GSM AND CDMA ???

[FeliX]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
for the GSM technology.

Thanks in advance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

CDMA has the range and interference avoidance... GSM has the call
density...

They'd be complimentary if the whole cellular situation in the USA
wasn't so screwed. Thanks FCC!

JS


FELIX wrote:
> I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
> T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
> better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
> CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
> for the GSM technology.
>
> Thanks in advance

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2004 11:57:15 -0700, EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:

>I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
>T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
>better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
>CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
>that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
>for the GSM technology.

Perhaps in a minor way it might be the technology used, but it's more
likely what kind of coverage a company has rather than the technology
used. In Europe and in many Asian and middle eastern countries
coverage is often times universally available everywhere even in areas
that seem very remote.

As far as why the latest phones with the latest features seem to be
for GSM it's probably because for GSM there are almost a billion
possible subscribers world-wide whereas for CDMA it's probably more on
the order of 150 million. Economies of scale dictate that with more
possible customers you're likely to get more choices from more
manufacturers especially in Europe, Asia and Africa. The Americas
were late adopting GSM and at a different frequency than Europe, Asia
and Africa. That's also why for the GSM side there are a lot more
handsets available but available for Euro/Asian/African as there are
more people in those markets than in the Americas.

The next generation (3G) for GSM will have some sort of CDMA interface
(W-CDMA) because it manages spectrum more efficiently than the present
Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) base of the current GSM systems.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2004 11:57:15 -0700, EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:

>I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
>T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
>better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
>CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
>that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
>for the GSM technology.
>
>Thanks in advance
At least in theory CDMA has some capacity advantages, plus the ability
to degrade the voice quality b dynamically reducing the bit rate to
Vocoder to allow more simultaneous calls. In very busy networks, CDMA
calls are randomly dropped. On a GSM network, if you have a call, as
long as you don't move out of the cell, short of the network crashing,
calls are never dropped. THe wireless infrastructure to support a GSM
call was allocated when the BTS began communicating with the phone.

CDMA is a digital analog of synchronous detection. The call is
splattered all over the spectrum, and reconstructed at the other end.
Because of the way reconstruction is carried out, all calls except
your appear as noise. The capacity limit is when the other calls on
the network generate more noise than the link margin required. That is
not a fixed number. With GSM it is, with FR/EFR, you get 8 calls per
channel, period...

CDMA handles multipath reflections a lot more gracefully than GSM. GSM
has much better International roaming coverage than CDMA. The pickings
on CDMA aren't all that good once you get past the USA, Canada and the
CDMA kingdom (Korea).

As the use of data services increases, the capacity advantage that
CDMA offers is more than a little suspect. It comes from a form of
statistical multiplexing, and when the statistics become unfavorable,
ugly things happen.

If what you are looking for is only service in the USA, pick the phone
with the best call package to fit your needs, no matter what
technology.

Under good conditions, voice quality should be quite similiar.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <87e0800a.0407151057.6e7a9a4a@posting.google.com>,
EENYC1@AOL.COM (FELIX) wrote:

> I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
> T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
> better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
> CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
> for the GSM technology.

I would say GSM has a bigger market share worldwide. It is the only
standard used in Europe, as well as many other countries. So
manufacturers, like Ericsson (Swedish), Nokia (Finnish) and Siemens
(European) tend to focus on GSM.

A lot of CDMA manufacturers are Korean, where CDMA is the only 2G
network standard.

Motorola seems to sit in both camps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

FELIX schrieb:

> ... And why is it
> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
> for the GSM technology.

One reason for the broader market of GSM is the use of SIM cards
carrying the "identity", which can be switched freely to newer phones.
So you can buy a newer GSM phone and use it immediately.

As I read CDMA phones are starting with this feature also. But until
then you had to go to a dealer to "switch" the identity to a new phone.
So most people waited until the renewal until they got a new phone.

