principles from CDMA but it works much more efficiently.
2. He is ragging on GPRS for carrying data only? What about EV-DO? Data only...
3. A lot of things have changed in that two years. Read the art

...
(continues)

WCDMA is backwards compatible with GSM because it can handoff seamlessly between the two networks. If you are in the middle of a call on a WCDMA signal and you suddenly are without of reach of the WCDMA network you were on (probably while traveling) your call will be handed off to GSM without being dropped. Try doing that with CDMA and AMPS. You are right that CDMA and AMPS are not backwards compatible. You are wrong that WCDMA and GSM are not.

Most WCDMA phones include GSM as well, for backward compatibility.

Straight from the phonescoop glossary.

What about that statement is so hard to comprehend?

RUFF1415 said:
Most WCDMA phones include GSM as well, for backward compatibility.

Straight from the phonescoop glossary.

What about that statement is so hard to comprehend?

read that staitment again. "MOST wcdma phones INCLUDE gsm as well for backwards compatablillity. "

in other words not all wcdma phone will work on gsm. it has to be a feature built into the phone.

this is different then cdma. cdma is a true backwards copatable system. an evdo phone will work on an is-95 (cdma 2000) system with out any aditional extras or programming it is a natural feature of the chip in the phone.

wcdma is different. the chip naturally will not work on gsm. it has to have the gsm feture added in...
(continues)

I live outside of Pittsburgh in the county seat of a neighboring county and use Cingular. Population is around 50,000 just in the city and the surrounding area. There are only two Cingular towers in our area and I have yet to experience more than 2 dropped calls in my city or anywhere I travel in Southwestern Pennsylvania. I used to use Verizon and had experienced more dropped calls in a much shorter time period and they use CDMA. What's the explanation for that?


You do need both chipsets in a phone to be able to use both networks, but that doesn't make WCDMA not backwards compatable with GSM. The point that makes WCDMA backwards compatable with GSM is that they can hand off calls seamlessly between each network. You can't do that...
(continues)

My biggest issue with the entire UMTS/HSDPA thing is the credibility of the inventors. When UMTS was announced the advertised data rates were 1mbps on a busy network. Reality turned out to be between 250kbps and 500kbps, respectable but not what was advertised. Now we have HSDPA and its 11mbps advertised speed. The first chipsets come out and they roughly mirror EVDO release 0. They need to build a chipset first and then announce speeds. But then again they are desperate to beat the competition (CDMA) so they look for any advantage they can find. From what I see from what has been the reality worldwide the two, UMTS and CDMA are pretty comparable except in cost where CDMA is much more affordable for the operators than UMTS. The argument will...
(continues)

CDMA hands down to AMPS with no problems during a call. It just won't hand back up to CDMA in the same call. Those of us in rural areas know this well.

SPCSVZWJeff said:
CDMA hands down to AMPS with no problems during a call. It just won't hand back up to CDMA in the same call. Those of us in rural areas know this well.

I've experienced problems with CDMA to analog handoffs. I don't know if it was due to my phone (Nokia 3589), or network problems...but I've found CDMA in South Florida to be FAR more reliable than GSM.

I personally have sprint, had Verizon and tried Cingular. The sound quality on Sprint beats both of them hands down.

Just my opinion but I do not think GSM has the sound quality or coverage in the states as CDMA.

I thought they were going W-CDMA. W-CDMA is the same as UMTS, its core is GSM but from what I understand I thought that it used some of the tech. from CDMA, but a CDMA carrier would not be able to use this. I'm not saying that I'm right about them moving to wcdma. But I do remember reading several websites that stated that CDMA carriers can not use W-CDMA. If anyone can find a link clarifying this, please let me know, thanks.

I don't know about scientific, but here is the best this layman can do:

GSM uses a 200khz wide channel that 8 users share using TDMA (time division multiple access)technology. GSM cannot use common channels from tower to tower because of crosstalk so on a 30MHZ bandwidth approximately 800 people can use the tower or sector. GSM also only can use the strongest signal when there are many reflected signals such as in a building or in an "urban canyon". Everytime a user travels from cell to cell the network and the phone must negotiate a new channel and slot cycle which on a busy network may not happen quickly enough so the call will drop. Data on a GSM network works fairly well but still has much latency. In short GSM is like a Lexus with a ...
(continues)

Christ Jeff, that was pretty scientific 😁

dude "basing" and "based" you misspelled both horribly in 2 directions.

wat duz that haf tu du with tha subjict? 🤣

rytiffany said:
dude "basing" and "based" you misspelled both horribly in 2 directions.

