[CharlesS]

... until this patent case is resolved.

Import ban on 3G handsets could hurt industry | CNET News.com

Apparently, Qualcomm's chipsets are banned from being used in any new cell phone models in the US due to the patent infringement, and they're a major supplier of the chips used in 3G phones. I think they also provide the chips for CDMA phones, but I'm not sure whether this patent case applies to those or not. Either way, this could help ensure that we stay even farther behind other countries in cell phone technology. Great, huh?

Frankly, I don't see why Qualcomm doesn't just license the patent from Broadcom.

[greenG4]

Fortunately, they're not used in the iPhone. Cause that's all that matters.

Hmm. I wonder if the Steve knew this was coming, and that's why he's so confident in the iPhone. It will be like one of 3 that ae still sold here...

[CharlesS]

Apparently, all existing models that use the infringing technology can still be sold... but they can't release any new models. So there will still be plenty of phones out there... but no new 'iPhone killers" can be released if they have 3G. There also can't be any new versions of the iPhone, since one of the main features of the second revision of the iPhone is sure to be 3G support.

Frankly, I think it's stupid to look at this only from the perspective of "what will this mean for the iPhone". This is a big problem for the US cell phone industry in general.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Cause that's all that matters.

This was supposed to be sarcasm. Sorry, I left out the [sarcasm] tags.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Apparently, all existing models that use the infringing technology can still be sold... but they can't release any new models. So there will still be plenty of phones out there... but no new 'iPhone killers" can be released if they have 3G. There also can't be any new versions of the iPhone, since one of the main features of the second revision of the iPhone is sure to be 3G support.

Why do you say that? Not all 3G chipsets are Qualcomm.

P.S. Isn't the iPhone using a Broadcom chipset? I suspect they might do the same come 3G time.

[brokenjago]

I agree with Eug.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Why do you say that? Not all 3G chipsets are Qualcomm.

I'm just going by what's in the article, which makes it seem like without Qualcomm, we're not going to see many new 3G phones. I don't know much beyond that.

Qualcomm is the dominant semiconductor manufacturer for two next-generation technologies--EV-DO and WCDMA--that are being used today by three of the four major U.S. operators to build their next generation of high-speed wireless networks. Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel use EV-DO technology. And AT&T is building its 3G network using WCDMA technology.

...

Under the ban, cell phone manufacturers and mobile operators will not be allowed to import any future models of phones that use this technology. The ban could be particularly tough for all the major cell phone operators, which during the past several years have spent billions of dollars deploying their 3G networks. Now that they have extended wireless broadband to a large portion of their footprint, these carriers need subscribers to upgrade their handsets to new 3G versions. It's only through these new 3G-enabled devices that subscribers will be able to spend money on new data services, such as over-the-air music downloads or video services.

...

The iPhone itself won't be impacted by the import ban because it uses AT&T's slower 2.5G network. But competitors looking for devices that could compete with the iPhone will likely tout 3G speeds as an important differentiator to the iPhone. But if Verizon and Sprint can't get their hands on new phone models it could be difficult to compete.

...

The ban could also be devastating to handset makers, especially Motorola, which recently announced a slew of new phones that it has designed specifically for 3G networks.

At any rate, it's been my understanding that Qualcomm designed the CDMA and EV-DO specifications, so they could well be the only manufacturer of some chip for a lot of the CDMA phones. Not sure about UMTS/HSDPA, but the article seems to think that they're in trouble too.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I'm just going by what's in the article, which makes it seem like without Qualcomm, we're not going to see many new 3G phones. I don't know much beyond that.

Well, a lot of US networks are CDMA, and are migrating to EVDO. If that falls behind a little more I'd be ecstatic.

I'd love to see the US and Canada move away from this, and get more in line with the rest of the world.

At any rate, it's been my understanding that Qualcomm designed the CDMA and EV-DO specifications, so they could well be the only manufacturer of some chip for a lot of the CDMA phones. Not sure about UMTS/HSPDA, but the article seems to think that they're in trouble too.

I believe they do make HSPDA chipsets (not sure), but so do a lot of companies.

[Angus_D]

I can't see this having any major long-term impact. All that has to happen is for Qualcomm to pony up some dollar and license the patents from Broadcom, and stop trying to be some sort of big-shot patent bully (they've got a big ongoing spat with Nokia as well).

[SirCastor]

My understanding of this Ban is that the current Phones in the country could be sold, but no more of the same model or new models that infringe could be brought in. This certainly isn't the end of 3G though.

As Angus said, Qualcomm will license, then they'll find some way around the patent and get back to developing their own phones... not much to worry about.

[Angus_D]

Well, I don't know that they'll get around the patent terribly easily. If you're developing a 3G phone or chipset, you're going to need a great big lot of patented technology. The thing is, all the key players have patents, and have cross-licensing agreements. These lawsuits are mostly just bargaining tools and posturing.

[imitchellg5]

EVDO is the best. That's sad.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, a lot of US networks are CDMA, and are migrating to EVDO. If that falls behind a little more I'd be ecstatic.

I'd love to see the US and Canada move away from this, and get more in line with the rest of the world.

I used to think that too, but lately I'm starting to think that the reason a lot of US providers haven't been using GSM is that it kind of sucks, and CDMA is a much better technology. If you look at the abilities of both technologies, CDMA beats GSM in pretty much everything except for battery life (and that's for 2.5G phones only, too). Other than that, the only advantages of GSM are pretty much popularity and the fact that US CDMA carriers tend to cripple their phones, both of which have nothing to do with the technology itself.

UMTS/HSDPA is a different story, of course (and oddly enough, are based on CDMA, not the outdated TDMA technology that GSM uses). Unfortunately, this patent issue seems to affect UMTS/HSDPA as well, not just EV-DO. I agree that in the long-term, this will have to get sorted out, but for the short term, it could limit availability of new phones as long as Qualcomm is deciding to be smug and trying to get the president to override this ban instead of just ponying up the license fees.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

UTMS/HSPDA is a different story, of course (and oddly enough, are based on CDMA, not the TDMA technology that GSM uses).

Not really terribly surprising, tbh. GSM is ancient, when people say CDMA they normally mean cdmaOne or CDMA2000 which are more recent, and UMTS/HSDPA (your letters are jumbled fwiw) are more recent still.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

Not really terribly surprising, tbh. GSM is ancient, when people say CDMA they normally mean cdmaOne or CDMA2000 which are more recent, and UMTS/HSDPA (your letters are jumbled fwiw) are more recent still.

Argh, you're right about HSDPA. I've gone back and fixed it.

