[Chugalug] Android tablets
phil.sieg at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 21:33:15 UTC 2012
WOW. Truly exceptional reply. I knew most/all of that but would have had to dig into a wiki to articulate it... And am to lazy to write it all out anyway.
There was also the fact that the competing tech "TDMA" (the forerunner to GSM) was so bad, really, really bad (read inefficient). A lot of the choices that were being made at the time were based on Qualcomm's new competing technology (CDMA) that was significantly better than TDMA, and as such made sense. GSM evolved (if memory serves) parallel to but slightly behind the original CDMA technology, call it a buying cycle or two, and that was enough for major carriers in USA to have bought into the CDMA tech.
SeniorTech LLC / Snapfon
phil.sieg at seniortechllc.com
On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:58 PM, Lynn Dixon <boodaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are quite a few differences. CDMA uses a single frequency with each phone broadcasting on that same channel, but multiplexed with is unique ID. This makes it easier to hand the phone over to other cells as you travel, since the radio in the phone doesnt have to "re-tune" to a different frequency on the next tower. GSM uses multiple frequencies and multiple channels and a handset will "hop" between which is the less used. This is fine when you are not using the device, but can be a bit tricky for the handset to do while its in use.The main reason GSM sees wide adoption in foreign countries is because of the business models there. The consumers couldn't afford to buy a new phone to switch carriers, and some countries regulations wouldn't allow locked contracts.
> CDMA in theory can provide faster transmission rates for data, and can allow a more saturated cell, since each phone is multiplexed on the same channel. Its more efficient. GSM used to have problems when an area became saturated, as each phone had to occupy a channel on its own or it would interfere with others.
> In the US is just made more sense to build a more efficient network that allowed the carriers to add capacity without worrying about saturating a cell. Due to the market at the time, people didn't mind getting locked into a contract to get their handsets cheap or free, so there was no need for a carrier to allow the devices to work on other networks. In the US, the cell network itself was considered a commodity, and was a carriers main competitive advantage, why would a company want to "share" this advantage with a competitor? So, in those days, CDMA was the best technology to go with as it allowed a carrier to grow the network, offer customers the ability to go from cell to cell with no dropped calls, and they didnt have to worry about over saturation. To expand capacity, a CDMA network can just upgrade modulators to add mutliplexing capacity at the tower. For GSM to expand capacity it meant errecting new towers to add more channels on a dfiferent frequency that new customers phones could use.
> If I were a business at the time, I would have certainly chose CDMA as well, since it gave me expandability at a lower cost, and could theoritically provide better serivce to my customers.
> This is a very simplified explanation of the differences and why, as there is some really technical details involved. But, I hope it helps!
> TL;DR: The reason carriers went with CDMA was it meant more capacity, less dropped calls. And no stupid gov regulations meant the carriers could differentiate with what they thought would give them a competitive advantage.
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Dave Brockman <dave at brockmans.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 10/13/2012 12:27 PM, Phil Sieg wrote:
> > Dave,
> > Actually my assumption is based on other factors:
> > 1. GSM phones make migrating from carrier to carrier easier, even
> > if the devices are initially locked. This would have forced
> > "unlocking" into the mainstream much more quickly, as there is a
> > lot less incentive to "unlock" a CDMA device as it has to be
> > programmed at the "store" to be operable on the network. This alone
> > forces the price of service, and handsets down.
> > 2. Everyone using GSM tower tech would mean much more crossover
> > roaming and reciprocal agreements which results in outstanding
> > coverage for the customer, at least it has in the rest of the
> > world.
> > 3. "Pay as you go" would have developed much more rapidly in a GSM
> > only marketplace, and that has been the single largest factor in
> > driving subscriber costs down.
> > THOSE are the factors I was considering and they are based on my
> > experiences elsewhere in the world, and marginally on my experience
> > as a cellular service provider.
> I'm a little fuzzy on this history. Why exactly is CDMA so
> prevalent in our great land? I'm not disagreeing with you on the
> benefits of GSM. I believe there is a reason it is less adopted than
> it is from a carrier perspective, and some of those benefits are
> likely exactly why not.
> - --
> "Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
> understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
> networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
> builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
> network." RFC 1925
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug