Verizon Considering Bid for Sprint

I think the reason is that GSM is the older of the two techs(i am not for sure one this) and i think it is also because of the sim card aspect so that customers dont need to switch phones. But i could be wron on this one.

Well as a GSM subscriber I can tell you I think the sim card thing rocks. Being able to switch phones when you want or being able to travel abroad (if you need to) and get a local sim for your phone are great advatanges.

Plus the phones are just better because there is a larger customer base to market to. Almost all phones that come out today are automatically GSM 900/1800/1900 so they will work is most of the world and thus can be sold in most of the world.

What has always stopped me from switching to CDMA is there lack of quality phones with useful features like bluetooth, infrared, etc. Even when verizon gets a good phone like the Motorola V710 they lock the features down so it's not worth the cost.

I'm not arguing against CDM...
(continues)

there is also a kind of SIM CARD for CDMA moibiles and it's called R-UIM CARD or CDMA SIM.
Haven't you realised that nokia phone seems to have a space for a SIM CARD.
That space is for a RUIM CARD.

Actually I'll be honest and say I did not know about them. That's great.

I just know my friends always had problem upgrading there phones because verizon only lets you do it every 2 years (my girlfriend just complained about her phone last night actually) and then it's a pain to transfer all the numbers. Again not my first hand experience just what other have told me. I went from AT&T wireless TDMA to Voicestream GSM so I have never had verizon or sprint.

I do like having the ability to use whatever phone I want b/c my number is on my sim. Also having my contacts on my sim as well as synchronizing them (and my calendar) via infrared or bluetooth is a very useful/important feature for me.

Yeah, everyone knows that SIM CARD is an advantage of GSM tecnologie but CDMA also have it's own SIM CARD: RUIM CARD.
The big problem is that VZW nor Sprint or any other CDMA carrier in the US doesn't able this feature for CDMA phones.

Hadn't heard (a lot) about or seen RUIM CARDs partially since the US carriers don't use them. Then again it's probably smart business b/c they can have great control over their subscribers.

I guess at the end of the day I just find TMobile cares a lot less about what you are doing (and therefore is less restrictive) then a company like Verizon and I like that. It's interesting to go to Europe and see someone with 2 phones and 3 (pre-pay) sim cards, each sim with a different carrier so they can call their friends on that particular network for less. Seems a lot more free to me.

It is not free, it's cheap and it's good for us. But I don't know why many people talk about europe as if it were the best place in all the world to have a cell phone.
Actually in europe there is no freedom beacuse they don't let wireless providers use other tecnolgies(cdma) than GSM.

I never meant to sound as if I am pro-europe. There's no place I'd rather live besides NYC. The best place in the world to have a cell phone seems to be japan, but that's a whole other topic. I understand that the contours of the continent (of Europe), it's size, and the cost of having cell towers vs a more costly wired line, play into the level of cell coverage and numbers of towers.

I just find most cell companies (in the US) do there best to stop you from being able to do anything fun/cool. I find that the least with TMobile and I can get what I feel is a phone with the features I need (normally by going out and buying phone from outside this country).

I'm not saying what works for me would work for anyone else just that here's ...
(continues)

everyone is free to choose their service provider by I don like GSM not only beacuse CDMA is better it is also because European government don't allow wireless carriers to deploy our tecnology(CDMA). And here in US we let them do whatever they want to built(GSM, GPRS)

And the best carrier in Japan is not DoCoMo using UMTS but KDDI using CDMA. While DoCoMo has way more subscribers they have also had their share of issues with UMTS. KDDI customers are using 3MP camera phones and surfing the internet at high speed while DoCoMo has had to replace every UMTS phone on their network twice.
UMTS uses way more bandwidth for the same thing as CDMA does. But hey the EU praises it as a "homegrown" system. GSM/UMTS will probably become the minorty technology in Tech savvy Asia. The Chinese will implement their own version of CDMA.

