Brian et al:
Your first statement should be the ruling reason for everyone to use CDMA.
Technologically, CDMA uses spectrum more efficiently than others. There is
limited amount of spectrum available to use for transmission as capacity
needed is increasing.
We began using CDMA type of transmission on landlines for weather back in
the 1960s since we needed great capacity and fiber lines were not available.
2400 b/s and 4800 b/s were high-speed at that time. We found TDMA was
wasteful, restrictive and not cost-effective.
Battery life for mobile devices will be increased as technological advances
now under way will overcome the problem you mention.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: [USMA:38231] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.
CDMA is actually more efficient with spectrum usage. But I find battery
life
of CDMA phones to be less than GSM counterparts. I also hate the lack of
a
SIM card in CDMA phones. CDMA phones have traditionally lagged GSM phones
in
technology adoption like Bluetooth, etc...
Europe just got together and agreed on a standard and moved forward. Most
rest of world countries copied Europe with GSM. Whereas in the United
States, we let the markets decide.
Which is silly to me because you have very redundant network build outs.
So
in any one area, you have AT&T Wireless/Cingular TDMA then GSM,
Voicestream/T-
Mobile GSM, Sprint CDMA, Verizon CDMA and Nextel iDEN.
Actually Verizon choosing CDMA was something of a big deal. Verizon was
partially owned by Vodafone, the European provider. They obviously pushed
for GSM. Verizon had some deal with Qualcomm going (they rule CDMA) and
that's where they went. Vodaphone over time got rid of their investment
in
Verizon.
What sucked about Cingular buying AT&T Wireless was that really, that
should
have been Vodafone's deal. (I could have gotten that Ferrari or McLaren
branded cell phone right?) So the United States really should have had
three GSM providers (Cingular, Vodafone and T-Mobile)....but alas, due to
some shrewd dealings, the deal was given to Cingular. Do some searches on
the deal, it was pretty sketchy.
Nothing metric, but everything to do with the mindset of being different.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:47:09 -0400, Carleton MacDonald wrote
Well, there is something related - CDMA is another case of the USA doing
things differently than 80% of the rest of the world ...
Wonder which is actually better.
Carleton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Of Michael Payne
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 23:07
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:38224] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.
Not that this has much to do with metric, but I switched from
Cingular to T-Mobile just over a year ago and I've found the
coverage with T-Mobile better using a GSM phone, I also use my phone
worldwide.
Michael Payne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 16 March 2007 02:59
Subject: [USMA:38222] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.
>>> You actually cared about TDMA coverage and left Cingular because of
>>> that?
>
> Wow, you deserve the 12 hour time then. hahahaha.. Of course, maybe
> I'm
> spoiled because I'm in Seattle. Home of both AT&T Wireless (before
> Cingular
> bought them) and T-Mobile.
>>>
>
> You bet. In 2005 Cingular GSM coverage was only slightly better than
> T-Mobile, in 2004 it was experimental on the weaker 1900 MHz band only,
> my
> phone switched to TDMA half the time.
>
> Nat
>
>
>
