[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

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.

Good to see some links on the other stuff, but as for this, you can't automatically assume that's a deficiency in GSM. You don't know what hardware they're using there, and you don't know how it's implemented. You can't automatically assume it's done equally to their CDMA hardware and say that GSM sucks as a result. In fact, you don't even know if they have it installed on every cell site in the area, either.

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.

Not my argument, but weren't you the one complaining to him about anecdotal evidence?

Not to mention, how much of this is because of GSM, and how much of it is because of the network?

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

Which is strange because I've had better luck with reception with my new phone than the last Moto I had. YMMV I guess. The Nokias I've had in the past had terrible reception, though. I just decided it was time to give up on the terrible Moto UI. Great for tweakers and modders, but a pain in the ass.

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.

Possibly. The question I'm thinking of, though, is why is the interference automatically GSMs fault? Things that receive interference from a GSM handset surely receive interference from other devices. Why weren't they designed better? Not to mention, why aren't some GSM handsets designed better? You don't necessarily need high transmission power to get good reception. Just a thought.

[nonhuman]

The interference generally occurs right before the phone rings. At that point the phone is emitting higher than usual signals in order to alert the tower that it is, in fact, there. Once that's been accomplished the signal strength lowers and the interference (mostly) goes away.

This is how it works in my experience, anyway.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

Good to see some links on the other stuff, but as for this, you can't automatically assume that's a deficiency in GSM. You don't know what hardware they're using there, and you don't know how it's implemented. You can't automatically assume it's done equally to their CDMA hardware and say that GSM sucks as a result. In fact, you don't even know if they have it installed on every cell site in the area, either.

Yeah, that's a natural failing of anecdotal evidence. Fortunately, I provided a bunch of links too that show that GSM's range is lower.

I do happen to know that they had GSM installed on the nearest cell site to the area where I was having that problem, though, because I called the carrier several times about it and got the same answer each time.

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.

Not my argument, but weren't you the one complaining to him about anecdotal evidence?

I dunno. You know, the nice thing about forums such as these is that you can go back and read it to find out the answers to questions like that.

(hint: Eug was originally criticizing my arguments for being too "theoretical" and wanted some anecdotes as well, so here you go)

It's well-known that CDMA is better at handling low-signal conditions than GSM is. That, as I understand it, is the primary reason that CDMA phones tend to work better indoors than GSM phones.

Which is strange because I've had better luck with reception with my new phone than the last Moto I had. YMMV I guess. The Nokias I've had in the past had terrible reception, though. I just decided it was time to give up on the terrible Moto UI. Great for tweakers and modders, but a pain in the ass.

Everything I read at the time I got my current phone said that Nokia and Moto were at the top as far as reception goes, as long as you bought one of their good ones - their low-end phones were not as good. Ericsson and LG were at the low end of the scale, and Samsung was in the middle somewhere. Of course, that was two years ago, and things may have changed somewhat since then. If their radio isn't broadcasting as strongly, though, it could explain the crazy battery life that the SE phones are rated for, even when they have the same battery as a comparable Nokia or Motorola.

Possibly. The question I'm thinking of, though, is why is the interference automatically GSMs fault? Things that receive interference from a GSM handset surely receive interference from other devices. Why weren't they designed better? Not to mention, why aren't some GSM handsets designed better? You don't necessarily need high transmission power to get good reception. Just a thought.

Because if you read up on it, you'll find that the interference is a direct result of the way TDMA (the air interface used by GSM) works. You can put a CDMA phone - heck, with Moto there's usually a CDMA and a GSM version of the same phone. So you can take a CDMA RAZR and a GSM RAZR which are about as close to each other technologically as a CDMA and GSM phone are going to get, and put both of them next to the same speaker, and the GSM phone will cause interference while the CDMA phone won't. It's a "feature" of TDMA. I put up a bunch of links earlier in the thread - click them if you're interested. Or just do a Google search - the information is out there. Or just look on Wikipedia. This information isn't hard to find.

If you do do a Google search, you'll find a lot of reports from users of PDA phones like the Treo as well. Apparently, with some of those it's so bad that a single user with a Treo can cause interference in computer speakers and CRT monitors all over an office while it's being used for data.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I dunno. You know, the nice thing about forums such as these is that you can go back and read it to find out the answers to questions like that.