What I know is that the development of the chinnese version of cdma was stoped
The chinesse version of cdma is called TD-SCDMA, but all operators have already migrated to CDMA2000 or WCDMA.
There are many more advantages of cdma2000.
The problem for CDMA is that in many places like Europe, the government dont let wireless carriers to deploy cdma2000.

It's called protectionism. How else can the EU halt the development of technologies just because it isn't homegrown. That is why they forbid outside technology even if it puts them at a disadvantage. For their part the UK is leary of the EU but is still a member.

So , US goverment should also forbid GSM tecnology here?
I think they should do that because CDMA tecnology was created here in America by military inteligence. It is "OUR" tecnology!!!!!
I will be in the CDMA side until death.!!!!! 👿

Honest question here.

Why are you so die-had for "OUR" technology when you can barely even speak "OUR" language?

HAHAHAHAHA
I was just going to say, the only thing I have to contribute to this conversation is that there are a lot of people here in dire need of an English class.

Well, that, and that I have had Verizon and TDMA Cingular in the past, and I couldn't get signal in my house with either. It took AT&T Wireless GSM to make that happen.

By the way, Staiano, I completely agree with your thoughts on phones, and have for a long time.

There is so much more GSM network in the world, better or not, that the phone makers must market to those worlds first. It only makes sense from their perspective.

I have had this debate for a long time with myself.. coverage or phone geek factor. The fact is that I keep switching because I get tired of the boring phones.

A pretty sweet looking Verizon phone should be out soon:
https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=515 »

Has bluetooth, video (not sure if it will do calls, doubt it), infrared and other decent toys. Check it out. I know that you like GSM, but I thought I'd show you my next phone and just note that MAYBE Verizo...
(continues)

The only problem with that phone is Verizon Will probably butcher the Bluetooth like they did with the Motorola one that came out. If remember correctly people were complaining about the fact that they could not sync it with their PC. The only thing it was good for was a wireless headset. Now that is a load of BS. I'm sure that Verizon did that to make it harder on people who wanted to get free ringtones, graphics, and/or games on to their phones. As far as I'm concerned, Verizon can keep their technology and their phones.

Totally BigRob. Huge complaints about being able to connect to other bluetooth devices besides a headset. If there was a way to get the motorola v710 or the nokia 6255 on their own though they would be worth looking into.

Verizon = great coverage, slow to bring phones out and locks them down so you can't use their features.

I mean why until recently have ONLY gsm phones had bluetooth? Doesn't seem to a a problem with CDMA an bluetooth working together, from anything I have heard/read...

Do you think if you bought the V710 phone from here
http://commerce.motorola.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/Prod ... »
the bluetooth wouldn't be locked down?

They mention:

How to get service

Phone only - The new phone you purchase will be delivered unactivated. You may then take the phone to your current service provider and have them activate it.

Advantage: Purchasing a phone but keeping your existing service plan is more costly, but you don't have to start a new service plan, or extend your current plan.

Phone and plan - Purchase a new Motorola phone and start a new service plan. A minimum service contract is required, and you will have your choice of plans to choose from.

...
(continues)

jcheek, couldn't agree with you more. I just happened to make the decision (and I could because I live in a huge city) that the phone was #1 and if I lost a call every so often I would live with it. I can't tell you how many of my friends hate their verizon phones and at the same time love the coverage (my girlfriend who is from ohio, still has family there, and only can get verizon coverage there or my buddy who travels to all the rural'est of rural areas for business and has to have them, even though he'd love a phone that could do more). My friends all loved the old startacs and just about nothing else since.

I actually like the phone you sent, it's seems to be the best verizon phone I have seen (from just looking at the specs). Bu...
(continues)

Free?
Half of the inventory in a RadioShach store is illegal in Europe. They regulate their businesses to death. The governments there are involved in every facet of people's lives. Stores cannot choose their hours of operation their governments tell them their open hours. If that is freedom then let me be in American bondage.

they hate using our tecnology.(CDMA). Actually they would love it but the governmet doesn't allow wireless providers to do that.
They hate everything that comes from America, I don't know why some people think Europe means FREEDOM???

