CDMA vs GSM
As a former customer of Verizon and a current customer of AT&T, I have to say the quality of the networks are very similar. As for the CDMA being better than GSM, in some cases I can agree with that. But as for using voice and data at the same time, CDMA can't do that. Here's something I've been led to understand. GSM's broadband is UMTS and HSDPA, also known as W-CDMA. If this is true than wouldn't using AT&T's network in a 3G area be better than Verizon, considering the speeds and Voice/Data use? It is a form of CDMA, only its wideband. I may be a "cell geek" but I don't know everything so I've just been curious.
...
I switched to Verizon from AT&T and then came running back. To this day, Verizon still owes me 98 bucks for promotional deals I took advantage of. I keep calling and calling and no one knows why I didn't get those charges taken off my account. I swear to God I am NEVER going to Verizon again, they have the most crooked system in the world.
...
I think you missed the point. He was looking for a answer to his questions. Not a hate verizon story.
...
Fleance2k5 said:
I think you missed the point. He was looking for a answer to his questions. Not a hate verizon story.
Agreed and a fake story at that... 😲
...
im pretty sure you are correct!
the only bad part about GSM is the signal penetration strength is not as good as CDMA
the only bad part about GSM is the signal penetration strength is not as good as CDMA
...
I don't really know if one is better in building or not, but as for the city I live in AT&T penetrates buildings better, probably because they have more towers here. If I'm not mistaking, GSM and 3G are 2 seperate modes. In a regular area voice and data use GSM and in a 3G area voice and data use WCDMA. Regular CDMA networks like Verizon use CDMA for voice and texting and EVDO for data only. The area I live in is a 3G area. This could also explain my great service and of course data speeds. I noticed my friends who don't have 3G devices don't have the best coverage. In a 3G area a 3G device acutally gets more bars and clearer reception. This is why I'm curious if AT&T's 3G network could actually be considered a type of CDMA network, ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
I carry a GSM and a 3G phone with me at all times, and they always have the same bars. There's barely any difference in call quality, at least for me. I'm in the Tampa Bay area, and both networks kick ass here. Lately, I've noticed that the EDGE network has gotten a bit slower, but I think it's either the whole Edge allocation to the 1900MHz band or just the new version of Opera Mini that's just slow.
...
Since when allocating means downgrading?
The allocations to the 1900MHz band causes the delay in ping.
Do you really think that AT&T would downgrade the EDGE network when 1. AT&T is the largest provider of Blackberry in the US. 2. All the money spent to expand, integrate, tune in, and they'll just downgrade it. 3. GSM is not going anywhere for at least 4 years.
The allocations to the 1900MHz band causes the delay in ping.
Do you really think that AT&T would downgrade the EDGE network when 1. AT&T is the largest provider of Blackberry in the US. 2. All the money spent to expand, integrate, tune in, and they'll just downgrade it. 3. GSM is not going anywhere for at least 4 years.
...
when I say downgrade, i ment as in switching EDGE over to 1900 Mhz towers from 850 Mhz.
Doing this, many will see slower speeds because 1900 towers are not as strong as 850 Mhz.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/01/04/att-downgr ... »
Doing this, many will see slower speeds because 1900 towers are not as strong as 850 Mhz.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/01/04/att-downgr ... »
...
Not really actually. 1.9 GHz can transmit a bit better when it comes to data, however, it cannot transmit over a long distance.
...
I'm not 100 percent on this so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but CDMA towers can cover a larger area. So a GSM carrier would need more towers to cover the same area as a CDMA carrier does with fewer towers. If im correct, that wouldn't really be a fair comparison.
...
This is true, but as more users connect to a CDMA cell site the coverage can vary, known as "breathing". CDMA cell sites are also more expensive.
...
yea, they are more money.
Thats why the world went GSM. Because of Landline service not being out in Rural areas where cell sites could at a lower cost.
I hated the GSM interference when next to a TV, PC, or spearkers.
CDMA doesn't do that.
Thats why the world went GSM. Because of Landline service not being out in Rural areas where cell sites could at a lower cost.
I hated the GSM interference when next to a TV, PC, or spearkers.
CDMA doesn't do that.
...