And yeah, I know that the TDMA that GSM uses is archaic. The ironic thing about it is that if you read a lot of discussions on the Internet, most of the GSM fanboys seem to think that CDMA is older than GSM. You could write a book of all the ways that GSM sucks:

1. Poor range compared to CDMA, needing more towers to cover the same area

2. GSM never seems to work as well inside buildings as CDMA does

3. The voice quality is much less consistent on GSM than on CDMA

4. You can use a CDMA phone even when you've only got one bar of reception - on GSM, when the signal is one bar I get "Call Failed" errors whenever I try to make a call, and if I do manage to get connected somehow, it tends to drop in less than a minute

5. This is what I hate - if you have any electronic devices that aren't heavily shielded, GSM phones interfere like crazy with them. Car radios, digital recorders, any kind of headphone/microphone that doesn't have a heavily shielded cable, answering machines, fifth-generation iPods, even metronomes - I've seen tons of devices go completely wonky whenever a GSM phone is around. Every GSM user is familiar with the ZZT-ZZT-ZZT interference sound that you hear when you're listening to something with headphones and a GSM phone is in the room. With fifth-generation iPods it's even more fun - the GSM phone interferes with the click wheel and causes effects such as the volume suddenly going all the way up to the maximum, potentially damaging your ears. I never experienced these kinds of problems when I was still on CDMA.

If Verizon would just stop disabling features on their phones, I'd consider switching back. Unfortunately, they've got no incentive to do so, because they're the #1 provider in the country and they just keep on growing, even with the disabled phones. This is because people love them because of the coverage they get, which is possible because of CDMA.

[Eug]

The problem though is that CDMA phones are always behind the times. Most of the cool phones are GSM, and they only become CDMA months/years later, if ever. And the lack of sim-card support is extremely annoying.

Also, a lot of the reason GSM sucks in the US is because of the service providers. I got better GSM service out in the middle of nowhere in Italy than I got in some relatively populated areas of the US. It's not a problem in Toronto though, where I live.

I never have any interference issues with my GSM phone. That includes car radios, headphones, answering machines, and 5G iPods. Just what phone do you have? Have you checked yourself for a brain tumour?!?

However, that wasn't what I was talking about anyway. I was referring to HSDPA. What happened with GSM is likely also going to happen with HSDPA as well. The cool phones will mostly be HSDPA, cuz that's what Europe and Asia prefer.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The problem though is that CDMA phones are always behind the times. Most of the cool phones are GSM, and they only become CDMA months/years later, if ever.

Are you referring to phones that are available in Europe or something? Because around here, the lineup of phones available on the GSM providers is pretty boring (except for the iPhone, of course, assuming you can actually afford it). I mean, really. Go on AT&T's site, and tell me, do you really find any of those phones all that exciting?

Actually, I'm noticing that most of the "cool" phones that I see these days in the US tend to be on Verizon and Sprint, although it could just be because there's much more of an emphasis on 3G on the CDMA side of the fence, because AT&T/Cingular just can't seem to get 3G deployed on anything near the level that EV-DO has been.

I've also read of some pretty cool CDMA handsets over the years that were only available in South Korea or some such place, although these days those are probably getting migrated to UMTS/HSDPA.

And the lack of sim-card support is extremely annoying.

CDMA actually supports sim cards - it's just that the CDMA carriers in the US lock down that functionality. Also, the iPhone seems to be the new poster child for GSM, and as it seems to be a completely closed box, typical of Apple, I have my doubts that you'll be able to get inside it and swap the SIM card out.

Apple and the CDMA carriers really are made for each other.

Also, a lot of the reason GSM sucks in the US is because of the service providers. I got better GSM service out in the middle of nowhere in Italy than I got in some relatively populated areas of the US. It's not a problem in Toronto though, where I live.

That's probably because they put up more towers for the equivalent area. You have to admit that the US is a much larger land mass than Italy, so it's harder to cover completely. The thing is, CDMA can cover more area with fewer towers. You can see this for yourself if you travel to an area where AT&T/Cingular has no coverage, and are roaming off Alltel. Now you see, Alltel is a CDMA carrier, but they put GSM transmitters on their CDMA towers so that they're broadcasting both signals in areas that the GSM carriers don't cover natively, such as the Dakotas and Montana. They do this so that they can make money from letting other carriers such as AT&T and T-Mobile roam on their towers. The problem is that the CDMA towers are spread apart in such a way as to cover the area well with CDMA, but with GSM, the coverage is absolutely horrible due to GSM's weaker range. You can see this for yourself - as I have - by being in one of these areas with a GSM phone, and having someone else's Alltel CDMA phone right next to it. The difference is dramatic - sometimes you have 3 bars on the CDMA phone, and none on the GSM phone. There was literally one case where the CDMA phone would work in the basement of a house, whereas the GSM phone wouldn't work anywhere in the house, and even in the front yard would only get one bar, and would get "Call Failed" every time you tried to call with it. And this was from GSM and CDMA both being transmitted from the same tower...

I never have any interference issues with my GSM phone. That includes car radios, headphones, answering machines, and 5G iPods. Just what phone do you have? Have you checked yourself for a brain tumour?!?

It's not just me. Here are some links that will show you that this is a known problem:

Wikipedia article
Oh lovely, apparently GSM can interfere with hearing aids too.
Fifth Generation iPod

I'll stop short of calling you a liar - oh hell, no I won't, since you accused me of being brain damaged. I highly doubt you've never seen this problem, unless you're only using the phone in 3G mode. If you really haven't, go put your phone next to some devices that have speakers and make a call. You'll hear it as soon as you find one device that's not greatly shielded.

However, that wasn't what I was talking about anyway. I was referring to HSDPA. What happened with GSM is likely also going to happen with HSDPA as well. The cool phones will mostly be HSDPA, cuz that's what Europe and Asia prefer.

I'm sure they will - on the 2100 band. Because that's what Europe and Asia prefer. HSDPA 850/1900 is just as US-centric as CDMA 850/1900 (and GSM 850/1900, for that matter). We won't see any of those "cool" phones on this side of the pond until GSM-quadband-HSDPA-triband-overall-pentaband-what-the-hell-are-we-actually-gonna-call-these-things phones become commonplace, and who knows how long that will be. Until then, all the "cool" phones in the US will usually be on CDMA, because those will usually have been actually designed for the US market rather than being a phone that was originally HSDPA 2100 that the manufacturer finally decided to make a HSDPA 850/1900 version of a year later.

Hell, there are some phones that start out as European-band GSM and come out with US CDMA versions a bit later and then never do come out with a US-band GSM version - the LG Chocolate comes to mind (yeah, I know it's not that great tech-wise, but it's definitely one of the more popular phones out there).

[irunat2am]

Charles, how do you know so much about networks, and preferences in other countries, etc.? It's like a foreign language to me. No joke

/me gets tempted to..dun dun dunnnn (evil music of evilness)..read.

[CharlesS]

I'm not an expert or anything - I just go and find info using these two sites:

Google
HowardForums: Your Mobile Phone Community & Resource

Here's a basic overview of the most commonly seen technologies.