Actually one interesting idea i saw while in Lviv, Ukraine that in order to open a business you also have to restore and maintain the sidewalk in front of the business. But I think there is another reason they dont allow CDMA in Europe. If all carriers run GSM, than they can all roam off of eachother creating better customer coverage. Throw CDMA in there it jepardizes that.

Why did Verizon lock down the V710? Were they afraid you were going to use bluetooth with a headset to call someone one? No, but they sure didn't want you to be able to sync your contacts with another bluetooth device or connect a pda device to the phone via bluetooth and then use the phone to browse the internet. Like I can do with TMobile.

If there was a way to purcahse unblocked CDMA like you can with GSM phones verizon users would be a lot happier. Doesn't sound like Verizon is so free?

I never meant to make it sound as if (I thought) Europe is free but some of what goes on there seems to leave the user with more capabilities (or freedoms). I mean does it really matter that CDMA is better when the whole continent is covered by...
(continues)

Maybe if TMobile cultivated more revenue streams then they could improve their system coverage.

Totally and you do pay for the internet connectivity, it's called TZones. Even worse (for us) or better (for them) they split out emails from sending pictures so they can get you to pay twice. Sounds like a great way to make money.

They really do offer the most minutes for the cheapest amount of money though (and I find their customer service to be pretty good too). If you are lucky enough to be able to have them (i.e. coverage from them where you live) they are worth it.

At the same time I think TMobile will always be what they are, a European company wanting a US presence and therefore won't ever be #1 but will still have there place.

Ages ago the powers that be decided they were going to use GSM throughout a envisioned unified Europe. Unified as far as traffic. So every cellular tower put up was GSM. Doesnt mean its better. There are just many GSM towers covering every bit of Europe. Verizon has CDMA, and though they have by far the most cellular coverage and spend over $4 Billion a year in building it out, there are areas that they dont cover. Same with any US company and I seriously doubt that every nook and cranny in Europe is covered. CDMA, has better voice clarity/quality, less drop calls, and greater network capacity. One CDMA tower can handle 5 to 10 times the call capacity of one GSM tower. CDMA is better, Verizon has more towers then anyone in the states, thats ...
(continues)

You're wrong.

Verizon does not have more towers than everyone in the states.

Cingular has approximately 40,000 owned towers. Verizon has approximately 21,500 owned towers. 🙄

I've posted this info on this site several times before...but if need be I'll post it again.

P.S. I'm not absolutely sure but I think your CDMA call capacty info is wrong too. I understood that CDMA could hold about 60 calls per channel. I know that GSM holds more than the 6 calls per channel that your info suggests. CDMA definitely has the higher call capacity of the two but I don't believe that its anywhere near being 10-fold.

yeah your're right,CDMA call capacity is bigger than GSM, that's why they don't need to biult many towers.

Thank you Captain Obvious! 🙄

Not to mention in the merger with ATTWS that Cingular has towers literally on top of each other. That doesn't improve coverage. The new company pretty much has the same holes as before.

well there were a few areas that one company had that another didn't. Plus, in the places of overlap they will be taking down towers, and moving them to places where there are holes in the coverage. It will take a while, but in the end it it will make things better.

Are you kidding me? Cingular gained something like 17 NEW markets from AT&T. How is that "literally on top of each other"? Cingular went from serving 85 of the top 100 to all 100. Cingular filled many holes in their coverage, but from their maps you wouldn't know it because they always included AT&T towers (roaming) anyway.

P.S. I live in one of the markets where Cingular had no service. Pittsburgh.

I aggree since TDMA i believe runs about 15-20 calls per channel

whoops my error it is only 10.