(hint: Eug was originally criticizing my arguments for being too "theoretical" and wanted some anecdotes as well, so here you go)

Bad thing about sly sarcasm is it tends to go over people's heads. Good thing is I get to laugh.

(hint: I read the thread and knew what was going on.)

Because if you read up on it, you'll find that the interference is a direct result of the way TDMA (the air interface used by GSM) works. You can put a CDMA phone - heck, with Moto there's usually a CDMA and a GSM version of the same phone. So you can take a CDMA RAZR and a GSM RAZR which are about as close to each other technologically as a CDMA and GSM phone are going to get, and put both of them next to the same speaker, and the GSM phone will cause interference while the CDMA phone won't. It's a "feature" of TDMA. I put up a bunch of links earlier in the thread - click them if you're interested. Or just do a Google search - the information is out there. Or just look on Wikipedia. This information isn't hard to find.

If you do do a Google search, you'll find a lot of reports from users of PDA phones like the Treo as well. Apparently, with some of those it's so bad that a single user with a Treo can cause interference in computer speakers and CRT monitors all over an office while it's being used for data.

You failed to actually answer any of my questions. I already know how TDMA and CDMA work; I don't need you to school me on it or anything. The point is, why blame it all on one thing? Electronics manufacturers tend not to shield their stuff adequately. Lots of other electronics don't always play nice together; I fail to see how this is somehow a major inherent failing of GSM.

While CDMA is technically superior to GSM, it is hardly without its problems. Battery life is one. Qualcomm is another. Lack of network effects in the global market is yet another.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

You failed to actually answer any of my questions. I already know how TDMA and CDMA work; I don't need you to school me on it or anything. The point is, why blame it all on one thing? Electronics manufacturers tend not to shield their stuff adequately. Lots of other electronics don't always play nice together; I fail to see how this is somehow a major inherent failing of GSM.

Speakers and such have been around for much longer than GSM phones. The GSM phones should have been engineered around existing systems, rather than expecting existing systems to re-engineer themselves around the new technology.

[Eug]

P.S. My front speakers for my home stereo system are all heavily shielded. I did this on purpose because they sit against my CRT TV.

Then again I've never noticed any problems with my unshielded surrounds with either my SE K790a and my GF's Motorola, and both are GSM phones, which happen to get charged while sitting on top of my surrounds. (The power adapters plug into the wall behind one of the surrounds.)

[Stratus Fear]

I believe i just heard some excuses for older technology to not progress. Surely cell phones will advance but when the vacuum cleaner or hair dryer interferes with your stuff your stuff might suck. Better shielding might be good. Just because something is existing technology doesn't mean it's not flawed and shouldn't advance.
Sigh.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

You failed to actually answer any of my questions. I already know how TDMA and CDMA work; I don't need you to school me on it or anything. The point is, why blame it all on one thing? Electronics manufacturers tend not to shield their stuff adequately. Lots of other electronics don't always play nice together; I fail to see how this is somehow a major inherent failing of GSM.

Actually, I did answer your question.

1. Yes, some devices are not shielded. No, it is not realistic to expect that every company in the world is going to suddenly start shielding their electronics more just to avoid annoying me when my cell phone goes off.

2. Since CDMA has shown us that it's certainly possible for a cell phone to talk to a tower in such a way that it doesn't cause interference to the extent that GSM does, that clearly shows that this part of the problem certainly is GSM's fault.

3. Since even Apple has screwed up on the shielding issue with 5G iPods, it's definitely an easy thing to do. Playing nice with other electronics, even if they could be better designed, is a good thing, no?

You can go claim GSM doesn't need to fix this because the electronics manufacturers could be shielding their devices more. The electronics manufacturers could say they don't need to fix their devices because GSM shouldn't put out so much interference. You can always go blame just about any problem on someone else. Fortunately, the GSM Association doesn't seem to think this way, as they are working on fixing the problem, with UMTS.

While CDMA is technically superior to GSM, it is hardly without its problems. Battery life is one. Qualcomm is another. Lack of network effects in the global market is yet another.

And if I were claiming that CDMA was better in absolutely every way, then that might be relevant. Apparently the tradeoffs are worth it, because the GSM side is moving to a system based on WCDMA, which has a lower battery life and Qualcomm too.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Then again I've never noticed any problems with my unshielded surrounds with either my SE K790a and my GF's Motorola, and both are GSM phones, which happen to get charged while sitting on top of my surrounds. (The power adapters plug into the wall behind one of the surrounds.)