Carriers are going with GSM more than CDMA because of much more players with content, infrastructure, spectrum, devices, and others.
So the more players you have in a sector (this being GSM) the cheaper everything will be.
So the more players you have in a sector (this being GSM) the cheaper everything will be.
...
It's the time-division aspect of GSM that does that. UMTS doesn't do that, and if you buy practically any new TV or speakers they are shielded against that interference now.
Personally I thought it was kind of cool if I was listening to loud music and heard the little cracks, I knew I had a phone call coming and to turn the music down.
Personally I thought it was kind of cool if I was listening to loud music and heard the little cracks, I knew I had a phone call coming and to turn the music down.
...
The differences you're seeing with indoor coverage have less to do with encoding methods and more to do with frequency bands. North American GSM and CDMA operators operate primarily in the 800 MHz band and the 1900 MHz band. Here's some pro's and con's:
800 MHz: better building penetration, slower data transfer rate (fewer cycles per second to send the 1s and 0s)
1900 MHz: not so good with building penetration, but more cycles per second so the data rates are higher.
NOTE:
A competing tech like Wi-Fi (or a cordless land-line phone) will operate on MUCH higher frequency bands. This is why Wi-Fi is lightning fast, but you can't really stretch it out more then a few hundred feet, at best!
700MHz deployments upcoming will ...
(continues)
800 MHz: better building penetration, slower data transfer rate (fewer cycles per second to send the 1s and 0s)
1900 MHz: not so good with building penetration, but more cycles per second so the data rates are higher.
NOTE:
A competing tech like Wi-Fi (or a cordless land-line phone) will operate on MUCH higher frequency bands. This is why Wi-Fi is lightning fast, but you can't really stretch it out more then a few hundred feet, at best!
700MHz deployments upcoming will ...
(continues)
...
CellStudent said:
GSM is markedly different. GSM 2G and 3G encoding methods are both voice AND data technologies.
but 2g separates (gsm and gprs/edge) voice and data. 3g uses the same channel but at&t will separate it based on spectrum allocation. right?
...
crackberry said:
but 2g separates (gsm and gprs/edge) voice and data. 3g uses the same channel but at&t will separate it based on spectrum allocation. right?
I'm not a network engineer (yet) so I can't tell you what they ARE doing, just give you an idea of what they CAN do. You'll have to get someone way higher up the food chain then me to answer that kind of question.
...
So why isn't Verizon trying to combine their voice and data to work at the same time? or are they? Thats one of the perks of having AT&T, you can use voice and data at the same time. (ie. Talking while surfing mobile web, or using Video Share) Will LTE allow this?
...
LTE is a converged voice/data technology. VZW is jumping right over the 3G voice network that Rev A or Rev B could be and going straight for the big stuff.
Actually, LTE is technically a data-only technology but it's powerful enough to run VOIP without any problems for large volumes of subscribers simultaneously on a single cell interface, especially with the 22 to 46 MHz of spectrum VZW controls in the lower 700 block.
I have no reason to envision any complications with running a conversation and data usage at the same time. As long as there is capacity, it should work just fine.
Actually, LTE is technically a data-only technology but it's powerful enough to run VOIP without any problems for large volumes of subscribers simultaneously on a single cell interface, especially with the 22 to 46 MHz of spectrum VZW controls in the lower 700 block.
I have no reason to envision any complications with running a conversation and data usage at the same time. As long as there is capacity, it should work just fine.
...
I have AT&T but I still wish Verizon would allow voice and data. Video Share with AT&T is awesome. Able to talk and see. Verizon has a good thing going but they don't open up to data users. They have a great voice network but unable to use data at the same time, or have things like MobiTV and XM Radio, and non data features like Early Nights & Weekends etc...AT&T just seems better with features. Even though Verizon will be using LTE I just hope they use it to its full potential. I know AT&T will.
...
I guarantee every CDMA operator would love to permit voice and data simultaneously. It's not a matter of permissions or allowances- it's a matter of physics. It's oil and water. It can't be done.
As I've said before, LTE is 100% data both directions and the voice will simply be a regulated VOIP running over the data stream. You'll have as many problems using voice and data at the same time on VZW's LTE network as you do right now trying to watch youtube and run Skype simultaneously on your laptop:
No problems at all.