CDMA is better than GSM in call quality, capacity, and coverage.
Unfortunately CDMA wireless carriers doesn't use in the best way their netwroks.
In many countries, wireless providers have changed their networks from TDMA to CDMA 1x.
CDMA is the future, doesn't matter if the network is GSM or CDMA, they both will end in CDMA2000 or WCDMA(UMTS)

I don't think you fully understand what your are talking about.

CDMA is better than GSM in call quality, capacity, and coverage.

CDMA, better in both call capacity and coverage (how far the signal can travel), is not better than GSM in call quality. GSM has always been said to have the "truest sound" of any wireless technology. CDMA has several issues with static, echo, and hollow sounds. Their is technical reasoning for this that I'm sure somebody on here could varify, but I myself can not recall what those specific reasonings are. It has been explained to me before and it makes sense.

CDMA is the future, doesn't matter if the network is GSM or CDMA, they both will end in CDMA2000 or WCDMA(U

...
(continues)

staiano said:
If CDMA is the best technology then why don't places like Europe and Asia use it over GSM?

...makes sure as many technologies are out there, even if the stink (see TDMA)...

Why is it that I can get signal in the tube in London (or anywhere else on the continent of Europe with GSM) but my girlfriend, with verizon, can't get signal in my apartment in Brooklyn?

TDMA stinks? You might be interested to find out that GSM is based on TDMA. 🙂

See page 14 of the howstuffworks.com cell phone article:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone14.htm »

Dump your brand loyalty, look at the specifics and you'll realize that CDMA handles more callers per channel and can squeeze more ...
(continues)

I'll try to reply to all the points you made...

1) I have a masters degree in electrical engineering and have done work with wireless and radio signals. I do actually understand the differences in code division (cmda) vs time division (tdma) multiple access and it's association to GSM, but yes old tmda stinks. I used to stand in an AT&T wireless store with my nokia 6120 unable to get more than 2 bars (this is 5 years ago).

2) As for my brand loyalty, it has nothing to do with that. I could care less if I am on TMobile/Cingular/Verizon/Nextel/Sprint/whoeve r. Verizon has crappy phones and so does sprint compared to the GSM ones. That the main reason I have GSM plain and simple, better devices. Verizon is very slow to market with pho...
(continues)

1.As you said you are an electrical engenieer, I think you should know both tecnologies CDMA and GSM will end in CDMA, because GSM network have to upgrade to WCDMA.

2.You said you prefer GSM just because it has better devices but thats no true, CDMA has better divices, the problem is that wireless carriers doens't bring them all.
Motorola v710 is a great phone, but VZW block bluetooth. But this phone is also available from other carries, and with all its features unlock. There is also Kyocera Koi phone, and may other with great features.

I think you should try using a CDMA phone, then you will see they are better. I'm sure you can find the phone with the features you want.

I know ever thing is going the way of CDMA. My complaint(s) are not about the technology at all but how the carriers act and I normally talk about Verizon b/c they are/were the biggest and Sprint (also those are the options I have in NYC, sprint, verizon, tmobile, nextel and cingular).

I have no ties to any of the carriers or the technology despite that it seems I am only pro-GSM. I can (more easily) get an unlocked or unblocked GSM phone with the features I want, bluetooth and infrared being the top 2. I'm not saying CDMA phones stink, I'm saying the ones Verizon/Sprint bring to market do and the decent one take to long to be released or get hijack like verizon did with the v710.

I was amazed when I recently made a video call over ...
(continues)

Sprint and VZW are deploying a new upgrade of their CDMA 1x network: CDMA 1XEVDO(Evolution Data Only). In this network you can make video calls as in UMTS.
I hope with this upgrade they bring better phones than the ones they offer by now.

I definitely don't have a degree in electrical engineering, so please bear with me. This comes from the phonescoop.com "glossary" section:

"WCDMA is the 3G standard that most GSM carriers are moving to. Parts of the WCDMA standard are based on GSM technology. WCDMA networks are designed to integrate with GSM networks at certain levels. Most WCDMA phones include GSM as well, for backward compatibility.