CDMA - 2G technology used in North America (850 and 1900 MHz) and Asia (I have no idea what bands they use).
GSM - 2G technology used in most of the world except parts of Asia. Uses the 850 and 1900 MHz bands in North America, 900 and 1800 MHz in most other places.
EDGE - 2.5G not-so-high speed add-on for GSM that handles data transfer. Used by older GSM phones and, for some reason, the iPhone. Used by all phones in any regions that don't have 3G on their towers yet.
EV-DO - 3G add-on for CDMA that handles high-speed data transfer (CDMA is still used for voice). I think it runs at the same bands as CDMA. Available in a lot of the US. I have no idea if it's used anywhere else.
UMTS - 3G replacement for GSM that handles both voice and high-speed data. Runs at 850 and 1900 MHz in North America just like everything else, 2100 MHz in the rest of the world (I think). Used all over places that have their act together in terms of cell-phone technology, such as Europe and Asia. Available sporadically in the US.
HSDPA - add-on for UMTS for high-speed data which is faster than UMTS. Runs at the same bands as UMTS (I think). Easy to misspell (d'oh!). Available all over in most places that don't have their heads in a hole in the ground. You might see it in the US.

Usability in various countries - If you get a CDMA phone, it'll probably only work in North America. If you get a GSM phone, it can work in other countries as well, which is the major benefit of GSM over CDMA, but only if you get a quad-band phone so that it supports the 900 and 1800 MHz bands in addition to the US 850 and 1900 MHz bands (or vice-versa if you live somewhere other than NA). Otherwise, your phone will be useless whenever you go somewhere that uses a band that your phone doesn't support. Similarly, if you want to be able to use HSDPA overseas, you have to have tri-band HSDPA so it supports all three bands. Currently, the only phones AT&T seems to be selling that support all four GSM bands and all three HSDPA bands are expensive smartphones such as the Palm Treo and the Samsung Blackjack (anyone know if this one can sync with iSync?). There are a bunch of quad-band phones that support only the US HSDPA bands, though, and with these, although you wouldn't be able to use HSDPA in Europe, you'd at least get coverage via GSM. If you went to someplace like South Korea or Japan that has UMTS/HSDPA but not GSM, though, you'd be out of luck.

One 3G phone that you want to avoid if you want to use it outside the US is the RAZR V3xx. Although it supports both GSM and HSDPA, it bizarrely only has tri-band GSM (and, of course, US-band HSDPA), making it the first US GSM RAZR that does not support quad-band GSM.

[turtle777]

All technical stuff aside (because I don't know much about it).

For the consumer, the bottom line is:

Most CDMA phones suck, GSM seems to be much more up-to-date and have more / better features. The only drawback in the US is the slower implementation of UMTS vs. EV-DO.

Me personally, I will never switch to a NON-SIM card phone and phones that don't work in the US and Europe. That's just retarded.

-t

[butterfly0fdoom]

No, the bottom line is that what suits your needs best is what's best for you. I prefer GSM because I like the idea that I could upgrade my phone without renewing my contract and because I can use my phone in Taiwan. My aunt, who never goes overseas, uses Verizon and is satisfied with her CDMA service.

The phones that are available on US providers is also has much to do with that technology gap; Verizon and Sprint are dominantly Korean phones (South Korea uses CDMA), while Cingular and T-Mobile tend to have more European phones. Samsung and LG do make a lot of GSM phones as well, while Nokia and Sony Ericsson don't really make any CDMA phones (Nokia re-brands Pantech (also a Korean brand) phones for most of their EV-DO offerings). Motorola, being American, is pretty balanced.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

My aunt, who never goes overseas, uses Verizon and is satisfied with her CDMA service.

I wasn't really thinking of the "TracPhone" crowd. Yes, they exist, but not worth building a business model around, and definitely not exiting enough for the people who want more than just a phone.

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Most CDMA phones suck, GSM seems to be much more up-to-date and have more / better features. The only drawback in the US is the slower implementation of UMTS vs. EV-DO.

And relatively poor coverage

And relatively poor voice quality

And relatively poor performance inside buildings

And interference with other electronics

And less consistent service in general

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

My aunt, who never goes overseas, uses Verizon and is satisfied with her CDMA service.

I wasn't really thinking of the "TracPhone" crowd. Yes, they exist, but not worth building a business model around, and definitely not exiting enough for the people who want more than just a phone.

Are you nuts?! The people like butterfly's aunt who just want a phone are far more numerous than the geeks who hang out on Internet message boards and discuss cell phone specs. Most people just want a phone that works. If you don't believe me, go look at Verizon and AT&T's churn rates and show me which is greater. Hint: Cingular used to be the largest cell company in terms of customers by a fairly large margin after they bought AT&T Wireless. That eroded away for the next few years, and now Verizon is the largest again. Hmm.

Most people don't use their phones overseas, or even know that's possible. They don't know what a SIM card or Bluetooth or UMTS are, and they don't care. They just want a phone that they can talk on, which will work in all the places they need it to. Verizon provides them that, and so they switch to Verizon in droves. Verizon has some very satisfied customers.

[hojo]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

... until this patent case is resolved.

Import ban on 3G handsets could hurt industry | CNET News.com

Apparently, Qualcomm's chipsets are banned from being used in any new cell phone models in the US due to the patent infringement, and they're a major supplier of the chips used in 3G phones. I think they also provide the chips for CDMA phones, but I'm not sure whether this patent case applies to those or not. Either way, this could help ensure that we stay even farther behind other countries in cell phone technology. Great, huh?

Frankly, I don't see why Qualcomm doesn't just license the patent from Broadcom.

CDMA is a more technologically capable protocol than GSM. And 3G is designed as an upgrade path for GSM to WCDMA so that the Europeans can dig themselves out of the crappy-bandwidth hole they let Nokia dig for them.

But please, let's be realistic -- it simply isn't conceivable that the cell phone industry is just going to shut down over something like this. You can be sure that all the appropriate executives will very soon come out of the back room slapping each other on the back and the cell phone industry in the US will continue to chug along just fine.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And relatively poor coverage

And relatively poor voice quality

And relatively poor performance inside buildings

And interference with other electronics

And less consistent service in general

Blame your carriers. My service in Toronto on GSM is excellent. And like I said, I've NEVER had interference issues. Perhaps it has to do with the phone models.

Usability in various countries - If you get a CDMA phone, it'll probably only work in North America. If you get a GSM phone, it can work in other countries as well, which is the major benefit of GSM over CDMA, but only if you get a quad-band phone so that it supports the 900 and 1800 MHz bands in addition to the US 850 and 1900 MHz bands (or vice-versa if you live somewhere other than NA). Otherwise, your phone will be useless whenever you go somewhere that uses a band that your phone doesn't support. Similarly, if you want to be able to use HSDPA overseas, you have to have tri-band HSDPA so it supports all three bands. Currently, the only phones AT&T seems to be selling that support all four GSM bands and all three HSDPA bands are expensive smartphones such as the Palm Treo and the Samsung Blackjack (anyone know if this one can sync with iSync?). There are a bunch of quad-band phones that support only the US HSDPA bands, though, and with these, although you wouldn't be able to use HSDPA in Europe, you'd at least get coverage via GSM. If you went to someplace like South Korea or Japan that has UTMS/HSDPA but not GSM, though, you'd be out of luck.

