Will U.S. carriers switch mobile standards?

U.S. telecom operators may end up shifting to GSM mobile standard from rival CDMA, Siemens senior executive asserts.

The story "Will U.S. carriers switch mobile standards?" published December 15, 2005 at 5:22 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[Christopher Hall]

Quality Comparison?

I'm curious to know what the quality differences between the two technologies are. Is what Europe uses (and the rest of the world, for that matter) vastly superior to what the US uses? If it is, I can't see any reason to stick with CMDA other than rampant hubris - which isn't a reason at all.

I'm admittedly new to this whole cell phone gig.

[rcrusoe]

Re: Quality Comparison

A technology doesn't have to be "vastly superior" to become the
most popular. After all, Windows is the most popular desktop
operating system in the world despite the fact that it is years
behind the Mac and appears destined to remain so.

But in the case of GSM, IMO it is at least as good as anything
else that is offered in the southeast US. That opinion is based
my totally unscientific observation that if anyone with any carrier
can place a call in an area, I can also get good service with my
GSM phone from Cingular.

[fgoldstein]

CDMA is the better

Noting the other comment that the GSM world is moving towards a form of CDMA for 3G, on pure techie terms, CDMA has the advantage. GSM is TDMA, based on 1980s technology as built by a European committee that frankly wasn't all too interested in dealing with North America. It does have the SIM card, which is cute, but that is not an advantage of its primitive air interface; it's just a clever idea that they happened to technically lock to GSM, rather than allow it to work with CDMA too.

CDMA spreads the signal over 1.25 MHz, which reduces the impact of Rayleigh fading, the "picket fence" fades that are very audible on analog mobiles. (Rayleigh fading is narrower than CDMA channels.) So CDMA can transmit with less power, since it doesn't have to overcome the fades the way GSM does. That saves battery life and reduces the body and brain's RF exposure. CDMA has very good power control in general. CDMA also allows 1:1 frequency reuse (same channel at all sites), which tends to improve its efficiency. Thus a 10 MHz licensee can do more (more effective bandwidth) with CDMA than with GSM.

Voice quality depends more on the choice of vocoders used. CDMA and GSM both have good and bad sounding ones....

[zero_msft]

This will not happen.

I find it quite amusing how this article can have any basis when considering the fact that not only is CDMA a more powerful technology; but GSM providers are using it to provide 3G services! UTMS is actually W-CDMA which is of course is an extension of CDMA technology! The article should be talking about how everyone will be going to CDMA technologies, not GSM.

[zero_msft]

Latin Ameria & Technology

Also a side note. Since when did Latin American start setting the bar for technology anyways? :) It only proves how far out of touch they are with current technology.

[annimal]

expense of multiple systems

wonder how much we have paid for having multiple overlapping systems in this country? wouldn't at least a little bit of regulation to prevent this aspect have been a good idea? asking somone who might know.

[jonnysnakes]

This coming from the world leader in mobile technology

When Siemens says it, it MUST be true. After all, their shrewd market research brought them to be no. 1 position in cell phone sales, right? Wasn't it this same "insight" that allowed them to judge exactly what consumers want, and make their phones the "must haves" of the industry?

Yes, folks. CDMA is doomed. Dump your stocks in Verizon and Sprint, as they are only further intrenching themselves in a dying standard by spending billions to upgrade their networks. Losers. Korea and Japan, you say? Backward countries, both of them.

I bow to the mighty insight of Siemens and its knowledge on mobile technology. Thank you for showing us the light.

[sanchke]

Ask Any CDMA User

Well, Fred, I agree with you. You definitely sound like the smart one in this bunch. Here are Five Reasons to consider the CDMA Route.

The Five Benefits of the CDMA Technology

1. Advanced Features and Products - With the new CDMA technology, users can access a wide range of new services, including internet access, content download (ring tones, games, email, etc) and caller location identification (gps chip).

