Top message: Bay Area GSM Useless? CDMA better? by churutas2
Replying to: Re: Bay Area GSM Useless? CDMA better? by denver
Re: Bay Area GSM Useless? CDMA better?
CDMA is much more flexible in the long run for the company, allowing quicker speeds for data, etc.
GSM (Global Standards for Mobile Communications) is a distant variant of TDMA, but is completely different, and much more efficient then TDMA or even CDMA.
NONE of the above information will mean you will get better reception someplace, only that you might get a tad better voice quality, with TDMA giving the least quality, GSM the best.
CDMA2000 is a few years away, still. Don't bother even worrying about that, it won't effect you as the consumer for many years, but what he says is true.. CDMA2000 (Or the same technology GSM providers name it as UMTS) will out-do CDMA and GSM combined, the way the providers overlay their networks with it, is how it will effect you. Again, far future... nothing imperative right now.
The problem with GSM is that the network is fledgeling, compared to most CDMA providers, who have kept CDMA for many, many years. It has many holes in it that need to be filled still, but the quality of the network ON AVERAGE is much better. The differences are almost impossible to tell, and its up to you, the consumer, to decide which you like best. If one provider has a giant hole in its network where you need it, yet another does not, use that provider then. TDMA will still be run for a long, long time, the providers that offer it are not going to just drop it like a newborn giraffe, because the vast majority of their customer base is still on TDMA. They just won't be building out the TDMA networks anymore, and consentate soley on GSM, so they can fill the demand for it.
- Re: Bay Area GSM Useless? CDMA better? by moobak