Well golly, that sure seals it, doesn't it. Your anecdotal evidence, which I have to just take your word for, completely nullifies not only all my personal experiences, but also all the vast amount of information all over the Internet documenting GSM's problem with interference. It must all just be in my head. And all those links I posted must all be in my head too. I They probably actually point to web pages about gymnastics or kumquat recipes or Spongebob or something.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well golly, that sure seals it, doesn't it. Your anecdotal evidence, which I have to just take your word for, completely nullifies not only all my personal experiences, but also all the vast amount of information all over the Internet documenting GSM's problem with interference. It must all just be in my head. And all those links I posted must all be in my head too. I They probably actually point to web pages about gymnastics or kumquat recipes or Spongebob or something.

Your sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

All I'm pointing out is that your anecdotes and your links don't mean everyone suffers the same problems. What I find amusing is that you think your anecdotes are The Truth, but mine simply can't believed because of your links, and you even went as far as to claim I was being dishonest about my experiences. Furthermore, judging by your posts, you'd have us think that GSM is the bane of the EM universe, and CDMA will save us all. Really, why? I just don't get it.

Nah, the real truth is that they're just competing technologies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. And in my opinion the advantages of of GSM in today's real world, in my region, outweigh the advantages of CDMA. YMMV.

If CDMA is truly better in your area, and you happen to like the phones available there, then great, you made the right choice. Just stop trying to convince everyone else they made the wrong one. It ain't working.

P.S. Status Fear seems to have the same experiences as me... with my model of phone, or something close to it. He has the K800i (which I also had at one time), and I have the K790a.

Originally Posted by Status 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.

I've also had another Sony Ericsson phone with the same good results. Again I used to charge it sitting on top of an unshielded surround speaker. He also says that his previous Motorola phones had a significant interference problem. Well, I have never owned a Motorola phone, simply because I hate each one I've tried, in the price ranges I've looked in at the times I was shopping for a phone.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

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

If you avoid them, how would you know they have the problem? Clearly, both Stratus Fear and I seem to think the problem is not severe with our models of SE phones. Perhaps it does exist, but in my real world use, it's simply a non-issue.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

All I'm pointing out is that your anecdotes and your links don't mean everyone suffers the same problems. What I find amusing is that you think your anecdotes are The Truth, but mine simply can't believed because of your links, and you even went as far as to claim I was being dishonest about my experiences. Furthermore, judging by your posts, you'd have us think that GSM is the bane of the EM universe, and CDMA will save us all. Really, why? I just don't get it.

What? No, if you go back and read what I wrote, you will see that I listed several problems with GSM, one of which is that it is prone to interference. You keep saying that you haven't noticed this, as if that proves that this isn't a disadvantage of GSM. When I posted links, you called my arguments "theoretical" and therefore of no value. When I point out that I've personally had problems with the GSM interference, you start making bizarre statements about my anecdotes being "the Truth" or some other nonsense.

You're driving me frigging nuts. Stop it.

Nah, the real truth is that they're just competing technologies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. And in my opinion the advantages of of GSM in today's real world, in my region, outweigh the advantages of CDMA. YMMV.

If CDMA is truly better in your area, and you happen to like the phones available there, then great, you made the right choice. Just stop trying to convince everyone else they made the wrong one. It ain't working.

Did you notice the part where I mentioned (several times actually) that I'm using Cingular/AT&T? And that I'm hoping that once they can convert their network over to UMTS that it could hopefully put it on par with the CDMA carriers?

Apparently not, since you don't seem to be actually reading my posts.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

What? No, if you go back and read what I wrote, you will see that I listed several problems with GSM, one of which is that it is prone to interference. You keep saying that you haven't noticed this, as if that proves that this isn't a disadvantage of GSM. When I posted links, you called my arguments "theoretical" and therefore of no value. When I point out that I've personally had problems with the GSM interference, you start making bizarre statements about my anecdotes being "the Truth" or some other nonsense.

You're driving me frigging nuts. Stop it.

Right back atcha friend.