In Toronto, tri-band phones have excellent coverage on GSM. However, I got a quad-band phone anyway because the same is not true in some places in the US.

Most people don't use their phones overseas, or even know that's possible. They don't know what a SIM card or Bluetooth or UTMS are, and they don't care. They just want a phone that they can talk on, which will work in all the places they need it to. Verizon provides them that, and so they switch to Verizon in droves. Verizon has some very satisfied customers.

I guess it depends on the people you know.

I have tons of friends and acquaintances who refuse to buy anything except GSM phones, and they aren't even technology freaks. Why? Because they want to be able to use their phones overseas. These are people from Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, all of which have large immigrant populations.

They don't care about UMTS or Bluetooth, but the only thing they want is SIM card support in a nice phone. In fact, a couple of them came to me saying they wanted prepaid SIM card support and the ability to use their phone for overseas visits and asked me which phone to get, but were on CDMA. So you're right... They didn't know what GSM or CDMA are, but even though they didn't, they still do want the advantages of GSM. I told them if they wanted such a phone and use it on their carrier, they'd have to switch carriers. So they did... They dropped CDMA and went to GSM without thinking twice, and are very happy now.

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

No, the bottom line is that what suits your needs best is what's best for you. I prefer GSM because I like the idea that I could upgrade my phone without renewing my contract and because I can use my phone in Taiwan. My aunt, who never goes overseas, uses Verizon and is satisfied with her CDMA service.

The phones that are available on US providers is also has much to do with that technology gap; Verizon and Sprint are dominantly Korean phones (South Korea uses CDMA), while Cingular and T-Mobile tend to have more European phones. Samsung and LG do make a lot of GSM phones as well, while Nokia and Sony Ericsson don't really make any CDMA phones (Nokia re-brands Pantech (also a Korean brand) phones for most of their EV-DO offerings). Motorola, being American, is pretty balanced.

I've always disliked Samsung phones, and for some reason getting iSync support for some Samsung phones is a real problem. My friend only gets Samsung phones, and the biggest issue he's had switching to the Mac is getting iCal and Address Book to sync up with his phone.

For me, I tend to gravitate towards Sony Ericsson phones (with Nokia in second place), and generally dislike Motorola phones. So, GSM is the only option for me. ie. If you're stuck on CDMA, your phone selection is really limited.

And of course, the iPhone is GSM-only at this time.

BTW, for the record, I've been on GSM since the late 90s. Early on I wondered if I made a mistake, because it looked like CDMA was taking over. However, ever since the mid-2000s it's been clear that even in North America, GSM is where it's at in terms of cool products.

Ironically, I had a CDMA phone also in the late 90s, but it suffered from weird echos, missed calls, and dropped calls. I had much less problem on GSM, so I stuck with GSM.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Blame your carriers. My service in Toronto on GSM is excellent.

Again, if you have the same towers from the same carrier broadcasting both CDMA and GSM, the CDMA phone will get better reception. With GSM, you have to put up more towers to get the same coverage as with CDMA.

Towers cost money for carriers to put up. So if you get bad reception with GSM even though the carrier has the same number of towers as the CDMA carrier that works fine, you can very much blame GSM. If you get good service on GSM, then you can thank your carriers for putting up twice as many towers as the CDMA carriers, not the other way around.

And like I said, I've NEVER had interference issues. Perhaps it has to do with the phone models.

And now I know why...

In Toronto, tri-band phones have excellent coverage on GSM. However, I got a quad-band phone anyway because the same is not true in some places in the US.

That explains it - your carrier is primarily using the 1900 MHz band. Phones using the 850 MHz band are what cause the worst interference. Next time you visit one of those places in the US that requires a quad-band phone, try it again and you'll see what I'm talking about.

In the US, AT&T/Cingular, which is the largest GSM provider (and now one of only two GSM providers left thanks to their constantly eating up the smaller ones), uses the 850 MHz band primarily, so you see this problem all the time. CDMA phones don't do this, even on the 850 MHz band.

I guess it depends on the people you know.

I have tons of friends and acquaintances who refuse to buy anything except GSM phones, and they aren't even technology freaks. Why? Because they want to be able to use their phones overseas. These are people from Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, all of which have large immigrant populations.

Okay, I'll give you immigrants. There is a good reason that they might want to travel overseas frequently, if they have friends or family in their former homelands that they want to visit. In such a case, I can see why they would want that particular advantage (not advantages - singular [Cingular?]) of GSM. That's a special case, though. Most John and Jane Does (in the US, anyway) don't have any idea what a SIM card is or that it's possible at all to use a US cell phone overseas. They just want good coverage where they live.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And relatively poor coverage

And relatively poor voice quality

And relatively poor performance inside buildings

And interference with other electronics

And less consistent service in general

Where do you live ?

I think it will expalin your issues. Out in BFE, yes, Verizon is great, everyone else is crap.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Phones using the 850 MHz band are what cause the worst interference. Next time you visit one of those places in the US that requires a quad-band phone, try it again and you'll see what I'm talking about.

It's not GSM's fault that the US carriers chose to implement the seemingly sub-standard 850 MHz band.

The rest of the world uses mostly 1800 MHz. Although I have seen a lot of 900 MHZ in Europe, w/o all your problems. So I don't know, maybe the US carriers are just too dumb to make GSM work correctly

-t

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Where do you live ?

I think it will expalin your issues. Out in BFE, yes, Verizon is great, everyone else is crap.

-t

I don't even know what BFE stands for.

I'd rather not say where I live (it's a suburb of one of the US's big cities, that's all I'll say), but it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway. All the things I have listed are well-known information that's easily found on the Internet if you are inclined to search for it.

CDMA does cover more area with the same number of towers.

CDMA does have more consistent voice quality, even when the GSM phone has 5 bars.

CDMA does penetrate buildings better.

CDMA does interfere a lot less with other electronics.

Here's another one I forgot to list earlier: CDMA also lets more callers connect to a tower before you start getting "Network Busy" errors than GSM does.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's not GSM's fault that the US carriers chose to implement the seemingly sub-standard 850 MHz band.

Supposedly, the signal at 850 MHz propagates further, penetrates buildings better than the 1900 MHz band. Which makes it desirable to US GSM carriers, since they're competing with superior CDMA technology.

And of course, there's nothing sub-standard about the 850 MHz band. The only reason that one causes more interference than 1900 MHz is because more consumer electronics seem to work in frequencies around that band. If there's something that uses frequencies around 1900 MHz, I'm sure that 1900 would interfere like hell with that too.

The rest of the world uses mostly 1800 MHz. Although I have seen a lot of 900 MHZ in Europe, w/o all your problems. So I don't know, maybe the US carriers are just too dumb to make GSM work correctly

You probably have seen these problems, but just didn't realize that the sound was coming from the cell phone, unless all the electronics you use are expensive and well-shielded. Again, this is well documented on the Internet.