As I've said before, LTE is 100% data both directions and the voice will simply be a regulated VOIP running over the data stream. You'll have as many problems using voice and data at the same time on VZW's LTE network as you do right now trying to watch youtube and run Skype simultaneously on your laptop:
No problems at all.
...
This is a nice explanation. There's one aspect to add, though. Because EVDO was added in addition to Verizon's CDMA voice network and did not replace it, Verizon's voice network was never disrupted by the transition to EVDO.
The transition from GSM to WCDMA was more difficult for AT&T. A 2G (GSM) cell and a 3G (WCDMA) cell use very different modulation. A 3G cell doesn't connect to a 2G device (I'm pretty sure), nor vice versa. AT&T is currently operating two voice+data networks. When AT&T started transitioning to 3G, they built a bunch transceivers on their existing 2G cell towers, but nowhere near the number necessary for every customer to be on 3G. Their plan appears to be to convert 2G transceivers to 3G as their customer base tr...
(continues)
The transition from GSM to WCDMA was more difficult for AT&T. A 2G (GSM) cell and a 3G (WCDMA) cell use very different modulation. A 3G cell doesn't connect to a 2G device (I'm pretty sure), nor vice versa. AT&T is currently operating two voice+data networks. When AT&T started transitioning to 3G, they built a bunch transceivers on their existing 2G cell towers, but nowhere near the number necessary for every customer to be on 3G. Their plan appears to be to convert 2G transceivers to 3G as their customer base tr...
(continues)
...
There is a lot of merit to what you've said here. Moving from UMTS to LTE could theoretically be easier then moving from CDMA/EvDO to LTE, but there are a few important things to consider.
It's important to note at this point that there are TWO major obstacles to doing any kind of cell site upgrade: The first is the task of shuffling spectrum from 2G to 3G to 4G, and the second is physical space limitations on the tower. If you can't remove or modify the existing antennas to make physical space on the towers to fit the new tech in- no upgrades are going to happen!
#1: The GSM to HSPA and CDMA/1xRTT to EvDO migrations were both a case of spectrum re-use. AT&T had to push the 2G tech out of the upper 1900 MHz bands in order to make r...
(continues)
It's important to note at this point that there are TWO major obstacles to doing any kind of cell site upgrade: The first is the task of shuffling spectrum from 2G to 3G to 4G, and the second is physical space limitations on the tower. If you can't remove or modify the existing antennas to make physical space on the towers to fit the new tech in- no upgrades are going to happen!
#1: The GSM to HSPA and CDMA/1xRTT to EvDO migrations were both a case of spectrum re-use. AT&T had to push the 2G tech out of the upper 1900 MHz bands in order to make r...
(continues)
...
Azeron said:
So...where can I learn all this stuff?
Begin here:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/radio.htm »
http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm »
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=99 »
https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=187 »
http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/lte-depth ... »
After successfully completing second year Calculus and some Differential Equations, then start reading:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Sound/db. ... »
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/WS01/19548-U/shann ... »
http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/CDMAmanage.pdf »
http://www.picochip.com/news/media_center »
(WHITE PAPERS area near the bottom right)
http://www. »...
(continues)
...
...sounds like a plus for the consumer. Of course, it will affect Verizon's profitability but that's a short term minus. In the long term migrating customers to LTE will be a plus.
...
Ok get it straight. AT&T does not use any kind of CDMA. CDMA and GSM or two different kind of network types. 3G is a data network. Both Verizon and at&t have a 3G netwrok. Verizon does not have the data network to do both voice and data at the same time which is a plus with at&t. As far as the penetration level, at&t will have better penetration then Verizon because of the network and the band that at&t uses.
...
cellgeek82 said:
As a former customer of Verizon and a current customer of AT&T, I have to say the quality of the networks are very similar. As for the CDMA being better than GSM, in some cases I can agree with that. But as for using voice and data at the same time, CDMA can't do that. Here's something I've been led to understand. GSM's broadband is UMTS and HSDPA, also known as W-CDMA. If this is true than wouldn't using AT&T's network in a 3G area be better than Verizon, considering the speeds and Voice/Data use? It is a form of CDMA, only its wideband. I may be a "cell geek" but I don't know everything so I've just been curious.