Actually, I've said several times that I don't deny the issue exists. However, I do think that you're blowing it way out of proportion, cuz many of us simply don't suffer these problems in any significant way, as I've also said many times already.

Did you notice the part where I mentioned (several times actually) that I'm using Cingular/AT&T? And that I'm hoping that once they can convert their network over to UMTS that it could hopefully put it on par with the CDMA carriers?

Apparently not, since you don't seem to be actually reading my posts.

Sorry missed that. (I get confused with the US carriers.)

Perhaps you should switch to CDMA, given all the problems you're having with GSM.

You can always switch back when they go UMTS. Personally, I'm hoping to skip that generation. I hope to see an unlocked HSPDA 3G iPhone in 2009 with 16 GB flash, for a reasonable price. Then I might actually buy an iPhone. The non-removable battery does concern me though. I've used my Sony Ericsson to watch videos, but that kills the battery quite quickly. Fortunately, that one has a swappable battery.

Fortunately, Rogers seems quite gung-ho on HSPDA. Captain Kirk seems to like it.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Right back atcha friend.

Actually, I've said several times that I don't deny the issue exists. However, I do think that you're blowing it way out of proportion, cuz many of us simply don't suffer these problems in any significant way, as I've also said many times already.

"Many" basically being... you?

"This car has a problem where it sometimes explodes, killing the driver"

"Well, my car hasn't exploded! That proves it's not a problem"

Perhaps you should switch to CDMA, given all the problems you're having with GSM.

And if you read my posts, you'd see what my current thinking about that is, too. I'm planning to wait a little and see how UMTS improves things (I live in a 3G-covered area). I do like the idea of being able to take the phone around if/when I get to travel again. I also hate the way most of the CDMA carriers here in the US lock down their phones to disable many of the features (a failing of the carriers, not of the CDMA technology itself). Unfortunately, I have to wait a while to do this, as I am not impressed by any of the non-PDA 3G phones currently available on Cingular. Moto's isn't quad-band. Nokia's has horrible battery life. LG's and Samsung's don't work with iSync. SE's isn't released yet.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

"Many" basically being... you?

Did you read Stratus' posts?

"This car has a problem where it sometimes explodes, killing the driver"

"Well, my car hasn't exploded! That proves it's not a problem"

You're repeating your misrepresentation of my posts. I'll repeat yet again that I don't deny that issue exists for some people, but I've also said I think for many (yes like me) it's a non-issue.

And since we're using car analogies to misrepresent posts, I'll paraphrase a few of yours: "All cars suck, since a couple of car models have problems in certain situations."

And if you read my posts, you'd see what my current thinking about that is, too. I'm planning to wait a little and see how UMTS improves things (I live in a 3G-covered area). I do like the idea of being able to take the phone around if/when I get to travel again. I also hate the way most of the CDMA carriers here in the US lock down their phones to disable many of the features (a failing of the carriers, not of the CDMA technology itself). Unfortunately, I have to wait a while to do this, as I am not impressed by any of the non-PDA 3G phones currently available on Cingular. Moto's isn't quad-band. Nokia's has horrible battery life. LG's and Samsung's don't work with iSync. SE's isn't released yet.

You can always get multiple phones. CDMA for North America, and GSM for elsewhere. Even better, you can get both CDMA and GSM for North America, depending on the area and coverage. Expensive, but it might be worth it if you're that picky about your phone service.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Did you read Stratus' posts?

Yes I did, in fact, and he pretty much acknowledges the problem.

You're repeating your misrepresentation of my posts. I'll repeat yet again that I don't deny that issue exists for some people, but I've also said I think for many (yes like me) it's a non-issue.

Upon what do you base that?

I can point to plenty of links on the Internet to show that many people are affected by this issue. What've you got to state that "many" aren't? All you've got is one particular phone model which allegedly shows less of a problem than other GSM phones.

And since we're using car analogies to misrepresent posts, I'll paraphrase a few of yours: "All cars suck, since a couple of car models have problems in certain situations."

I'm not talking about "a couple of models." I'm talking about GSM, which has this well-documented known issue in the protocol itself. If SE found some way to work around the problem, then good for them, although I'd have to see it for myself before I'd really believe it.

You can always get multiple phones. CDMA for North America, and GSM for elsewhere. Even better, you can get both CDMA and GSM for North America, depending on the area and coverage. Expensive, but it might be worth it if you're that picky about your phone service.

