Comments on: GSM and GPRS Gain Momentum
Article Comments
(36 comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.
Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.
About time
RE: About time
RE: About time
I hear ya,
If it ever does, it has the potential of becoming a technological revolution. Image having your PDA being able to ream word wide and always remains "connected" !? ;) That would blow my mind :)
The US telecoms are finally getting the big picture...
Thank you for answering this
The Cingular PCS Wireless (uses SIM card) is GSM or CDMA?
Thanks.
RE: Thank you for answering this
RE: Thank you for answering this
I am using it now..
RE: Thank you for answering this
RE: Thank you for answering this
RE: Thank you for answering this
Final word
RE: Thank you for answering this
Thanks.
RE: Thank you for answering this
In general yes, but some iDen (Motorola) models use a SIM card as well. Not surprising as it has it's roots in GSM, in fact Mike service in Canada by Telus (Formerly by Clearnet), is run on GSM switches.
RE: Thank you for answering this
Well, i just changed from GSM to CDMA because it is WAY better, clear voice quality, high speed data....... and my network (Hutch Thailand) also uses SIM cards!
It is CDMA 2000-1x, and my phone is a Sanyo SCP 550 with a SIM card in it. I ca also put this SIM into another SIM enabled CDMA 2000-1x, such as the Motorola v680 or Nokia 2280 and it works right away on this network :)
Not all SIM's are GSM.... just in CDMA they are called "R-UIM" (removable user identity module).
Thanks for reading this....
Regards
Thanh
CDMA because it's better!
GSM and GPRS for Voicestream...
Voicestream is now selling three new GPRS phones from Motorola (2) and Samsung (1). They are very cool and they also offer a laptop/PDA solution for more money. The drawback is that the PDA option is only for Windows CE, I hope that changes soon.
Joe
RE: GSM and GPRS for Voicestream...
RE: GSM and GPRS for Voicestream...
i've got an older triband timeport w/IR that i use as a modem for my palm when i'm travelling in the US -- i dial my own ISP, and connect that way. not bad, when you've got LD and country-wide roaming included in your plan.
AT&T going is GSM / EDGE ???
RE: AT&T going is GSM / EDGE ???
it won't matter soon enough anyway
The benefits of goiing edge and gsm are that it is easier to get there and less expensive for a carrier but it will not allow as much capacity so in the long run you run out of steam vs CDMA
RE: it won't matter soon enough anyway
They (Qualcomm) have a few patents in the standard. But like Motorola in the GSM case, Ericsson is the major patent holder for WCDMA.
Furthermore, most of Qualcomms assets in this area was in the infrastructure company which was bought by Ericsson.
Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
Signal strength is not a measure of the quality of a particular phone standard, be it GSM, TDMA or CDMA.
Your problem is due to poor coverage from your provider. If every building/hill/bridge/whatever in the United States had a GSM mast stuck on it, you'd get perfect GSM coverage across the country. Even here in Europe where mobile phone ownership is as high as 80% of the population, we still have the odd blackspot.
As for the poster who said GSM was inferior, I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.... Having used GSM in Scandinavia and the UK and PCS in the Eastern US, I have found that GSM is the superior in terms of connection quality. Add to that GSM short messaging service, SMS, which isn't provided under TDMA and CDMA and the fact that if I want to use my visorphone one day and my Nokia 8210 the next all I have to do is swap the SIM card over... My number stays the same, my phone book gets transferred across because its the same account.
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
The us TDMA networks uses 3 time slots, while the GSM network uses 7, allowing more costumers per channel and frequency band. GSM is far supperior to the old analoge netowkrs, and the US TDMA ones however CDMA is, technology wise, more complex. 3G will use WCDMA (Wide-Band CDMA) in conjunction with FDMA.
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
As for the European/Asian market being ahead of the US... That has been true for a while (probably not post 3G.) One could argue, though, that it is much easier to provide a better service if you are not the pioneer. The US has consistiently let the charge into the wireless arena. The rest of the world has been good about letting the US take the lumps. Once they see where there are problems, the improvise and then release their new standard.
Just my $.02 worth,
Tip DS
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
Let's not confuse the air interface with the protocols.
What SprintPCS and others in the US selling CDMA service are actually selling is IS-95A, IS-95B, which is more correctly referred to as CDMAOne rather than just CDMA. And CDMAOne's migration path to IMT-2000's 3G is being rolled out now in it's incremental phases CDMA2000 1xRTT, 1xEV, 3x... All are over an air interface called CDMA. Indeed, no one can argue against the spectral efficiency of CDMA and that's why 3 of the 5 accepted adaptations under the ITU's IMT-2000 "3G" umbrella are CDMA. But that's just the air interface.
Likewise GSM used a TDMA air interface, as does Motorola/Nextel's iDEN service. What most people refer to as "TDMA" cellular service in the US and Canada, is actually IS-136 over a TDMA air interface.
Think of CDMA like Ethernet. Over that ethernet you can run, TCP/IP, Apple's AppleTalk, Netware's IPX/SPX, Microsoft's NetBEUI, etc. Saying a network runs ethernet for communication is a little inprecise.
Most migration paths do in fact evolve to a CDMA air interface in the ITU's IMT-2000 3G specification. And there is some increased interoperability built into that spec. Qualcomm does indeed manufacture chipsets for both WCDMA (UMTS), and the various CDMA2000 flavors, so you'd expect some interoperability there.
>They (Qualcomm) have a few patents in the standard. >But like Motorola in the GSM case, Ericsson is the >major patent holder for WCDMA.
Qualcomm's patents are for the CDMA Air interface. The migration path to 3G for GSM providers is WCDMA, but now you're referring to protocol not air interface. You can't DO WCDMA without licensing the CDMA air/radio interface from Qualcomm.