This from someone who's got the followin' in their profile?:

Ever play poop dollar? where you put poop on a dollar and set it out on the street and wait for someone to come pick it up. Then when they do you yell, "POOP DOLLAR!!" If they figure out that it has poop on it they get freaked out and pissed. Very funny. If they don't get it and pocket it I'll guarantee it was worth the dollar.

Tiff, baby, you are NOT in a position to be worryin' 'bout anyone else's spellin', dig? 😁

LOL.

"but then again the us has always lead the world in terms of technology."

Well, in terms of mobile technology, US is far far behind the rest of the developed world. Just look at the mobile services available, the phones (!!!), the networks... the whole culture of mobility, and yes, USA is is still in the 90's when it comes to mobility.

CDMA is an outsider technology. I don't have any figures to give, but I'd say about 70 to 80% of the wolrd goes for GSM, then there are others like CDMA. GSM grows fastest by far margin, so its dominance is only increasing.

Which one is better? Well the one who is implemented better in a particular case. Bad CDMA network is a bad CDMA, network and vice versa, despite the technology behind it. ...
(continues)

T P said:
LOL.

"but then again the us has always lead the world in terms of technology."

Well, in terms of mobile technology, US is far far behind the rest of the developed world. Just look at the mobile services available, the phones (!!!), the networks... the whole culture of mobility, and yes, USA is is still in the 90's when it comes to mobility.

CDMA is an outsider technology. I don't have any figures to give, but I'd say about 70 to 80% of the wolrd goes for GSM, then there are others like CDMA. GSM grows fastest by far margin, so its dominance is only increasing.

Which one is better? Well the one who is implemented better in a particular case. Bad CDMA network is a bad CDMA, network and vice versa, desp

...
(continues)

Precisely. Nokia is just like all the other manufacturers when it comes to where the money is... Nokia was the company way back when that said they wouldn't build a flip phone bacuse the market for it wasn't there. Yeah, maybe in Europe... Now look. They were losing market share worldwide... What's next??? Start building flip phones and expand on their CDMA reach...

dca said:
Precisely. Nokia is just like all the other manufacturers when it comes to where the money is... Nokia was the company way back when that said they wouldn't build a flip phone bacuse the market for it wasn't there. Yeah, maybe in Europe... Now look. They were losing market share worldwide... What's next??? Start building flip phones and expand on their CDMA reach...

Perfectly stated. Now, imho, Nokia is a company that is in severe trouble here in the US. I think Motorola, among others, will put Nokia out of business in the US if Nokia doesn't do something about it. I mean, c'mon, Cingular has had to recall the last 2 Nokia high end phones released. What does that say about Nokia's future...
(continues)

"What does that say about Nokia's future here?"

I don't know really. Nokia has increased its global market share throughout the year, though.

I don't mean CDMA is obsolote. Of course it isn't. I meant it's not comparable to GSM in popularity and growth. CDMA may be a fine technology, but the innovation and growth is in the GSM arena.

Nokia focuses more on CDMA in 2006, because although small globally, CDMA is still big in USA, for example. And the US and other CDMA markets are big enough to justify the R&D spending. It is quite simple. It is not as if CDMA is going away or something, so if Nokia wants a larger US market share, they need to cover CDMA better. And their share in USA is small. And no wonder why it is, if you look at ...
(continues)

Uh, dude Nokia makes several CDMA phones. Go to a Sprint store and see for yourself. i have been with Sprint for over 3 years using Sanyo phones the past 1 and a half, never once have I dropped a call. Are you the CEO of T aint Mobile or what? You defend GSM as if you were. The truth is, GSM WILL be around for a long time but based on the info i have read in this thread by very knowledgeable people who have given GSM the courtesy of being pretty unbiased, CDMA is better and will only get better.

Of course they do make CDMA phones; actually, they should make a lot more of them and bring them technologically up-to-date.

There's nothing wrong with CDMA as a technology. Whether your network is good or bad depends on how it is built. But the fact is that CDMA is small, and there's no way getting around that. This has resulted in the CDMA operators, the few that there are out there, not being able to offer the latest handset technology to their users. The innovation is on the GSM side, and even there it is largely outside the USA. It wouldn't have to be that way though, if US operators shared the global standard of GSM 900 and 1800 (+ WCDMA and HSDPA) and the operators wouldn't try to screw things up all the time, US markets could emb...
(continues)

T P wrote:

The issues is not whether CDMA is better or worse than GSM. It is not important. They are both fine. It is important to have a real, global standard that the industry can built their business upon. GSM is exactly that. And its benefits are quite obvious: CDMa and other standards' users are lagging behind when the developments concentrate on the other side of the fence.
What exact areas are CDMA lagging behind GSM? Cell phones are moving more and more to data capabilities such as Sprint's EV-DO. This is VERY VERY fast stuff!! Where is GSM in the data transfer spectrum?