Wait, I thought I was the one telling people what service to get.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Actually, I did answer your question.

1. Yes, some devices are not shielded. No, it is not realistic to expect that every company in the world is going to suddenly start shielding their electronics more just to avoid annoying me when my cell phone goes off.

2. Since CDMA has shown us that it's certainly possible for a cell phone to talk to a tower in such a way that it doesn't cause interference to the extent that GSM does, that clearly shows that this part of the problem certainly is GSM's fault.

3. Since even Apple has screwed up on the shielding issue with 5G iPods, it's definitely an easy thing to do. Playing nice with other electronics, even if they could be better designed, is a good thing, no?

You can go claim GSM doesn't need to fix this because the electronics manufacturers could be shielding their devices more. The electronics manufacturers could say they don't need to fix their devices because GSM shouldn't put out so much interference. You can always go blame just about any problem on someone else. Fortunately, the GSM Association doesn't seem to think this way, as they are working on fixing the problem, with UMTS.

No, you didn't, because you ignored the point. The fact is that any multitude of devices can and do cause interference with other devices. This is hardly limited to GSM cell phones. Good job sidestepping that fact.

Besides, it IS realistic to expect people to buy better hardware if they consider interference an issue. Except I probably forget that people like to bitch. My bad.

And if I were claiming that CDMA was better in absolutely every way, then that might be relevant. Apparently the tradeoffs are worth it, because the GSM side is moving to a system based on WCDMA, which has a lower battery life and Qualcomm too.

You sure do argue like that.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I'm hoping that once they can convert their network over to UMTS that it could hopefully put it on par with the CDMA carriers?

I'm NOT going to go back and re-read the entire thread to see if this was answered previously, but if AT&T's GSM network is so sub-par to the U.S. CDMA carriers, why the hell haven't you switched? I wouldn't see the point in waiting if it was such an immediate inconvenience.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Yes I did, in fact, and he pretty much acknowledges the problem.

Acknowledge that interference sometimes exists, yes. Agree that it's a problem, no.

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but out of most of the people I know, most use GSM. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about it, and I've been around people enough that I eventually hit a situation when around them where their phone sets off a small bit of interference. Suffice to say, I don't think any of them have gotten really annoyed, or they'd have switched to Verizon or Sprint (and I'd have advised them as such if it actually annoyed them).

When I had my Moto, it happened in my car on occasion. My solution was to move the phone. NOT a problem.

I'm not talking about "a couple of models." I'm talking about GSM, which has this well-documented known issue in the protocol itself. If SE found some way to work around the problem, then good for them, although I'd have to see it for myself before I'd really believe it.

Any interference is caused by the fact that the transmitter is not always on. It switches on and off quickly. I don't know what other people think, but I'd figure given the minor annoyance of perhaps OCCASIONAL interference with audio equipment but also given the upside of greatly increased battery life, I'd think the battery life wins. Granted, we lose that advantage when we go UMTS, but CDMA on its own (no EV-DO) did not have enough technical merits over GSM for the end user to make that loss in battery life worth it for most people. Clearly it's not an issue, as the GSM user base in the U.S. has seemingly grown.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

Besides, it IS realistic to expect people to buy better hardware if they consider interference an issue.

I know the interference sound from GSM phones, but I don't remember hearing it recently. It seems like someone has "fixed" it. Either devices got better shielding, or the phones changed. I remember a few years back you could tell that a phone was going to ring before it actually did because auf that GSM interference sound.

Anyway, in addition to GSM, Europe already has a UMTS network running for years now, wich uses CDMA as well. So it's not like Europe is technically behind the US with regard to mobile phone technology.

[analogika]

I hear it a dozen times every day - dialling into the network, receiving an SMS, receiving a phone call, calling some one, or sending an SMS.

Work with any kind of audio equipment, and you can't avoid it.

It has not changed at all in the last few years.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

No, you didn't, because you ignored the point. The fact is that any multitude of devices can and do cause interference with other devices. This is hardly limited to GSM cell phones. Good job sidestepping that fact.

Um, what on earth does that have to do with anything?

Because some other devices can cause interference too, that's a good reason not to try to get cell phones not to cause interference?

