The silly season is not over, clearly.
Nice to be back on the thread folks. I´ve been missing my daily fix of weirder-than-life stories, I´m sure you guys have been missing me too.
And here is a pearl of garbage if I´ve ever seen one. Love this stuff. Hard to find anything that is not 100% incorrect.
>1. GSM is yeterday; CDMA is tomorrow.
Tsk, tsk. See what happened in Brazil, AT&T.
>GSM was a tech advance and a superb collaboration. But
>GSM is a legacy system; there is no alternative to cdma
>for 3G (I consider EDGE irrelevant).
So you consider EDGE irrelevant. Hmmm. That is advisable if you want to keep considering CDMA2000 as a 3G system, as EDGE beats it´s speed by a factor of more than 2. And EDGE is a mere 2.5G.
>Pressconception: The press tells us GSM has >300M subs;
>cdma has ~75M subs;
Guns And Ammo - magazine obviously does not keep its readers on the ball when it comes to telecom development. GSM has now 500M subs.
>carriers want to go with the dominant system. Choices
>like ATT for
>GPRS/W-CDMA and Korean carriers for W-CDMA are seen as GSM
>"winning" the 3G race and Q losing.
Pretty hard to see it any other way.
>The muddle here is that cdma is both a 2G system
>(cdma95) and a 3G system;
>GSM is a 2G system which will have to be replaced.
Our great thinker Propitious mixes rather liberally two concepts here. Other is "system" and other is "air interface protocol". Its understandable that these are mixed though, even by experts such as Propitious apparently is, as they are very similar. Other one is a massive shitload of equipment, other is a standard. Furthermore, other interesting detail is that GSM system does indeed evolve to WCDMA that sports an CDMA air interface.
>Change from gsm to w-cdma is no easier/ cheaper
>than change from gsm to
>cdma2000 (see IJ interview in Bus Wk this week).
Another interesting twist here. Who on earth would like to switch GSM to the mother of all betamax systems, cdma2000? I think this is a freudian slip, the statement should read: "Changing the GSM to Globalstar system is no easier/cheaper than change from GSM to cdma2000".
>GSM handsets will continue to be sold and will work
>fine just as analog phones are still sold.
Plot thickens. In reality the difference with GSM/analog phones is that the GSM phone will work in the future system also (only providing what it does now, though). The WCDMA phones will have the GSM function also, to work practically anywhere in the world.
>But carriers cannot elect GSM as their 3G strategy.
Carriers can not choose CDMA2000 as their 3G strategy. For cold reality check out what happens in Korea.
>There is no path from GSM to w-cdma; it's a system
>replacement with corresponding capital costs.
There is no path from GSM to WCDMA? Not so fast, Eddie. This obviously should read:
1) There is not path neither from CDMA1 nor CDMA2000 to WCDMA
2) WCDMA is evolution from GSM. The path, in case someone is interested, is GSM-HSCSD-GPRS-EDGE-WCDMA.
- rajala |