"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."

If this is correct, the argument that CDMA is better because even GSM will end up as CDMA appears to be flawed. Not only do CDMA and WCDMA seem entirely different, b...
(continues)

WCDMA is based on CDMA as GSM is based on TDMA.
The way for upgrading networks to 3G technology is only by CDMA.
CDMA has 2 different variants: CDMA2000(cdma, tdma, and gsm carriers could use this path for reach 3G services)
and WCDMA(that only is availabe for gsm networks).
You ask why qualcomm (the owner of cdma tecnologies: including cdma2000, and wcdma) didn't make it compatible with cdma?
because there is no neeed. CDMA has it's on upgrade :CDMA2000 as good as UMTS(WCDMA).GSM only could upgrade to EDGE to offer a poor 3G services, so they needed CDMA to deployed WCDMA to offer great 3G services.

WCDMA is NOT based on CDMA. WCDMA is run off of a GSM core with a code division overlay as I have said many, many times before.

You really need to educate yourself on the FACTS of WCDMA.

Qualcomm does not own WCDMA technology. They own some of the aspects implemented in WCDMA, but WCDMA is an open standard (anyone can use and alter it as they please).

And finally, GSM did not need CDMA to deploy WCDMA. As I've stated before CDMA and WCDMA are totally different technologies. GSM itself could only upgrade to EDGE which is currently the fastest nationwide network in the U.S., however, a simple upgrade to the existing GSM network creates an entirely new WCDMA network. And an upgrade on top of the WCDMA tech...
(continues)

3GCDMA you got to realise one thing. CDMA is a full 3G technology. GSM is considered a 2.5 technology which used to back up 3G technologies(kinda like analog for CDMA) so its data speeds were never meant to compete with CDMA. So think of it like this, no matter where someone goes with GSM they dont need to worry about having to sacrifice battery or features to switch off the 3G tech. And I gaurantee you that Verizon's network runs alot of analog outside of cities. just one thing i though you might also want to remember in your arguements.

I do a lot of driving across country and in the past year hardly see any analog signals anymore.

You're absolutely correct. CDMA and WCDMA are totally different and incompatable technologies. WCDMA runs off of a GSM core with a code division overlay (CDMA stands for Code Division Multiple Access). The code division overlay is as close as you can get to any aspect of CDMA. Otherwise, WCDMA is a technology all its own.

3GCDMA said:
1.As you said you are an electrical engenieer, I think you should know both tecnologies CDMA and GSM will end in CDMA, because GSM network have to upgrade to WCDMA.

2.You said you prefer GSM just because it has better devices but thats no true, CDMA has better divices, the problem is that wireless carriers doens't bring them all.
Motorola v710 is a great phone, but VZW block bluetooth. But this phone is also available from other carries, and with all its features unlock. There is also Kyocera Koi phone, and may other with great features.

I think you should try using a CDMA phone, then you will see they are better. I'm sure you can find the phone with the features you want.

1. Both GSM ...
(continues)

Couldn't agree more about the phone. Take a phone like the Sony Ericsson T610 and the different variants. It's years old, obsolete even and still better than a lot of the crap Verizon has to offer today.

I agree with the fact that GSM is a much better implementation of TDMA than the original (what we now just call TDMA) was.

Sorry to imply that you have brand loyalty, after re-reading both posts, I realize that was off target.

I live in a strange area (mid-Michigan). The area I live in is fairly populated, yet I often travel to what we call "up north" in Michigan, or the Upper Penninsula. Analog (and some CDMA 800) is all that works in most of the "UP." Cingular now has some GSM in the west side of it due to the fact that they have opened access to another carrier up there (MSI or something?).