Besides, it IS realistic to expect people to buy better hardware if they consider interference an issue. Except I probably forget that people like to bitch. My bad.

Uh huh. I just spent $400 on an audio recorder that my GSM phone interferes with. I'm just gonna go out and spend $800 on another one now? Even the $400 was a stretch on my budget.

And of course, I have no idea if the $800 recorder wouldn't have the same issue. And of course we're surrounded by devices that don't have a more expensive analogue, such as the cassette adapters we talked about earlier, or the 5G iPods.

You sure do argue like that.

Sure, if specifically mentioning the fact that GSM has the advantages of popularity and battery life several times in the threads constitutes arguing that GSM has no advantages at all.

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

I'm NOT going to go back and re-read the entire thread to see if this was answered previously, but if AT&T's GSM network is so sub-par to the U.S. CDMA carriers, why the hell haven't you switched?

2 year contract

I wouldn't see the point in waiting if it was such an immediate inconvenience.

ETF

Plus, as I already mentioned, I don't like any of the US CDMA carriers because of other practices of theirs which are unrelated to the CDMA technology. And also as I said before, I like the idea of being able to bring the phone along if I end up traveling anywhere in the future.

Although if I still lived in the Midwest, it might be a different story. As I said before, it's out in the middle of nowhere where the CDMA networks become obviously better. In the cities, Cingular and T-Mobile are usable.

By the way, nice job in making the argument personal. Really, way to go - ad hominem attacks are clearly the finest form of debate.

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

Acknowledge that interference sometimes exists, yes. Agree that it's a problem, no.

Anecdotal evidence, sure, but out of most of the people I know, most use GSM. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about it, and I've been around people enough that I eventually hit a situation when around them where their phone sets off a small bit of interference. Suffice to say, I don't think any of them have gotten really annoyed, or they'd have switched to Verizon or Sprint (and I'd have advised them as such if it actually annoyed them).

Would anyone switch just because of this? Probably not. Of course, this started out as only one of several bullet points in a summary of mine - it's only been drawn out enough to take over the discussion like this because Eug implied that I was making it up and accused me of having a brain tumor.

I will, however, greatly appreciate it when I'm using UMTS/CDMA/whatever is not GSM and will never hear the damn thing again.

When I had my Moto, it happened in my car on occasion. My solution was to move the phone. NOT a problem.

It gets to be a problem, though, if you go through the middle of nowhere and the phone keeps losing the signal and then picking it up again. The phone starts trying its damndest to find a signal, and starts causing the interference no matter where it is in the car. I had to turn mine off when we did this.

Any interference is caused by the fact that the transmitter is not always on. It switches on and off quickly. I don't know what other people think, but I'd figure given the minor annoyance of perhaps OCCASIONAL interference with audio equipment but also given the upside of greatly increased battery life, I'd think the battery life wins. Granted, we lose that advantage when we go UMTS, but CDMA on its own (no EV-DO) did not have enough technical merits over GSM for the end user to make that loss in battery life worth it for most people. Clearly it's not an issue, as the GSM user base in the U.S. has seemingly grown.

I haven't found the battery life to be that much better. But that could just be my Motorola phone. Thing is, Verizon's got the most loyal customer base in the US market, and if I understand correctly, they overtook Cingular sometime earlier this year to regain the #1 spot once again. This is mostly because of their coverage and reliability, which are at least partly due to CDMA. Of course, they're not the only CDMA carrier over here - if you add up all the CDMA customers in the US, they greatly outnumber the GSM users here. So apparently the advantages of CDMA are worth the lower battery life. The GSM Association seems to think so, since they're switching everything over to UMTS.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The GSM Association seems to think so, since they're switching everything over to UMTS.

Not everything - just the metropolitan areas.

Apparently, full UMTS requires no less than 5 masts within reach, which is impossible to do outside of densely populated cities.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Anyway, in addition to GSM, Europe already has a UMTS network running for years now, wich uses CDMA as well. So it's not like Europe is technically behind the US with regard to mobile phone technology.

Yeah. It makes me sad that the U.S. is a bit behind though. Less cool things for us.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Um, what on earth does that have to do with anything?

Because some other devices can cause interference too, that's a good reason not to try to get cell phones not to cause interference?

The point is, if a number of devices can cause it, it's probably not just the cell phone that has the issue, but also the device receiving the interference. I'm not sure how that was so difficult to pick up.