Wolfgang

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:43:34 +0200, Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net>
chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
everything:

>FELIX schrieb:
>
>> ... And why is it
>> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
>> for the GSM technology.
>
>One reason for the broader market of GSM is the use of SIM cards
>carrying the "identity", which can be switched freely to newer phones.
>So you can buy a newer GSM phone and use it immediately.
>
>As I read CDMA phones are starting with this feature also. But until
>then you had to go to a dealer to "switch" the identity to a new phone.
>So most people waited until the renewal until they got a new phone.

With Verizon, at least, you can switch to a different phone in a couple of
minutes on their web site.

Still not as convenient as a SIM card, but it doesn't require a trip to the
store.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Oh man, Leo, when I think of how hard you convinced me to run, when I
think of all the work you did to get me elected, I could pummel your ass
with a baseball bat." - President Jed Bartlet

 

[ap]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <s6chf0tc0pvfh1l17o6cv5drj5pmkaeagd@4ax.com>,
dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net says...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:43:34 +0200, Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net>
> chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> everything:
>
> >FELIX schrieb:
> >
> >> ... And why is it
> >> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
> >> for the GSM technology.
> >
> >One reason for the broader market of GSM is the use of SIM cards
> >carrying the "identity", which can be switched freely to newer phones.
> >So you can buy a newer GSM phone and use it immediately.
> >
> >As I read CDMA phones are starting with this feature also. But until
> >then you had to go to a dealer to "switch" the identity to a new phone.
> >So most people waited until the renewal until they got a new phone.
>
> With Verizon, at least, you can switch to a different phone in a couple of
> minutes on their web site.
>
> Still not as convenient as a SIM card, but it doesn't require a trip to the
> store.
>

And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.

AP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

This is a common misconception...


"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b627a42c42efd09897c6@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...

> And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
> you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.
>
> AP

Literally you are correct. However in practice it is wrong....

I LOVE the idea of the SIM chip, however there seems to
be one common misconception about it. While it will transfer your phone
number to any phone you plug it into, sales reps also like to tell you it
will also transfer your phonebook as well. This is not entirely correct.

SIM's were designed a long time ago, and therefore the standard suffers a
bit when it comes to the data it can store. Newer phones will allow you to
store quite a bit of information about a contact. The information includes
multiple phone numbers per contact, email address, home address, etc. SIM
cards on the other hand were only designed to hold a name (only a certain
number of characters long) and one phone number (only a certain number of
numbers long).

So while you can copy your more advanced phone book to your sim card, it
jumbles the data when storing it. Truncating names to the set length the
SIM card was designed to have and only storing one number per name.

This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An
example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number of
123-123-1234, home phone of 789-789-7894, work number of 456-456-4561, and
email address of joeblow@hotmail.com. When you transfer this users info to
the Sim card it come accross with a trunctated name, and looses info such as
whether a number was cell, work, or home. It will come across as Joe B
123-123-1234, Joe B2 789-789-7894, Joe B3 456-456-4561. The email address
is totally lost, as the SIM has no way of storing this information.

This can be particularly bad if you have multiple users with similar first
names, and it truncates their full name to only be part of their first name.
So now you have a bunch of first names and numbers, with no way to
differentiate whether a number was a work number, cell, or home number, or
even worse, which Joe you saved.

My example is a little extreme, as it will let you store more than 5 letters
for a name in the SIM, but trust me, I've experienced this before, and it
made all of my contact info almost useless. Its not nearly as cool as the
sales reps would
have you think, or as it could be today if they would just come up with an
update SIM standard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

AP wrote:

> And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
> you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.

This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and
sometimes even specific model.

There is *barely* a standard for how the information is stored.

Now, if there is a standard for CDMA SIM-equivs in the future, well,
another mark against GSM. Personally I've had little trouble exporting
my addressbook and shoving it onto another phone (via MS Outlook and
software for both phones), except for the fact my voicedial stuff didn't
transfer.

JS

 

[ap]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <zn4Kc.28135$Do.26023@fe23.usenetserver.com>,
jsuter@intrastar.net says...
> AP wrote:
>
> > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
> > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.
>
> This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and
> sometimes even specific model.
>

Not that I expirienced that limitation. I lived in Europe for few years.
And I had at least 4 diffrent phone models from 4 diffrent manufacturers
- everytime phonebook stored on SIM card worked perfectly.