Anyway, my point about my area is that the Cingular network here is very overloaded because it's populous, and it doesn't work in the rura...
(continues)

towers can be placed closer together and often are. yes gsm channels hold less and would have to be placed closer together to achieve the same coverage. CDMA is easier to implement because of this (less towers= same coverage= less money spent= more money put into towers elsewhere)

There is also a price to put the CDMA technology which we all know is licensed to Qualcomm on those towers (licenses to Qualcomm). I actually believe it is less expensive to built or build out a GSM network than CDMA. I could be wrong but I'm sure I read that in a few different articles in the past.

I don't know about Verizon but Cingular has recently offered a 1000 anytime minutes and unlimited N&W plan for $39.99. It no longer is listed on their website but they did offer it for a certain period of time recently. Unlimited M2M was not included.

there is no CDMA system in Europe becuase the EU (European Union)don't permit another tecnolgie than it's own(gsm).
And there is a lot of CDMA in Asia, China, Korea, and Japan don't have GSM mobile system the have CDMA2000 or WCDMA.
TDMA stinks, that everyone know but GSM is based o TDMA so GSM also stinks. 🤣

Do you know what else stinks?

Your English.

Actually TDMA has some of the best building penetration available. But the US has so few towers that in places like say NYC It goes through so many buildings that its better building penetration is not even noticable.

Inquisitor_Hoth said:
Actually TDMA has some of the best building penetration available. But the US has so few towers that in places like say NYC It goes through so many buildings that its better building penetration is not even noticable.

How do you know that, when you just said that "TDMA i believe runs about 15-20 calls per channel."

You don't even know how many callers per channel it runs? TDMA runs 3 callers per channel. See howstuffworks.com or http://www.arcx.com/sites/CDMAvsTDMA.htm

Now if you mean GSMs implementation of TDMA, that's different. It's about 8 callers, from what I understand.

i aggree that i have made that error. but you do you know the reason we are having problems here in the Cingular AT&T digital call centres. Customers tried GSM and it would not work in buildings as well as their old digital. But like i said in that same statement, in the US there are lot more buildings between towers than usual and AT&T never really built that many TDMA towers so it will seem as if you have no building penetration. Take A TDMA phone to toronto where the company there for TDMA has built as many towers as allowed in Toronto and you will some excellent TDMA quality. Then again from what ive heard also is that Canadas GSM network is in better shape than US(i havent really noticed when i went to North Dakota personally)but i ...
(continues)

GSM was picked by the Europeans before CDMA existed. Most European carriers have asked their regulators to allow them to implement CDMA. Their regulators told them no. Most of the world built their networks before CDMA existed. It is not a matter of GSM being chosen over CDMA. GSM was the best network available before CDMA. CDMA is now the best network available.

Reception in tunnels in Europe are not due to the superiority of the network but the advantage the Europeans have of few wide open spaces to cover. Almost all European towers operate close to capacity all of the time.
They can afford more towers because they all generate tons of revenue.

The numbers do not support GSM even being competitive with CDMA as far as network powe...
(continues)

You're totally right, European regulators seems to hate CDMA tecnolgy, but the reason is because they don't want their own tecnology(GSM) lose suscribers, in all Europe it's forbiden to deploy CDMA networks.THAT REALLY STINKS!!!! 👿

I hate this behavior from European regulators because , here in US(our regulators)allow carriers built european tecnology and they don't allow to built ours.

3GCDMA said:
You're totally right, European regulators seems to hate CDMA tecnolgy, but the reason is because they don't want their own tecnology(GSM) lose suscribers, in all Europe it's forbiden to deploy CDMA networks.THAT REALLY STINKS!!!! 👿

I hate this behavior from European regulators because , here in US(our regulators)allow carriers built european tecnology and they don't allow to built ours.

What's to hate? Why does it stink? Have you ever been to any European country in particular or traveled across Europe? I do believe CDMA to be technically superior to GSM, but over in Europe, GSM networks work nearly flawlessly. They've had a lot more time to implement and perfect the standard, evident by ...
(continues)