Sure, if specifically mentioning the fact that GSM has the advantages of popularity and battery life several times in the threads constitutes arguing that GSM has no advantages at all.

Ok, so you may have said something once that's hidden under a blanket somewhere else in the thread, so when you harp on something else you can just say "Aha! But I did in fact say it!"

By the way, nice job in making the argument personal. Really, way to go - ad hominem attacks are clearly the finest form of debate.

Boo hoo. If you think that was a personal attack, you're taking things the wrong way. It was a criticism of part of your logic so far (and that you clearly make an issue out of something 95% of people don't care about). Far from an ad hom. Although it's par for the course to claim ad homs on someone if you don't like what they're saying. If you still want to do that, that's fine with me, because I know damn well it wasn't an ad hom. At this point, I really can't take this thread seriously anymore. Thanks. I'm done.

Edit: BTW, if you didn't notice, the second block in this post is a criticism of debate style. You think that's an ad hom too? That's probably closest to one, but I think it's a point of "this argument is a joke because you're doing it wrong." I guess you can call it an ad hom, but I really think I'm just calling your argument crap.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not everything - just the metropolitan areas.

Apparently, full UMTS requires no less than 5 masts within reach, which is impossible to do outside of densely populated cities.

Ouch, really?

That's really disappointing to hear.

So they're going to have to keep running the GSM network all the way into infinity?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear 

The point is, if a number of devices can cause it, it's probably not just the cell phone that has the issue, but also the device receiving the interference. I'm not sure how that was so difficult to pick up.

Oh, that part is crystal clear (and fairly obvious to begin with). What it has to do with this argument, though, is not, since the phone is certainly part of the problem as well. And whatever other hypothetical devices may also cause interference, I highly doubt that whatever they are would be as prevalent or as omnipresent as cell phones. I know that I have never seen any devices that interfere with speakers as frequently as GSM cell phones do.

Ok, so you may have said something once that's hidden under a blanket somewhere else in the thread, so when you harp on something else you can just say "Aha! But I did in fact say it!"

Uh... so what am I supposed to do, harp on the advantages of GSM in every single post? Why am I required to do that? That's your job.

GSM's praises are always getting sung on here. There's no shortage of that. People are always harping on how much better GSM supposedly is over CDMA, and how CDMA is a horrible technology that no one should be using, and that the carriers that do use it should switch to GSM ASAP. No one ever sticks up for CDMA, which is why I'm doing it now. Yes, GSM has a number of advantages - unfortunately most of them are not related to the technology itself, such as the fact that more countries use GSM and the fact that the US CDMA carriers lock down their phones and in doing so make them much less useful.

Boo hoo. If you think that was a personal attack, you're taking things the wrong way. It was a criticism of part of your logic so far (and that you clearly make an issue out of something 95% of people don't care about). Far from an ad hom. Although it's par for the course to claim ad homs on someone if you don't like what they're saying. If you still want to do that, that's fine with me, because I know damn well it wasn't an ad hom. At this point, I really can't take this thread seriously anymore. Thanks. I'm done.

We were talking about the technical merits of GSM vs. CDMA... the old "so why don't YOU switch" has nothing to do with that. It's nothing but an ad hom. When you switch to second person, that's what's usually happening.

95% of people don't even know what GSM or CDMA are, much less which one causes more interference with devices.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not everything - just the metropolitan areas.

Apparently, full UMTS requires no less than 5 masts within reach, which is impossible to do outside of densely populated cities.

Could you please provide a link to this? I haven't found any info so far on this.

Is it simply because Europe uses the 2100 MHz band for UMTS? Over here in the States, they're rolling out UMTS on the same 850 and 1900 bands that GSM and CDMA currently use. I was under the impression that at 850 MHz, UMTS should be able to work at least as well as GSM.

edit: I found some more links that seem to be saying that Europe could start using UMTS on the 900 band as well, and that they'd be able to just put it on the same sites that currently use GSM 900.

http://www.umts-forum.org/component/...630/Itemid,12/
http://www.gsmworld.com/gsmeurope/do...0_Decision.pdf

[Eug]

Qualcomm cellphone chip ban to go thru

The International Trade Commission has refused pleas by Qualcomm to suspend a ban on the import of chips and phones using its technology. IDG News reports that the ITC has issued an eight-page ruling, noting that Qualcomm has not met a "four-prong" test: likelihood of appeal success, the threat of irreparable harm, a lack of harm to others, and public interest.