My experience using both systems has been as follows: GSM genera ...
(continues)
...
jrfdsf said:...
My experience using both systems has been as follows: GSM generally has better building penetration whereas CDMA tends to work better with weak signals. GSM can handle data and voice simultaneously while CDMA can handle more calls per channel. GSM has better battery life in standby mode while CDMA has longer talk times. GSM has SIM cards allowing for multiple phones while CDMA has wireless backup online. GSM has better global coverage while CDMA has better national coverage.Both systems have 3G networks available, text and picturemail messaging, voicemail and paging, etc., etc.
So, the bottom line is what works best for you and which technology covers the areas where you live and work best. Those
(continues)
...
jrfdsf said:
GSM generally has better building penetration whereas CDMA tends to work better with weak signals.
Building penetration just has to do with the spectrum being used. Lower frequencies will allow for better building penetration, that's just physics. This is why the FM band will work better than the AM bands in the same situations. AM is at a higher frequency and can travel further, much like the 1900 MHz PCS band.
AT&T definitely has more 1900 MHz than 850 Mhz, this why you will encounter more possibility of weak building penetration.
jrfdsf said:
GSM has SIM cards allowing for multiple phones while CDMA has wireless backup online.
"CDMA" does ...
(continues)
...
You bolded and italicized me.
And I wasn't trying to troll you btw, just pointing out some things. Overall I liked your post.
And I wasn't trying to troll you btw, just pointing out some things. Overall I liked your post.
...
AshDizzle said:
"CDMA" doesn't have wireless backup, Verizon does. AT&T has wireless backup too, it just isn't free. It's not really a CDMA/GSM thing though.
Verizon offers it for free on all phones if you are registered online with My Verizon.
...
One difference between CDMA vs GSM is CDMA is a proprietary design by Qualcom and the cell operators have total control over what phone you use. GSM is an open standard. Operators have to pay network licensing fees to Qualcom and the phone makers also have to pay licensing fees to make CDMA handsets. It's a very user un-friendly design. GSM operators only care about your SIM card and not what phone you are using. With CDMA and the lack of a SIM card, you have to have an "approved" handset to use on their network. If you want to switch phones with a CDMA carrier, you have to go to a store and have a sales rep program the phone (provided the phone is approved by the carrier) and then they have to activate the esn. It's a lot of unnecess...
(continues)
(continues)
...
Mobilemadness, that was nicely said, i totally agree with you. I was with sprint and verizon and it sucked cause CDMA cost more to buy outright and switching to different phones is a hassle! oh yeah... no world compatibility. I went to t-mobile then at&t.. awesome!!!! I switch to different phones all the time and its world!! I have all my info on my sim.. and.. the last thing.. you are not required to get a data package if you dont need it.
...
Switching phones with Verizon now does not take but 25 to 30 sec. Next, all you have are phone numbers saved on your SIM along with your number. Loose your phone or drop it in a lake, you are screwed because you need a new phone and SIM. Next, Verizon has World Phones, but if you don't have one with Verizon, they will allow you to switch phones (You give them yours, they give you a world phone) and switch back when you get back from your trip. I am not saying I don't like GSM, but in the US, it is horrible.
...
yeah your right, but its still a hassle calling customer service or coming into the store, plus you got to reprogam the phone too. And your correct verizon has world phones, but its locked! I have 3 unlocked GSM phones that I can use all over.. so GSM.
...
iDragon405 said:
yeah your right, but its still a hassle calling customer service or coming into the store, plus you got to reprogam the phone too. And your correct verizon has world phones, but its locked! I have 3 unlocked GSM phones that I can use all over.. so GSM.
Actually, you can do it online now.
...
You can unlock Verizon GSM phone if you want. Lots of people unlocked the Storm. The only down fall is there is no 3G GSM in the US that will work off it. And you don't call customer service any more or go into a store. You dial *228 option 3 on the new phone and enter your phone number and it works.
...
ok well thats new to me, before that didnt happen. I had sprint, but my friends had verizon, so our situations were the same. But cmon now! you got to admit sim cards are sweet! just swap!! online and calling *228 is still kinda annoying though. I want a totally unlocked phone for US, EURO, and Asia too. so thats why im with GSM, but verizon is cool too.