Wikipedia says this:

A nearby GSM handset is usually the source of the "dit dit dit, dit dit dit, dit dit dit" signal that can be heard from time to time on home stereo systems, televisions, computers, and personal music devices. When these audio devices are in the near field of the GSM handset, the radio signal is strong enough that the solid state amplifiers in the audio chain function as a detector. The clicking noise itself represents the power bursts that carry the TDMA signal. These signals have been known to interfere with other electronic devices, such as car stereos and portable audio players. This is a form of RFI, and could be mitigated or eliminated by use of additional shielding and/or bypass capacitors in these audio devices[citation needed], however, the increased cost of doing so is difficult for a designer to justify.

Wikipedia has this to say on the TDMA page:

A disadvantage of TDMA systems is that they create interference at a frequency which is directly connected to the timeslot length. This is the irritating buzz which can sometimes be heard if a GSM phone is left next to a radio or speakers. Another disadvantage is that the "dead time" between timeslots limits the potential bandwidth of a TDMA channel. These are implemented in part because of the difficulty ensuring that different terminals transmit at exactly the times required. Handsets that are moving will need to constantly adjust their timings to ensure their transmission is received at precisely the right time, because as they move further from the base station, their signal will take longer to arrive.

Some other stuff you can find with Google:

Originally Posted by http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ost/section4.html

Testing of Hearing Aid Interference from Digital Cellular Telephones

Laboratory screening of over 20 models of hearing aids has revealed that all hearing aids tested were susceptible to radiofrequency (RF) interference from the digital cellular phones that are now used in the U.S. Extensive testing was conducted on eight hearing aids (four behind-the-ear and four in-the-ear) using five different types of digital cellular telephones.

...

The five digital cellular telephones employed in tested were Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) , Personal Communication System (PCS), U.S. Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). The GSM phone operated at a frequency of 902 MHz, with a 217-Hz pulse modulation rate. The PCS phone operated at a frequency of 1.88 GHz with a 217-Hz frame rate. There were two U.S. TDMA phones. One operated at a frequency of 835 MHz, and a 50-Hz pulse modulation rate. The other operated at 814 MHZ, with an 11-Hz modulation. The CDMA phone operated at 847 MHz and was tested in both full and variable vocoder rates during testing. Each phone was operated in test mode and transmitted its maximum power without the need for a base station.

The interference level was recorded as a function of separation distance between the phone and hearing aid. The range of values of SPL from this interference varied greatly, depending on the type of phone and hearing aid tested as well as their separation distance. The highest interference-induced SPLs were measured from an output-compression, behind-the-ear hearing aid when placed within 2 cm of each cell phone's antenna. At this separation distance, all of the phones tested, with the exception of the CDMA phone in full rate vocoder, produced very high sound pressure levels of 120 dB +/- 2.5 dB from this hearing aid. The CDMA phone in full rate vocoder produced an interference-induced SPL of 111.8 dB. The interference SPL drop off rate with respect to distance was two to three times more rapid for the CDMA phones. In general, behind-the-ear hearing aids experienced higher levels of interference than the in-the-ear aids.

Originally Posted by http://technology.inc.com/telecom/articles/200608/anagrams.html

Disadvantages: GSM transmission has a pulse nature which can interfere with some electronics, including pace makers and hearing aides, according to the GSM Association. This is why hospitals require people to turn off their cell phones.

Incidentally, the same page contains this tidbit, which explains why Qualcomm would have a stranglehold on the chipsets for CDMA (which, again, is used in UMTS/HSDPA by the GSM carriers):

Qualcomm brought CDMA technology to cell phones in the late '80s and currently owns the patents to code-division multiple access. Thus, when you use CDMA, Qualcomm is making a profit. More recently, CDMA became the foundation for the newest cell phone technology, 3G Wireless.

[TETENAL]

UMTS uses CDMA, so it's not like Europe is technically behind or something.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

That explains it - your carrier is primarily using the 1900 MHz band. Phones using the 850 MHz band are what cause the worst interference. Next time you visit one of those places in the US that requires a quad-band phone, try it again and you'll see what I'm talking about.

In the US, AT&T/Cingular, which is the largest GSM provider (and now one of only two GSM providers left thanks to their constantly eating up the smaller ones), uses the 850 MHz band primarily, so you see this problem all the time. CDMA phones don't do this, even on the 850 MHz band.

Actually, that is not correct. I am probably just as often on the 850 band I'm guessing, since that's Rogers' main focus.

Still, 1900 support in Toronto is probably better than 850 support in a lot of places in the US. (ie. 1900 in Toronto is excellent.) One reason for this is that Rogers bought out Fido, so now all Fido customers are on the Rogers network. Why does this matter? It matters because Fido was 100% 1900 prior to the buyout.

And FWIW, the only time I've owned a CDMA phone, I had lots of problems with dropped or missed calls. However, that was a long time ago.

However, around here in 2007, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in that for GSM and and CDMA. Both are good and reliable. IIRC though, GSM is seeing higher growth than CDMA here. In fact, Rogers is the biggest wireless voice and data provider in Canada now, and they're GSM.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

UMTS uses CDMA, so it's not like Europe is technically behind or something.

Um... I've already pointed out that UMTS is based on CDMA, and no one is arguing that Europe is behind. What exactly were you replying to?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, that is not correct. I am probably just as often on the 850 band I'm guessing, since that's Rogers' main focus.

Still, 1900 support in Toronto is probably better than 850 support in a lot of places in the US. One reason for this is that Rogers bought out Fido, so now all Fido customers are on the Rogers network. Why does this matter? It matters because Fido was 100% 1900 prior to the buyout.

Well then, try the phone when it's in 850 mode near some unshielded electronic device with a speaker on it and you'll notice the interference I'm talking about. If a device is well-shielded, it won't happen, but if the shielding is weak, you'll hear it. I've noticed that it happens sometimes when making a call, almost always when receiving one (I can anticipate when the phone is going to ring about a second before it actually does if I'm near something it's going to interfere with), and sometimes just randomly while it decides to talk to the network for some reason.

Some things that it will do this with:

Fifth-generation iPods (unless they've started shielding them better since the original came out - when the 5G was first released, there was a lot of ballyhoo about this). Put the GSM phone near the click wheel and see what happens.

Cheap headphones. The expensive studio monitor ones seem to be better shielded and immune to this, but with cheaper stuff, you'll hear zzt-zzt-zzt.

Cassette adapters for plugging in an iPod to your car's stereo and such are great at this if the phone is anywhere near the wire. I had to turn my phone off when I was driving somewhere with my brother once, because he was about ready to kill me because of the way my phone was screwing up the music.

I've had my phone interfere with my Roland R-09 digital audio recorder when I placed it too close to it. I don't know if it was the recorder itself or the microphone I had attached to it, though (the mic wasn't too expensive - it's an old one I used to use with my MiniDisc recorder).

I've had a Dr. Beat metronome start making GSM noises when a phone was around.

I also have an old AT&T 900 MHz cordless landline phone/answering machine combo where the answering machine's speaker sometimes randomly makes GSM noises if my phone is too close. It's spastic, though, and I can't reproduce it at will.

