Brent,
For your info ....
Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. They are doing this purely
from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.
That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
"spread spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
for the fewest dollars.
I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
telecommunication market.
Bob Shuman
"Brent P" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.
>
> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>
