Tero:
Before getting too happy about the WSJ article comparing voice quality, I think there are a few caveats (and these are caveats not excuses, mind you).
First, and probably most important, is the performance differential between vendor equipment. Ericsson's GSM infrastructure is widely perceived to be the best...In CDMA land, Nortel/Qualcomm and Lucent seem to be top tier, while the Motorola systems are still noticeably inferior. Having trialed CDMA around the country, I can generally identify a MOT system with near-perfect accuracy (which implies audible artifacts).
Second, I believe the test was performed in New York, and therefore the reporter was comparing a fairly mature GSM system (Omnipoint) with a much more recent CDMA-PCS deployment. Performance of any cellular system is going to be dependent on the robustness and completeness of the infrastructure deployment. To be candid, I think you get what you pay for. In my opinion, BellAtantic's system is far superior to Sprint's and I have found that most of the 800mhz carrier systems perform better than Sprint's...but Sprint's calling plans are a real bargain.
Finally, while I can hardly hold myself out as an unbiased commentator, I have three Qualcomm phones: a QCP-800, a QCP-820 and a QCP-2700, plus a Nokia 6160 (US-TDMA) and a Nokia 2190 (GSM). The Nokia phones ARE WONDERFULLY EXECUTED with nice feel, excellent ergonomics, and are solidly built. Voice-quality on the 6160, however, is terrible, unless you are accustomed to gargling marbles whilst conversing on your portable. I just cannot figure out what ATT-Wireless is thinking. The 2190 (GSM) performs well sometimes and gets almost US-TDMA warbly at others. Overall, GSM is much better than US-TDMA, but IMHO does not compare with a "good" CDMA network. CDMA call quality is influenced profoundly by geography (I believe this relates to equipment vendor) and operator. Sprint is cheap but coverage is spotty, plus I get annoyed with all the dropped calls. Finding analog coverage, which you are thereby entitled to overpay for, remains more trial-and-error than systematic. Today, IMO, Sprint is a decent, cheap service for the consumer, while it is probably not ready for the primetime business user. The GTE, BANM and Airtouch networks that I have used are excellent. Most of the time people have no idea that I am on a cellular phone...and this is of particular importance to me, since I am often calling clients from the road.
I would suggest that before anyone draws any conclusions that you go sample the services in the real world and see for yourself.
Best regards,
Gregg |