>Signal strength is not a measure of the quality of a >particular phone standard, be it GSM, TDMA or CDMA.
While that's true, the standard does have something to say on the subject. IS-95A and IS-95B (CDMA) run with lower signal strength requirements, and higher number of maximum users per sector. This means the network is more spectrally effecient and cheaper the build out. It follows that you're more likely to be in a better coverage area with a CDMA system, cost and capacity taken into effect. The advantage gets even stronger with CDMA2000 where the power/signal requirements are even less, and the capacity is greater still. If that wasn't the case, GSM and IS-136 would stay TDMA based.
>Add to that GSM short messaging service, SMS, which >isn't provided under TDMA and CDMA
SMS might not be offered over IS-136 "TDMA" in the US but it is in Canada. Further SMS IS offered on virtually all CDMA networks. The thing is that usually it's only implemented in receive only mode. That's not to say that SMS-MO (Mobile originated) isn't in the IS-95 CDMA spec, because it is, as any one can read for themselves in Motorola's online CDMA spec archives. Further, Mobile Originate SMS has been enabled on certain large corporate clients handsets with at least one provider here in Canada.
>the fact that if I want to use my visorphone one day >and my Nokia 8210 the next all I have to do is swap >the SIM card over... My number stays the same, my >phone book gets transferred across because its the >same account.
No disputing that advantage. Better yet though is the day which is nearing where the "SIM" card becomes the essence of the phone. We already have in prototype form Field Programmable DSP's which can be programmed to be a GSM transceiver, or a CDMA transceiver, or to function on a given frequency. Imagine how small your cellphone would be if it didn't have a display, antenna, keyboard, battery, and support circuitry. It would likely be the size of a Compact Flash card or so. Now imagine that you could choose the user interface that you liked, be it a Nokia handset, or a Palm or whatever. The point is you provide the card to the cellular carrier to program to their networks parameters. Then you insert it into your device which just provides the display, interface, battery etc, and voila. You could just as easily present that programable DSP card to another carrier running a different network, and now the SAME handset runs on a totally different network. That makes even more sense to me. That way the providers keep the control over the operational parameters of the devices on their network, as they deserve, and you don't end up with a $500 paperweight because you move out of their coverage area, or their rate plans loose touch with reality. True you have SOME of that benefit with a GSM handset and it's SIM card, but only if the handset isn't subsidy locked, and you can only move to another GSM network on a compatible frequency band.
>The us TDMA networks uses 3 time slots, while the GSM >network uses 7, allowing more costumers per channel >and frequency band.
And it needs them, especially with 2.5G data loads. From the GSMWorld site:
"At the current stage of development most are offering one timeslot upstream and two/three timeslot downstream operations-although the Ericsson R450 will provide four timeslots downstream. At 14.4kbit/s per timeslot, this gives potential data throughput speeds of 28.8kbit/s or 43.2kbit/s downstream-under ideal conditions and where there is sufficient network capacity."
Imagine the fun trying to find enough timeslots for 144Kbps, over and above the voice timeslots.
Hence the CDMA benefit, which get spectrally more efficient with it's evolutions, and high speed data additions, not less so.
>3G will use WCDMA (Wide-Band CDMA) in conjunction >with FDMA.
Not so simple. If you're a GSM provider, then your 3G implementation will likely be WCDMA yes, but your migration path and end implementation of 3G IMT-2000 will be different for CDMAOne (IS-95) providers.
See http://www.cdg.org/3GPavilion/Detailed_Info/3G_fact_sheet.pdf for a brief look at the flavors of IMT-2000. It's not the best source, just the nearest one I could lay my browser on while I type.
-Craig Bowers
Abolish CDMA and TDMA
I travel around the world and the U.S. looks like a third world country when it comes to mobile phone and all because people or companies or whomever is sticking to this CDMA and TDMA blindly and for no good reason that I have heard so far.
Prices will go down and converage will get better only when the carriers in U.S. adopt GSM and GPRS.
It is inevitable anyway for us to convert to GSM. We are just paying more and getting less the longer we wait.
Anybody important hearing this message?
-Jordan
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
RE: Is not CDMA superior to GSM?
I am from germany (steering wheel left, traffic right, like in the U.S.). Now i live in Thailand since three years, here: Steering wheel right, traffic left! Like England, Australia and several asian countries. Now, which is better? Which is "correct"..???
I used GSM for the last 6 years, in germany and here too. Both GSM 900 and 1800, with GPRS too lately. Now i switched to CDMA because it offers me far greater data possibilities (153 kb/s vs. 43 kb/s with GPRS) AND the voice quality is clearer, better than with GSM. Small side effect, too... the phone doesn't produce this noise when coming close to a radio, TV set or any other audio-reproducing thing.
I don't want to convert anyone to anything, but switching all CDMA's or TDMA's toGSM is, in my opinion, the wrong way. Better stick to what they have and extend the coverage areas. Better and multi-mode phones will come available to allow roaming... and CDMA-SIM-cards are already available (my network and my phone use them, Hutch Thailand CDMA 2000-1x) and when that standard gets more used, it is as easy as wwith GSM.
regards
Thanh
CDMA because it's better!
GSM and frequency
If the US start adopting GSM nationwide, why not adopt the encoding standard AND the frequency ?
RE: GSM and frequency
Palm M500 and Motorola P280
I can go on-line ok with the data cable but I can't import phone numbers and such.
RE: Palm M500 and Motorola P280
Please, would you let me know if you found the driver for the Palm and Motorola P280?
My e-mail is
SLukovenkov@hotmail.com
Help to connect
Latest Comments
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST((SELECT/**/CASE/**/IS_SRVROLEMEM
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
- My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
next generation of 'GSM'