...
Im not a fan of SIM cards. Yeah, there easy to swap, but they break, go out, and only save numbers and your number. If you loose your phone, you will need a new number. If you loose your Verizon phone, you can keep your phone number, and Back Up thing is free if you view you bill online at MyVerizon. I also hate the buzz you get next to speakers. Its annoying. AT&T charges $10.00 for a new SIM card. I had AT&T for 15 Years when they had TDMA, then GSM, then Cingular, then AT&T again. After the last name changed, it went down. I tryed every network, and Verizon works in the smallest areas where GSM is not even located.
I rather have a strong network, then a network thats has limited coverage in the US. CDMA is just larger in the US then GS...
(continues)
I rather have a strong network, then a network thats has limited coverage in the US. CDMA is just larger in the US then GS...
(continues)
...
Where do I start...
1) If you lose your phone you DO NOT lose your phone number.
2)I've never heard this buzz your refering to
3) Sim cards are $5, but even that can be waived if need be.
Please know what your talking about before posting again
1) If you lose your phone you DO NOT lose your phone number.
2)I've never heard this buzz your refering to
3) Sim cards are $5, but even that can be waived if need be.
Please know what your talking about before posting again
...
thank james!!!
I have had the same sim card for the longest time, and the only reason i changed sim was when AT&T got 3G. Sim cards last!!! and you keep your number not get a new one! get your facts right. And i dont have any buzzing sound.. so yeah. Also, AT&T is going to have LTE too.. so yeah
get your facts right my friend.
I have had the same sim card for the longest time, and the only reason i changed sim was when AT&T got 3G. Sim cards last!!! and you keep your number not get a new one! get your facts right. And i dont have any buzzing sound.. so yeah. Also, AT&T is going to have LTE too.. so yeah
get your facts right my friend.
...
Ok, smart one... Verizon will have LTE out before AT&T. Verizon will have it out by the end of 09 to Jan of 10. And the buzzing sound is called GSM interference.
http://www.corporatetalkradio.com/thatnoise.html »
Read about it, you may actually learn something.
And if you CAN'T hear it, go get your ears checked, because the sound is so annoying.
So, get your facts right "my friend".
http://www.corporatetalkradio.com/thatnoise.html »
Read about it, you may actually learn something.
And if you CAN'T hear it, go get your ears checked, because the sound is so annoying.
So, get your facts right "my friend".
...
yes i know what the interference but i dont hear it, and yes my ears are clean. AT&T is coming out with LTE also around that same year. just admit your a verizon fanboy... geez.. so my "friend" GSM is all good here.
...
I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if LTE had the same audiophile qualities/interference as GSM. The encoding schemes are pretty similar, LTE is just able to transmit "more continuously" so it can push more data.
It will be interesting to see if this curse follows on to 4G...
It will be interesting to see if this curse follows on to 4G...
...
LTE has the capacity to support SIM cards. But so does CDMA and they were never put into practice anywhere in the world.
My personal bet is that SIMs will be used on the VZW LTE because they want international compatibility with Vodafone. Vodafone's business model in Europe is SIM dependent so they can't do ESN type bookkeeping.
My personal bet is that SIMs will be used on the VZW LTE because they want international compatibility with Vodafone. Vodafone's business model in Europe is SIM dependent so they can't do ESN type bookkeeping.
...
AT&T won't have LTE out till 12 for the public. Verizon will have it out at the end of 09 to the start of 10 for the public. Not to forget Verizon can add LTE all over the US where they want because of there 700 Block they have.
...
There is a business reason for this.
The UMTS upgrade path goes far beyond the EV-DO upgrade path, and in an effort to compete with the increasing speeds of UMTS (referred to as HSPA) Verizon MUST move on quickly.
The capable speeds of the towers mean NOTHING however if existing cable or fiber lines aren't upgraded to support it. So even if Verizon busts out some 50 MBPS capable wireless infrastructure, most places in the United States won't even be able to handle it, it's worthless.
Since AT&T has already begun deployment of the UMTS network that only needs software upgrades to support the higher speed HSPA, there will be a window of time where Verizon's fledgling 4G network is overshadowed by the robust 3G network that AT&T wil...