And FWIW, the only time I've owned a CDMA phone, I had lots of problems with dropped or missed calls. However, that was a long time ago.

Well, it's certainly possible to set up a crappy network with CDMA, if you don't put up enough towers. It's easier to do with GSM, though.

However, around here in 2007, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in that for GSM and and CDMA. Both are good and reliable. IIRC though, GSM is seeing higher growth than CDMA here. In fact, Rogers is the biggest wireless voice and data provider in Canada, and they're GSM.

Well, that's probably why GSM is so good and reliable there. Rogers can afford to carpet-bomb the area with cell phone towers. I'm assuming this is in the city, too - if you take a trip through the middle of nowhere, you'll find that when you travel through less-populated areas where there's less incentive for carriers to put two billion towers up, the CDMA phones will perform much better than the GSM ones.

[Eug]

Well, that's probably why GSM is so good and reliable there. Rogers can afford to carpet-bomb the area with cell phone towers. I'm assuming this is in the city, too - if you take a trip through the middle of nowhere, you'll find that when you travel through less-populated areas where there's less incentive for carriers to put two billion towers up, the CDMA phones will perform much better than the GSM ones.

Rogers claims to have the best coverage in Canada. I can't verify that myself, however.

[CharlesS]

Apparently, some guy is claiming that the interference from a GSM cell phone actually managed to blow out one of his speakers.

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/0...-interference/
http://www.feelingcingular.com

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

UMTS uses CDMA, so it's not like Europe is technically behind or something.

UMTS rollout in Europe lags behind CDMA2000 rollout in the US by a significant margin. An awful lot of people use 2G GSM. However, coverage is pretty decent with a lot of the GSM networks, I guess we're a more densely populated island with a smaller surface area, so it's more economic to have more masts or something.

[Eug]

2G CDMA has a lot of promises, but the bottom line is they are still playing catchup (and never will catchup) in terms of worldwide numbers vs. 2G GSM.
The bottom line is I never get noticeable interference issues with GSM with my equipment. Maybe if I held up my phone to a speaker going at 100 Watts during a phone call I'd have problems, but who does that?
The bottom line is my coverage on GSM is excellent. Perhaps the cell tower density is higher than average here, but I dunno, and I don't give a damn.
The bottom line is phone call quality on my friends' CDMA phones is no better (or worse).

CharlesS does bring up a lot of reasonable arguments, but a lot of them are theoretical, and don't take into account the fact that not all CDMA is perfect. Perhaps in a perfect world, CDMA is better than GSM, but that simply is not the case in Toronto.

I'm just glad that Apple chose the right path, and went with GSM first.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

2G CDMA has a lot of promises, but the bottom line is they are still playing catchup (and never will catchup) in terms of worldwide numbers vs. 2G GSM.

I suspect that once the networks can finally get UMTS going everywhere there is GSM service and everyone gets moved over to UMTS phones, the GSM network will begin to be phased out, just like TDMA and AMPS were before it once replacements were around. From what I've heard on the Internet, Japan is doing that right now - gradually taking down their 2G networks in favor of UMTS/HSDPA only. 2G CDMA will still be around, though, since EV-DO doesn't do voice - it doesn't have to, because 2G CDMA already does a pretty good job of that. So, once GSM usage starts dropping off to zero in favor of UMTS, 2G CDMA usage will overtake 2G GSM usage. It's an inevitability. Granted, at the present rate it may take years before UMTS is properly deployed.

The bottom line is I never get noticeable interference issues with GSM with my equipment. Maybe if I held up my phone to a speaker going at 100 Watts during a phone call I'd have problems, but who does that?

You're either unique or you just haven't been paying attention. You definitely don't need to have a speaker going at 100 watts (although it'd probably have to be jacked up pretty high to actually blow out like what happened to the guy in that link I posted).

It's not just speakers, either - it tends to really muck up the signal if you have an unshielded wire, such as with an iPod cassette adapter for your car stereo.

I started noticing the interference with all kinds of random equipment within the first week of signing up for Cingular. It's definitely there.

The bottom line is my coverage on GSM is excellent. Perhaps the cell tower density is higher than average here, but I dunno, and I don't give a damn.

The bottom line is phone call quality on my friends' CDMA phones is no better (or worse).

The cell tower density is higher there. If your GSM coverage is better, that's because of the carriers, not because of GSM. Go out in the sticks where no one wants to spend much money on cell towers, and see which works better there.

Furthermore, in all the places I've ever lived, the call quality on CDMA phones has most definitely been better.

CharlesS does bring up a lot of reasonable arguments, but a lot of them are theoretical,

In what way?

and don't take into account the fact that not all CDMA is perfect.

Um... so what? I honestly fail to see what relevance the fact that it's possible for a CDMA carrier (like Sprint!) to set up a network badly. Yeah, if I were claiming that CDMA is magic, and that a network consisting of one CDMA tower would do better than a network consisting of 100 GSM towers, and that a CDMA network would always be better no matter how many towers each network had, then maybe you'd have a point. I don't recall saying any such thing, though.

Perhaps in a perfect world, CDMA is better than GSM, but that simply is not the case in Toronto.

Not in a perfect world. In an equal world, where each side gets the same number of towers, CDMA is better than GSM. Now, there may be more GSM towers in Toronto to make up for that. But guess what? In the US, there are generally more CDMA towers than GSM towers. There are more CDMA carriers, and more roaming agreements, especially out in the middle of nowhere. CDMA would win for coverage in most places here, even if the two were completely technologically equivalent. The fact that CDMA has greater range and works with only one bar is just the icing on the cake.

I'm just glad that Apple chose the right path, and went with GSM first.

I think they're going to severely limit their customer base if they don't release a CDMA version in the US.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The fact that CDMA has greater range and works with only one bar is just the icing on the cake.

? My phone works fine with 1 bar of signal. Remember the bars are meaningless anyway when comparing between phone models.

I think they're going to severely limit their customer base if they don't release a CDMA version in the US.

That is true to a certain extent, but it seems that Nokia and Sony Ericsson haven't suffered for it.

It's not just speakers, either - it tends to really muck up the signal if you have an unshielded wire, such as with an iPod cassette adapter for your car stereo.

I have a Sony cassette adapter for my iPod. No problems. The wire is not shielded.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

? My phone works fine with 1 bar of signal. Remember the bars are meaningless anyway when comparing between phone models.

GSM phones get a lot of "Call Failed" errors and dropped calls when the signal gets low. CDMA is a lot better at this. This is true in my personal experience and in information that can be found on the Internet.

That is true to a certain extent, but it seems that Nokia and Sony Ericsson haven't suffered for it.

Nokia makes CDMA phones. Sony Ericsson doesn't, but then again they are the least popular of the major cell phone makers in the US.

I have a Sony cassette adapter for my iPod. No problems. The wire is not shielded.

There are several possibilities:

1. The wire is, in fact, shielded

2. You're on the 1900 MHz band, which according to the Internet is supposed to be less prone to interference

3. You have a 3G phone and are using UMTS instead of GSM

4. You didn't try making or receiving a call while the phone was near the wire for the cassette adapter and while something on the iPod was playing through the speakers.

