Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
In article <bqlerl$51g@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> 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.
Tell me something I don't know.
> 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.
Nothing I don't know.
> 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
> "------ 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 referenced 3G in my previous post.
> 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.
My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make.
Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more.
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something
that can actually turn and brake.
Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one.
The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
> 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.
Tell me something I don't know.
> 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.
Nothing I don't know.
> 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
> "------ 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 referenced 3G in my previous post.
> 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.
My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make.
Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more.
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something
that can actually turn and brake.
Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one.
The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> sez:
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
<snip>
>It is not a marriage. <snip>
Marriage started out as a property rite of ancient societies. It was then
co-opted by the church(es). Then governments got into the act when the
church was no longer one in the same as the government.
Sticking to a dogmatic ritual that had its roots in protection of property
and bloodlines when the involved had little say or choice in the matter and
then foist that definition on everyone at large in today's society is most
medieval ...
VLJ
--
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
Brent,
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
Brent,
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: GSM vs CDMA Technology
Brent,
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
If you go back far enough in history, I think you will find that the U.S.
AMPS standard was the model that was used as the driver for the GSM standard
in Europe. At the time each European country had its own wireless
technology "standard" rendering it impossible to use the same phone or even
think about roaming across system/country borders. The European community
looked at the US model and saw the distinct advantage of having a single
standard defined and implemented. IIRC., this was at about roughly the same
time as the ECC was getting off the ground. It was later that Ericsson and
other GSM proponents really pushed to get the standard adopted in Asia
pacific (and unsuccessfully until most recently in the US and South America)
Interestingly enough, in the US where the original AMPS standard was born,
two completely different and competing digital standards were emerging (TDMA
and sometime later, CDMA) and there were even some different flavors within
vanilla TDMA (remember the incompatible Motorola Narrow band TDMA?) The FCC
and the industry never really tried to pull these together and instead
allowed the market to determine the winner/loser. The difference between
the incompatibility mess in Europe in the late 1980's and the US today is
due to the continuing evolution of the intelligent hand set which supports
multiple technologies, RF spectrum, etc.
Oh well, in any event, thanks for the clarification. Yes, its always
interesting to look back at history and wonder what would have or could have
happened if ....
Bob
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Irzb.409200$Tr4.1171555@attbi_s03...
> The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
> there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
> Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
> his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
> as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
> they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
> what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
> industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
> course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.
>
> It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.
>
>
>
>