AP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same
standard. That is what makes them universal.

You may not have experieced the limitiation if you didn't use the advanced
phonebook features of your phone. (eg. storing more than one number, type
of number, email address, etc, per contact)

It IS possible to store some of your phonebook on the phones internal
memory, and some on the SIM card. This would allow you to have more
complete information for some contacts that are stored on the phones
internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal phonebook
to your SIM you will run into the problems I described.


"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b633ac0149d100d9897c7@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <zn4Kc.28135$Do.26023@fe23.usenetserver.com>,
> jsuter@intrastar.net says...
> > AP wrote:
> >
> > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
> > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.
> >
> > This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and
> > sometimes even specific model.
> >
>
> Not that I expirienced that limitation. I lived in Europe for few years.
> And I had at least 4 diffrent phone models from 4 diffrent manufacturers
> - everytime phonebook stored on SIM card worked perfectly.
>
>
> AP

 

[ap]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

In article <04kKc.4217$Wv4.878@okepread03>,
lagreca@googles.email.service.com says...
> It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same
> standard. That is what makes them universal.
>
> You may not have experieced the limitiation if you didn't use the advanced
> phonebook features of your phone. (eg. storing more than one number, type
> of number, email address, etc, per contact)
>
> It IS possible to store some of your phonebook on the phones internal
> memory, and some on the SIM card. This would allow you to have more
> complete information for some contacts that are stored on the phones
> internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal phonebook
> to your SIM you will run into the problems I described.

I understand THIS limitation .... but poster that I was replaying to
suggested that phonebook on SIM card feature works only between THE SAME
brand phones.

AP





>
> "AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b633ac0149d100d9897c7@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> > In article <zn4Kc.28135$Do.26023@fe23.usenetserver.com>,
> > jsuter@intrastar.net says...
> > > AP wrote:
> > >
> > > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so whenever
> > > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.
> > >
> > > This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and
> > > sometimes even specific model.
> > >
> >
> > Not that I expirienced that limitation. I lived in Europe for few years.
> > And I had at least 4 diffrent phone models from 4 diffrent manufacturers
> > - everytime phonebook stored on SIM card worked perfectly.
> >
> >
> > AP
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

AP wrote:

> In article <04kKc.4217$Wv4.878@okepread03>,
> lagreca@googles.email.service.com says...
>
>>It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the same
>>standard. That is what makes them universal.
>>
>>You may not have experieced the limitiation if you didn't use the advanced
>>phonebook features of your phone. (eg. storing more than one number, type
>>of number, email address, etc, per contact)
>>
>>It IS possible to store some of your phonebook on the phones internal
>>memory, and some on the SIM card. This would allow you to have more
>>complete information for some contacts that are stored on the phones
>>internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal phonebook
>>to your SIM you will run into the problems I described.
>
>
> I understand THIS limitation .... but poster that I was replaying to
> suggested that phonebook on SIM card feature works only between THE SAME
> brand phones.

This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old
technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for
a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what
happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware.

JS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

I'm sorry, I missunderstood. Your point is very valid.


"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6390304f2c5bda9897c8@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <04kKc.4217$Wv4.878@okepread03>,
> lagreca@googles.email.service.com says...
> > It doesn't matter if it was europe or the US, all SIM cards follow the
same
> > standard. That is what makes them universal.
> >
> > You may not have experieced the limitiation if you didn't use the
advanced
> > phonebook features of your phone. (eg. storing more than one number,
type
> > of number, email address, etc, per contact)
> >
> > It IS possible to store some of your phonebook on the phones internal
> > memory, and some on the SIM card. This would allow you to have more
> > complete information for some contacts that are stored on the phones
> > internal memory. But when you go to transfer the phones internal
phonebook
> > to your SIM you will run into the problems I described.
>
> I understand THIS limitation .... but poster that I was replaying to
> suggested that phonebook on SIM card feature works only between THE SAME
> brand phones.
>
> AP
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b633ac0149d100d9897c7@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> > > In article <zn4Kc.28135$Do.26023@fe23.usenetserver.com>,
> > > jsuter@intrastar.net says...
> > > > AP wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And you can store your phone book directly on SIM card ... so
whenever
> > > > > you move SIM car your phone book goes with you.
> > > >
> > > > This only really applies if you stay within the same brand, and
> > > > sometimes even specific model.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not that I expirienced that limitation. I lived in Europe for few
years.
> > > And I had at least 4 diffrent phone models from 4 diffrent
manufacturers
> > > - everytime phonebook stored on SIM card worked perfectly.
> > >
> > >
> > > AP
> >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