Look, all you have to offer is anecdotal evidence. I've got plenty of that, too - I once drove somewhere with my brother for quite a long ways, and it was through an area where GSM coverage was quite spotty, so my phone would keep losing the signal and picking it up again. Every time that happened, my phone would make our speakers go crazy (due, I think, to the wire from the cassette adapter) while it looked for a GSM signal. I tried moving the phone as far away from the adapter as possible, but I ended up having to turn the phone off because my brother was about to kill me.

The difference is that anecdotal evidence isn't all I've got. TDMA interference is a known issue of GSM. This is publicly available information, which you can easily find on the Internet, and however many times you claim you personally haven't noticed it is not going to change this fact. GSM has problems, and even the GSM Association knows this. Otherwise, why do you think they see a need to replace it (with UMTS) whereas they don't on the CDMA side of the fence?

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

GSM phones get a lot of "Call Failed" errors and dropped calls when the signal gets low. CDMA is a lot better at this. This is true in my personal experience and in information that can be found on the Internet.

I've actually seen more problems with CDMA phones than with GSM phones.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Nokia makes CDMA phones. Sony Ericsson doesn't, but then again they are the least popular of the major cell phone makers in the US.

Well, they only have three phones offered with subsidies in the US, and all three are only offered by Cingular. It's kinda hard to gain much marketshare in the U.S. when most of your phones are sold through unsubsidized unlocked import channels.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

GSM phones get a lot of "Call Failed" errors and dropped calls when the signal gets low. CDMA is a lot better at this. This is true in my personal experience and in information that can be found on the Internet.

Like I said, the only time I owned a CDMA phone, it was a disaster. Lots of missed calls and dropped calls. Lately CDMA is much better than before, but my friends with CDMA still suffer the same problems from time to time. I'm not saying it's necessarily worse than my GSM service, but it's certainly not better.

Nokia makes CDMA phones. Sony Ericsson doesn't, but then again they are the least popular of the major cell phone makers in the US.

AFAIK, Nokia dropped out of the CDMA manufacturing business quite some ago. They just rebrand CDMA phones from other manufacturers now.

EDIT:

I just read their press release on this. As of June 2006 they announced they were ramping down CDMA manufacturing, but it would not be completely stopped until April 2007. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Perhaps they're still making a few, I dunno. However, they also said they would continue to sell CDMA phones made by 3rd party contract manufacturers.

There are several possibilities:

1. The wire is, in fact, shielded

It is not.

2. You're on the 1900 MHz band, which according to the Internet is supposed to be less prone to interference

I am on both 1900 and 850 in Toronto.

3. You have a 3G phone and are using UMTS instead of GSM

I do not.

4. You didn't try making or receiving a call while the phone was near the wire for the cassette adapter and while something on the iPod was playing through the speakers.

I have gotten tons of calls while the iPod was playing. True, I don't hold my phone next to the iPod or the cassette wire when talking on the phone, but why would I do that anyway?!?

Look, all you have to offer is anecdotal evidence.

Exactly. No matter how much you claim otherwise, anecdotally, I DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'm not denying they exist. I'm just saying your condemnation of GSM sounds more like fanboyism than anything else.

[nonhuman]

As far as interference problems go, in my experience it's pretty rare in the US. It happens, but not very often. Perhaps that's because so many people here are on CDMA.

In China, however, it most definitely happens, and quite often. Maybe it was a perceptual trick, but it seemed to me that the interference problems in China were much more severe than I've experienced in the US.

I'm also pretty sure that the same phenomenon that causes the interference is what allows the light-up phone dangly things to work. The high intensity radio waves activate the light. When I brought some of those back to the US they didn't work with my T-Mobile phone.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Like I said, the only time I owned a CDMA phone, it was a disaster. Lots of missed calls and dropped calls. Lately CDMA is much better than before, but my friends with CDMA still suffer the same problems from time to time. I'm not saying it's necessarily worse than my GSM service, but it's certainly not better.

And like I said, yes, it's possible to build a crappy CDMA network. So the network in Toronto is not built well (or wasn't built well a long time ago, since that's when you had your experience). Toronto several years ago is not the world, and once again, it has nothing to do with the respective technologies.

AFAIK, Nokia dropped out of the CDMA manufacturing business quite some ago. They just rebrand CDMA phones from other manufacturers now.

EDIT:

I just read their press release on this. As of June 2006 they announced they were ramping down CDMA manufacturing, but it would not be completely stopped until April 2007. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Perhaps they're still making a few, I dunno. However, they also said they would continue to sell CDMA phones made by 3rd party contract manufacturers.

Whether they make them or outsourcing them, they're still selling CDMA phones. Not to do so would be bad for business.

I am on both 1900 and 850 in Toronto.

But you don't know which frequency you were using at the time you tried it with your cassette adapter (assuming you actually tried this test at all). It does happen less frequently when you are on the 1900 band. I'd assume this is what's happening, because on 850 the interference occurs pretty much every time you send or receive a call.

To be fair, the frequency (no pun intended) with which this occurs over here has decreased since Cingular finally finished the integration of the AT&T Wireless towers over here into their network last summer. Cingular's original network where I live was pretty much all 850 MHz, whereas AT&T Wireless's towers were 1900 MHz, so now that my city has a mix of 850 and 1900 towers, I am on 850 only some of the time instead of all of the time, and the interference doesn't happen as much. But it does still happen.

I have gotten tons of calls while the iPod was playing. True, I don't hold my phone next to the iPod or the cassette wire when talking on the phone, but why would I do that anyway?!?

I have had the interference happen when the phone was not terribly close to the cassette adapter wire. For example, the phone could be in my right pants pocket, pretty close to the seat, and the iPod is sitting on the seat next to me, to my right. Or maybe I'm not driving, but am in the passenger seat, and the iPod is in my hands while I change the song on it, and my phone is nearby in my pocket? Maybe I'm not driving, but I'm practicing the piano, and I took the phone out of my pocket to get rid of the encumbrance, and happened to put it somewhere close to my recorder. Never mind the case where someone with a hearing aid might want to talk on a cell phone and obviously have it near his ear. Whatever, it's obnoxious to always have to make sure to keep the phone far away from any other electronics.

Exactly. No matter how much you claim otherwise, anecdotally, I DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

And all you have is anecdotal evidence.

I'm not denying they exist. I'm just saying your condemnation of GSM sounds more like fanboyism than anything else.

More like having previously bought into the GSM fanboyism, having used GSM for several years, having noticed that the service was not as good, being disillusioned in many ways, and finally realizing that a lot of the rallying cries by the GSM crowd are either mistaken or downright dishonest. I've had a number of problems directly caused by GSM, I've noticed that the replacement, UMTS, is based on CDMA for precisely these reasons, I've noticed that most of the GSM fanboys have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm a little irked. GSM has exactly two advantages over CDMA. Popularity and battery life (due to being a simpler technology). That is it, and CDMA wins at pretty much everything else, but you still hear people sing GSM's praises and claim it's a newer or more advanced technology than CDMA, which it's not.