Hours before the ruling's distribution, the cellular industry organization CTIA had actually delivered a letter to US President George Bush, urging him to intervene in face of an innovation "freeze" on wireless and emergency phone services. Qualcomm may also attempt to seek help from the US Court of Appeals.

[CharlesS]

I wonder how long it's going to take Qualcomm to just pay the license fees to Broadcom? Sheesh.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Could you please provide a link to this? I haven't found any info so far on this.

A cell-phone store employee I'd done a favor for confided this to me a while ago - it's not something they usually tell customers.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by analogika 

A cell-phone store employee I'd done a favor for confided this to me a while ago - it's not something they usually tell customers.

Uh, cell-phone store employees are just handset salesmen. They don't know anything about the wireless network besides what marketing tells them, which is obviously pretty basic and spun like candyfloss.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

A cell-phone store employee I'd done a favor for confided this to me a while ago - it's not something they usually tell customers.

I wonder if he was just thinking of soft handoffs and got confused. CDMA (and I presume WCDMA as well) supports a feature called soft handoffs, where if you're right in between several towers and getting a faint signal from each, the phone can connect to them all simultaneously, so if you momentarily lose the signal from one of the towers, you're still connected to the other ones, and your call doesn't drop. This is part of what makes CDMA work better in rural areas - where the towers tend to be spaced far apart, and you're less likely to be close enough to get a strong signal from any one tower - than GSM, which has to be either connected to one tower or the other at any given time. With CDMA phones, it's usually possible to make a call without dropping it when the signal is one or even zero bars.

My understanding has been that UMTS is intended as a full replacement for GSM, and that it will eventually cover all of the areas that GSM currently does. Of course they're going to do the cities first, because that's where the money is. In the US, it's currently mostly set up in urban areas, but they've only started setting it up recently, and you can find a few, although not too many, rural spots on Cingular's coverage viewer - for instance, they seem to have covered a large amount of area in Arizona between Phoenix and Tucson which AFAIK doesn't look too populated (Google Earth shows some farmland and tiny towns in between those two cities).

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

Uh, cell-phone store employees are just handset salesmen. They don't know anything about the wireless network besides what marketing tells them, which is obviously pretty basic and spun like candyfloss.

And they don't know much about the handsets either - I can't even get those store employees to reliably tell me if a phone is quad-band or not. The Internet is the only place that one can do any cell phone-related research, I think.

[analogika]

I doubt that a European mobile-phone salesman has usually even *heard* of CDMA-specific tech, since it isn't of concern here.

The only thing I've found was Universal Mobile Telecommunications System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

for fully fledged UMTS incorporating Video on Demand features, one base station needs to be set up every 1–1.5 km (0.62–0.93 mi). While this is economically feasible in urban areas, it is infeasible in less populated suburban and rural areas;

Basically, he's right: metropolitan areas ONLY, and probably until the next-generation UMTS successor.

[Eug]

UMTS/HSPDA on the 850 and 900 bands can be used in rural areas.

I assume that's what they're doing in Canada, considering Rogers has just shut down its analogue TDMA 800 service.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I doubt that a European mobile-phone salesman has usually even *heard* of CDMA-specific tech, since it isn't of concern here.

UMTS uses WCDMA as its air interface. It has many of the same features as Qualcomm's CDMA, including, if I understand correctly, soft handoffs.

The only thing I've found was Universal Mobile Telecommunications System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :


Basically, he's right: metropolitan areas ONLY, and probably until the next-generation UMTS successor.

That's because of the 2100 band, which doesn't propagate very far. GSM or CDMA on 2100 would also need to be spaced close together. That's fine for cities, where you want to have more masts anyway because of capacity issues. When they implement UMTS 850 on our side of the pond, and UMTS 900 on yours, that shouldn't be an issue.

Originally Posted by Eug 

UMTS/HSPDA on the 850 and 900 bands can be used in rural areas.

I assume that's what they're doing in Canada, considering Rogers has just shut down its analogue TDMA 800 service.

Cingular/AT&T is doing that over here too: TDMA Service Sunset | AT&T Wireless Services