(continues)
The UMTS upgrade path goes far beyond the EV-DO upgrade path, and in an effort to compete with the increasing speeds of UMTS (referred to as HSPA) Verizon MUST move on quickly.
The capable speeds of the towers mean NOTHING however if existing cable or fiber lines aren't upgraded to support it. So even if Verizon busts out some 50 MBPS capable wireless infrastructure, most places in the United States won't even be able to handle it, it's worthless.
Since AT&T has already begun deployment of the UMTS network that only needs software upgrades to support the higher speed HSPA, there will be a window of time where Verizon's fledgling 4G network is overshadowed by the robust 3G network that AT&T wil...
(continues)
...
You make some decent points here, AshDizzle. CDMA transmission is the best 2G technology out there- but EVDO just doesn't hold much muster against comparable 3G technologies. The only thing VZW has going for them on the 3G side of things is that AT&T has refused to even try to serve non-urban areas with 3G. Everywhere that 3G actually exists in North America, HSPA outperforms EVDO overall. The tragedy is in the lack of deployment scale.
I must say I disagree with you're implication that VZW is in a poor backhaul position. [backhaul is the connection from the Tower to the internet, for the n00bs out there.]
There is no advantage to the current AT&T backhaul situation compared to VZW. If AT&T wants to be able to provide 5 Mbps conne...
(continues)
I must say I disagree with you're implication that VZW is in a poor backhaul position. [backhaul is the connection from the Tower to the internet, for the n00bs out there.]
There is no advantage to the current AT&T backhaul situation compared to VZW. If AT&T wants to be able to provide 5 Mbps conne...
(continues)
...
Living in a rural area in the west it is obvious that not everywhere in the United States is prepared physically for this sort of upgrade.
Granted, in urban areas where fiber has been put in place these fixes will not be incredibly hard. But there are still areas where dirt will need to be dug to get this stuff rolling. There are some cities around where I live that have not had new cable lines put in place since the 1960s.
Another thing I have always wondered about is Verizon's quick expansion with EV-DO. I don't want a troll response here, it's not just because "Verizon's so sweet and does everything better," Are their coverage maps showing roaming off of Sprint's EV-DO coverage too? And Alltel's? I have always thought, yeah, it...
(continues)
Granted, in urban areas where fiber has been put in place these fixes will not be incredibly hard. But there are still areas where dirt will need to be dug to get this stuff rolling. There are some cities around where I live that have not had new cable lines put in place since the 1960s.
Another thing I have always wondered about is Verizon's quick expansion with EV-DO. I don't want a troll response here, it's not just because "Verizon's so sweet and does everything better," Are their coverage maps showing roaming off of Sprint's EV-DO coverage too? And Alltel's? I have always thought, yeah, it...
(continues)
...
Well, my quest for a nationwide fiber-optic line diagram has yielded the lowest bidder at around $10,000- so I'm going to have to admit I don't have any solid data for you on that front. Let me know when you've got an extra 10 Gs lying around and we'll put them to good use, OK?
I do, however, feel confident that LTE is a viable solution almost everywhere that EVDO is now deployed. Even far-distant suburbs should be no problem to cover since the 700 MHz band will easily reach out 20 miles from site to cell.
But I could be dead wrong on that. Wouldn't surprise me too much if I was. You would do well to take internet ramblings at face value, as always.
I could also see creative backhaul solutions employed like tower-to-tower backha...
(continues)
I do, however, feel confident that LTE is a viable solution almost everywhere that EVDO is now deployed. Even far-distant suburbs should be no problem to cover since the 700 MHz band will easily reach out 20 miles from site to cell.
But I could be dead wrong on that. Wouldn't surprise me too much if I was. You would do well to take internet ramblings at face value, as always.
I could also see creative backhaul solutions employed like tower-to-tower backha...
(continues)
...
maybe at&t will lay claim to their roots and state that instead of fiber they can run their 4G network off cable????????? off a single T1 connection. per site??? ok ok ok ok. i admit that a single T1 per site is stretching it, but they did say they could fit how many hd streams and 10mb and voice over copper and ralph probably thinks he can do the same with wireless. yada yada yada.
...