What we should be doing is informing users of the respective benefits and tradeoffs of each platform. For a user who travels to Europe a lot, for example, GSM is the obvious choice. For a user who doesn't travel much, lives in a small town that might be less heavily covered than a large city, and just wants a phone that can make calls well with good coverage, GSM makes no sense. People should mention the benefits of each, but do they do this? No, it's always "GSM is a better technology, CDMA is old and crappy and worthless! All the cool phones are on GSM (not really true either. Some of the newer phones from LG look pretty nice, and of course Motos are pretty much equivalent on both sides)! GSM rah rah rah!"

I wish Verizon didn't cripple their phones, because if they didn't, I'd go back and use them again. I could unlock the GSM phone that I have and use it with a prepaid SIM if I ever need to travel - there's no need to currently be on a GSM provider to use that particular benefit of GSM. I'm going to have a look at the new 3G phones that come out on Cingular this year, to see whether or not I'm going to give them another chance with UMTS. Unfortunately, if no new 3G phones can be released in the US because of this Qualcomm ban, that puts a crimp in my plans there as well.

Worst case scenario, I could switch to T-Mobile and at least pay a price appropriate for the level of service I'm getting.

[Mike Pither]

if I hold my gsm Blackberry near a compass I can "move" north but it does this even with the phone switched off! If I leave the phone next to a speaker and I get a call it does interfere, but only if it is within around 6 - 8 inches of the speaker. I have never used other than gsm or umts in my life and during various trips to the states I have always found mobile phone coverage very patchy once outside of the cities. Last year during a tour of the "parks" (grand canyon, Yosemite etc) I was without a signal for several days which seemed a strange experience. The gsm experience seems much better in Europe. Looking at the new phones available in the local supermarket I see that at least here in Italy that the gsm is just about dead. Anything other than the oldest and most basic models seem to be UMTS now.

[Eug]

Rogers expands its rollout of 3G HSDPA service.

[Stratus Fear]

The reason GSM typically has higher cell site density isn't because of range -- it's because GSM can handle less calls per channel, as well as less calls for the available spectrum bandwidth, as compared to CDMA. Range of a signal has a lot more to do with transmission power, as well as gain and quality of the sending and receiving antennas, than the air interface. The air interface doesn't really affect it as much.

If you're having trouble getting a signal in BFE as compared to CDMA, it's not because of bad range with GSM. It's probably because the carrier in the area is broadcasting 1900 and not 850, which has worse range and building penetration, and/or there simply isn't GSM buildout in that area. It's no secret that Verizon has an amazingly large CDMA buildout in this country (including areas in the middle of nowhere), and it's also no secret that they had larger 850 coverage for a long time due to having a lot of the old AMPS stuff on 850 as well. I also wouldn't expect that CDMA carriers with GSM roaming would put nearly as much effort into the roaming as their home network.

As far as dropped calls in low signal areas, buy a Motorola (most of them have superb reception) and you'll probably lose that problem. I wouldn't call Motorola the highest quality phone manufacturer, but they put together good radios for their phones. That said, I have an SE K800i.

GSM isn't as bad as CDMA proponents make it out to be, even though CDMA is a bit better. CDMA isn't without its faults, either. Battery life is one that comes to mind. W-CDMA is even worse on that front, but for all its advantages (over CDMA and GSM alike), its probably worth it.

[Eug]

But you don't know which frequency you were using at the time you tried it with your cassette adapter (assuming you actually tried this test at all).

Hmmm... Are you calling me dishonest now? Like I already said, I often use the cassette adaptor, and it works just fine, without interference. Maybe your GSM phone was worse than mine for this. I have a Sony Ericsson K790a.

P.S. I can understand your wanting to use CDMA in your area of the US. However, you seem to be using your anecdotal evidence to discount everyone else's.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... Are you calling me dishonest now? Like I already said, I often use the cassette adaptor, and it works just fine, without interference. Maybe your GSM phone was worse than mine for this. I have a Sony Ericsson K790a.

I think it depends on the phone. The Motorola phones I've used in the past were notorious for interference, but my K800i barely does a thing, if I ever notice anything, just as your K790a.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

The reason GSM typically has higher cell site density isn't because of range -- it's because GSM can handle less calls per channel, as well as less calls for the available spectrum bandwidth, as compared to CDMA. Range of a signal has a lot more to do with transmission power, as well as gain and quality of the sending and receiving antennas, than the air interface. The air interface doesn't really affect it as much.

It's because of both of those things, AFAIK. GSM's range is lower because the TDMA interface is time-based, and if the time for a signal to travel to the tower and back is too high, it can't keep the connection. A Google search turns up a lot of information stating that CDMA has a much longer range than GSM. Here's just a couple of links I found with Google:

Mobicare
Menasoft � Cell phone technologies - GSM(TDMA) vs CDMA

If you're having trouble getting a signal in BFE as compared to CDMA, it's not because of bad range with GSM. It's probably because the carrier in the area is broadcasting 1900 and not 850, which has worse range and building penetration, and/or there simply isn't GSM buildout in that area.

Like I said before, if you go to Midwestern regions where Cingular has no native coverage, you can roam on rural carriers like Alltel which sometimes put GSM transmitters on their towers as well as CDMA, and when you try to use the service there, you'll find that the CDMA service works much better than the GSM, even from the same towers.

As far as dropped calls in low signal areas, buy a Motorola (most of them have superb reception) and you'll probably lose that problem. I wouldn't call Motorola the highest quality phone manufacturer, but they put together good radios for their phones.

I do have a Motorola. It gets better range than a lot of other GSM phones, sure. But compared to the old bottom-of-the-line cheap-ass CDMA LG phone that I had four years ago, it can't hold a call nearly as well if the signal is really faint.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... Are you calling me dishonest now?

I'm saying that you probably haven't tried my test of going somewhere where you know you're on the 850 band and then trying it near the wire for the cassette adapter. You're still just going by "I've never noticed that before!".

P.S. I can understand your wanting to use CDMA in your area of the US. However, you seem to be using your anecdotal evidence to discount everyone else's.

Are you just trying to be silly? I've provided a lot of links backing up what I've said. You're trying to argue that GSM doesn't have an interference problem based solely on anecdotal evidence, and you're trying to discount not only everyone else's anecdotal evidence based on that, but also well-documented information that can easily be found by anyone who looks for it.

Make up your mind. Are my arguments just "theoretical" or anecdotal?

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

I think it depends on the phone. The Motorola phones I've used in the past were notorious for interference, but my K800i barely does a thing, if I ever notice anything, just as your K790a.

Unfortunately, the SE phones have a much worse reputation for reception than Moto and Nokia, which is why I generally avoid them.

Actually, I wonder if that has anything to do with the interference. It would make sense for a phone that sends stronger radio signals to generate more interference as well. The point is that the interference doesn't happen at all on CDMA.