I think calling GSM "20 year old euro-reject hardware" is pretty harsh and
mostly untrue. While the SIM standard could be updated, and the price of
them could be lower, they offer quite a bit more overall, in my opinion,
than current CDMA.

The features that currently come to mind is call control. IE. GSM can hold
AND CONTROL up to 6 calls concurrently. I realize 6 may be overkill, but
unarguably its much better than Verizons CDMA control, which seems to be
almost non-existent.

If I'm on the phone with caller1 and caller2 rings through, I can answer,
and switch back and forth between the two, but I cannot join the two calls
together, and I cannot specify which call to drop, put on hold, or talk to.

GSM also offers text message delivery notification, which I found very
useful, as text messaging can be useless if your not sure the recipient
recieved the message. I don't believe CDMA has this capability currently.

These are just a few of the features that come to mind when comparing the
capabilities between the two technologies.


"Jacob Suter" <jsuter@intrastar.net> wrote in message
news:h_qKc.57379$0i6.19962@fe27.usenetserver.com...
> This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old
> technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for
> a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what
> happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware.
>
> JS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA? GSM is
royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the reason
Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place.


"FELIX" <EENYC1@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:87e0800a.0407151057.6e7a9a4a@posting.google.com...
> I don't know much about HOW the technology works but hypnotically if
> T-mobile or Cingular had the same coverage as Verizon would they have
> better service operating on GSM as oppose to Verizon that operates on
> CDMA? What is the big difference between both systems? And why is it
> that all the latest phones with the latest features seem to come out
> for the GSM technology.
>
> Thanks in advance
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

"cazy" <cazy@rediff.com> wrote in message
news:bfUKc.39059$eH1.18571756@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA?

Yes.

>GSM is
> royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the
reason
> Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place.

Yes and No. I think the protocols described in the GSM standards are free
(if you are using them in a GSM product), and with some exception, this is
the basis when someone offers an algorithm for adoption by GSM. As least for
phase-I.

Hhowever during implementation many companies have patents on the actual
implementation. So in reality GSM is not completely royalty free, and this
is a very complex area.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:17:43 GMT, "cazy" <cazy@rediff.com> wrote:

>Is it true that someone need to license from QCOM to use CDMA? GSM is
>royalty free protocol. CDMA is under patented protection. This is the reason
>Erricson won't get into this technology in the first place.


They have to for 3G. UMTS relies on CDMA technology, licensed from
Qualcomm.
--
John Bartley K7AAY http://celdata.cjb.net
This post quad-ROT-13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA.
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:09:11 -0700, "Halogen8"
<lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

>This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An
>example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number of
>123-123-1234, home phone of 789-789-7894, work number of 456-456-4561, and
>email address of joeblow@hotmail.com. When you transfer this users info to
>the Sim card it come accross with a trunctated name, and looses info such as
>whether a number was cell, work, or home. It will come across as Joe B
>123-123-1234, Joe B2 789-789-7894, Joe B3 456-456-4561. The email address
>is totally lost, as the SIM has no way of storing this information.

But a SIM card is infinitely more useful if you wish to use multiple
phones/devices. With phone only memory devices (non SIM) you can't
take the data with you either! Sure the SIM memory isn't perfect, but
it's got more to offer than the phone only memory of other non GSM
devices.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:00:13 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
wrote:

>This is true, if you use advanced features. Either way, its very old
>technology that needs to EVOLVE. Consider what they want to charge for
>a SIM card these days vs a 64MB CompactFlash card. I guess thats what
>happens when you play with 20 year old euro-reject hardware.