2. Exceptional Voice and Call Quality - CDMA filters out background noise, cross talk, and interference so you can enjoy crystal-clear voice quality, greater privacy, and enhanced call quality.

3. Longer talk time and battery life - CDMA uses power control to monitor the amount of power your system and handset need at any time. CDMA handsets transmit at the lowest power levels in the industry, allowing for longer battery life which results in longer talk time and standby time.

4. Fewer Dropped Calls - CDMA's patented "soft handoff," method of passing calls between cell sites sharply reduces the risk of disruption or dropped calls during a handoff. The process of soft handoff leads to fewer dropped calls as 2 or 3 different cell sites are monitoring your call at any given time.

5 Improved Security and Privacy - CDMA's digitally encoded, spread spectrum transmissions resist eaves dropping. Designed with about 4.4 trillion codes, CDMA virtually eliminates cloning and other types of fraud.

[sexydego7]

Actually...

Well, I'm not going to argue that CDMA is a better overall technology. I am an Electrical Engineer specializing in wireless communications so I know this all too well. However, you have a few incorrect assertions.

1. Advanced Features? The features you outline are not exclusive to CDMA. That actually has nothing to do with it. Any of the other 2nd generation wireless technologies can do that.

2. CDMA does basically eliminate cross talk, but background noise? What does that even mean? That's not really something it does either.

3. Actually, this is dead wrong. Inherent to the technology code division is actually more processor hungry than GSM, or even Time Division (TDMA). The Code Division allows more calls per bandwidth section because of the way it allocates it, but at the cost of battery power, among other things.

4. Fewer Dropped calls - this is true, although a lot of that has to do not with the soft handoff, but just the general coverage in the area of the phone call. It actually goes to the concept of multipath. Basically, when two paths of the signal to follow to the phone are exactly out of phase with one another (based on the fractional wavelength distance), the signal will add up to a big fat zero and end the call. CDMA technology makes this phenomena a virtual non-issue

5. CDMA is just as vulnerable to cloning now. Since it has come out, there are very savvy people who have been able to do it now.

[BenMcGinnis]

HMM

uhhhh You show me a CDMA phone with better talk time than a
GSM phone

it isn't going to happen


also Advanced Features --- ALL ARE ON GSM ALSO

[sexydego7]

Unfortunately, Better isn't always Chosen

In Europe, there were 3 competing network technologies. One good thing that happened was all the countries got together and chose one as their standard. This worked out because then it was easier for the cellular companies to roll out networks, then share towers, instead of 3 different sets of networks needing to cover the same area. Anyway, they chose GSM. I'm not sure of the reason. The problem was that it was in large part due to bureaucracy. And we all know when we let politicians chose technology, it rarely is the best.

To sum it all up, if the U.S. were ever to adopt a single standard for all the companies (Verizon, Cingular, etc.), then in the long run we'd all be better off, no matter which one they chose, because in all likelihood, we as consumers would get better service as a biproduct.

[cshsieh]

Don't Get US Centered Mind

Tech has its time line.

It was AMPS that the US used when GSM adopted in Europe, not the CDMA. When lots of US operators turn to CDMA, GSM is turning from second generation into third generation, i.e. 3G. 3G is not TDMA but adapting a newer flavors of formats including newer CDMA versions. The better-tech debate is useless and misleading.
The fact is that the US is using systems that is different from the majority of the world, and Latin America is leaving the US camp and joining the rest of the world.
Well, US could still have his own world. That's nothing to do with which technology is better.

[bill.blessing]

World shifting to CDMA

Not only is CDMA gaining global market share currently, but as GSM cariers convert to UMTS (aka WCDMA) they will be adopting a variation of the Qualcomm technology, which Siemens no doubt resents. The next generation of mobile device chips will incorporate both CDMA2000 and WCDMA technology, potentially ending this IPR tussle between OEMs which damages the mobile operators and their ability to serve customers. Once such chips gain global volume allowing lower costs, the lower device cost rationale for carriers converting to the data-inferior GSM technology will disappear. It can't happen soon enough.