You call it as a slam "euro-reject" hardware yet you don't have
anything better to show for it do you, eh? Why are the CDMA operators
so slow in offering anything other than phone memory to store phone
data? R-UIM is available but do any North American operators use it?
No! It seems silly to "bash" another technology when the "superior"
technology is illusive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, they
can't do everything people say they can do.

Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and information
to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true.

Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM
cards being one of them.


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n76ag0530uq6gb5386mnqibbs029vkupvd@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:09:11 -0700, "Halogen8"
> <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>
> >This can make some of the data in your phonebook entirely useless. An
> >example would be if you have a contact name Joe Blow with a cell number
of
> >123-123-1234, home phone of 789-789-7894, work number of 456-456-4561,
and
> >email address of joeblow@hotmail.com. When you transfer this users info
to
> >the Sim card it come accross with a trunctated name, and looses info such
as
> >whether a number was cell, work, or home. It will come across as Joe B
> >123-123-1234, Joe B2 789-789-7894, Joe B3 456-456-4561. The email
address
> >is totally lost, as the SIM has no way of storing this information.
>
> But a SIM card is infinitely more useful if you wish to use multiple
> phones/devices. With phone only memory devices (non SIM) you can't
> take the data with you either! Sure the SIM memory isn't perfect, but
> it's got more to offer than the phone only memory of other non GSM
> devices.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:31:59 -0700, "Halogen8"
<lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

>My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful, they
>can't do everything people say they can do.
>
>Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and information
>to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true.
>
>Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM
>cards being one of them.

I really doubt whether people actually believe that *every* detail of
their account is carried over with a SIM card's memory. There may be
people who do not know that their SIM card can retain any phone data
and will have everything saved to their phone only. In that case all
having a SIM card will do for them is allow them to use another device
at their whim and not much more than that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do.

I've had ATT reps tell me (incorrectly) before when switching phones that I
can take my phone book with me without any problems. However that is only
partially correct, which is what my original post try to convey.

When copying data from internal memory of a phone to a SIM card, quite a bit
of information will not transfer. I'm referring to caller groups, phone
number type, multiple numbers per name, etc.


"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qc1ig0dkvgmonrakr39s3jj0gnr1ripbvs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:31:59 -0700, "Halogen8"
> <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>
> >My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful,
they
> >can't do everything people say they can do.
> >
> >Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and
information
> >to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true.
> >
> >Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM
> >cards being one of them.
>
> I really doubt whether people actually believe that *every* detail of
> their account is carried over with a SIM card's memory. There may be
> people who do not know that their SIM card can retain any phone data
> and will have everything saved to their phone only. In that case all
> having a SIM card will do for them is allow them to use another device
> at their whim and not much more than that.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.cdma,alt.cellular.gsm (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:19:03 -0700, "Halogen8"
<lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:

>My point is that people don't know what a SIM can and cannot do.
>
>I've had ATT reps tell me (incorrectly) before when switching phones that I
>can take my phone book with me without any problems. However that is only
>partially correct, which is what my original post try to convey.
>
>When copying data from internal memory of a phone to a SIM card, quite a bit
>of information will not transfer. I'm referring to caller groups, phone
>number type, multiple numbers per name, etc.

OK so it's imperfect. Name something that does it better!

Take your time I can wait.

>
>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:qc1ig0dkvgmonrakr39s3jj0gnr1ripbvs@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:31:59 -0700, "Halogen8"
>> <lagreca@googles.email.service.com> wrote:
>>
>> >My point to the original poster, was that while SIM cards are useful,
>they
>> >can't do everything people say they can do.
>> >
>> >Most people think the SIM will transfer your whole identity and
>information
>> >to whatever phone you put it in, and that is only partially true.
>> >
>> >Please keep in mind that I prefer GSM to CDMA for MANY reasons, with SIM
>> >cards being one of them.
>>
>> I really doubt whether people actually believe that *every* detail of
>> their account is carried over with a SIM card's memory. There may be
>> people who do not know that their SIM card can retain any phone data
>> and will have everything saved to their phone only. In that case all
>> having a SIM card will do for them is allow them to use another device
>> at their whim and not much more than that.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply