Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CDMA and WCDMA?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:47:22 AM

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

I've read in some of these newsgroups that GSM is moving to, or being
enhanced with WCDMA technology. What does WCDMA entail, and how does it
compare with CDMA? Will it permit users of GSM/WCDMA phones to roam to
CDMA carriers, and/or vice-versa?

I've done some cursory google searching of cdma and wcdma but could not
find anything that made enough sense to me.

Looking to be educated in these two worlds of CDMA and WCDMA.

Thank you.

Scott

More about : cdma wcdma

December 4, 2004 3:47:23 AM

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

On 04 Dec 2004 00:47:22 GMT, scott@mit.edu (Scott Ehrlich) wrote:

>I've read in some of these newsgroups that GSM is moving to, or being
>enhanced with WCDMA technology. What does WCDMA entail, and how does it
>compare with CDMA? Will it permit users of GSM/WCDMA phones to roam to
>CDMA carriers, and/or vice-versa?
>
>I've done some cursory google searching of cdma and wcdma but could not
>find anything that made enough sense to me.
>
>Looking to be educated in these two worlds of CDMA and WCDMA.

CDMA and W-CDMA use the same underlying technlogy. That's where the
similarity ends. GSM uses TDMA technology, but that's about the only
relation it has to TDMA (IS-136.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:47:23 AM

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

You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa. For a
starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the Wireless Evolution
section.

--

\/ L /\ D


"Scott Ehrlich" <scott@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:41b1091a$0$562$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...

I've read in some of these newsgroups that GSM is moving to, or being
enhanced with WCDMA technology. What does WCDMA entail, and how does it
compare with CDMA? Will it permit users of GSM/WCDMA phones to roam to
CDMA carriers, and/or vice-versa?

I've done some cursory google searching of cdma and wcdma but could not
find anything that made enough sense to me.

Looking to be educated in these two worlds of CDMA and WCDMA.

Thank you.

Scott
Related resources
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:31:18 AM

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

Vlad Andreyev wrote:
> You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa.
> For a starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the
> Wireless Evolution section.

Is this the point?:

http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/3g/intro.shtml
" No other standard offers the flexible combination of voice and data
performance and capacity delivered by 3GSM underpinned by Wideband-CDMA. No
other standard is as open as 3GSM. No other standard delivers the economies
of scale and competitiveness for operators and vendors. "


http://www.cdmatech.com/resources/glossary_full.jsp
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 9:47:05 PM

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

In article <xZOdncDeS5MS2yzcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> wrote:
>You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa. For a
>starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the Wireless Evolution
>section.

CDMA2000, which, for example, Verizon Wireless and SprintPCS use,
is a completely different protocol than WCDMA, which is the migration
path for GSM systems. They use the same underlying concept or multiple
users sharing the same frequency band using spread-spectrum techniques,
but how they do it is completely different. Totally different "languages".
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:07:43 AM

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:47:05 -0500, CharlesH wrote
(in article <JCnsd.38751$6q2.14881@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH)
> Date: Today 1:47 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> In article <xZOdncDeS5MS2yzcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> wrote:
>> You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa. For a
>> starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the Wireless Evolution
>> section.
>
> CDMA2000, which, for example, Verizon Wireless and SprintPCS use,
> is a completely different protocol than WCDMA, which is the migration
> path for GSM systems. They use the same underlying concept or multiple
> users sharing the same frequency band using spread-spectrum techniques,
> but how they do it is completely different. Totally different "languages".

Finally someone can explain this! :-)

Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?
December 5, 2004 2:57:39 AM

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

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:07:43 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:47:05 -0500, CharlesH wrote
>(in article <JCnsd.38751$6q2.14881@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>> From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH)
>> Date: Today 1:47 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma, alt.cellular.gsm
>>
>> In article <xZOdncDeS5MS2yzcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
>> Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> wrote:
>>> You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa. For a
>>> starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the Wireless Evolution
>>> section.
>>
>> CDMA2000, which, for example, Verizon Wireless and SprintPCS use,
>> is a completely different protocol than WCDMA, which is the migration
>> path for GSM systems. They use the same underlying concept or multiple
>> users sharing the same frequency band using spread-spectrum techniques,
>> but how they do it is completely different. Totally different "languages".
>
>Finally someone can explain this! :-)
>
>Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?

It never will happen. 2G CDMA's migration path is to CDMA2000 not
W-CDMA.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 1:16:48 PM

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

In news:cqf5r0t4fkqth7i00snibhmnr1j9bm879h@4ax.com,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> typed:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:07:43 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:47:05 -0500, CharlesH wrote
>> (in article <JCnsd.38751$6q2.14881@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):
>>
>>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>>> From: hoch@exemplary.invalid (CharlesH)
>>> Date: Today 1:47 PM
>>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.cdma,
>>> alt.cellular.gsm
>>>
>>> In article <xZOdncDeS5MS2yzcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
>>> Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> wrote:
>>>> You can't roam with a CDMA phone on a WCDMA network or vice-versa.
>>>> For a starting point, go to www.gsmworld.com and browse the
>>>> Wireless Evolution section.
>>>
>>> CDMA2000, which, for example, Verizon Wireless and SprintPCS use,
>>> is a completely different protocol than WCDMA, which is the
>>> migration path for GSM systems. They use the same underlying
>>> concept or multiple users sharing the same frequency band using
>>> spread-spectrum techniques, but how they do it is completely
>>> different. Totally different "languages".
>>
>> Finally someone can explain this! :-)
>>
>> Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?
>
> It never will happen. 2G CDMA's migration path is to CDMA2000 not
> W-CDMA.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their networks
to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable with current
equipment.

Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new equipment
for each upgrade.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 4:39:26 PM

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

In alt.cellular.gsm SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
> Finally someone can explain this! :-)
>
> Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?

Doubt it. They've invested so much money in their CDMA2000x1 network.
The obvious migraqtion path to 3G/high bandwidth mobile is to upgrade to
CDMA EV-DO. For a lot of their cells I'd assume it's merely a software
upgrade.

PD

--
Paul Day Web: www.bur.st/~paul GPG Key ID: 7FF655A8
December 5, 2004 6:20:46 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their networks
>to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable with current
>equipment.
>
>Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new equipment
>for each upgrade.

I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:31:13 PM

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

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:07:43 -0500, SinghaLvr wrote:

> Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?

IMO that would never happen.

Isn't their unique selling point the alleged superiority of CDMA over GSM?

Clear reception, etc, blah, blah, blah.
December 5, 2004 6:31:14 PM

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

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:31:13 +1100, John Phillips
<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:07:43 -0500, SinghaLvr wrote:
>
>> Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?
>
>IMO that would never happen.
>
>Isn't their unique selling point the alleged superiority of CDMA over GSM?
>
>Clear reception, etc, blah, blah, blah.

I don't think you understand the question. The upgrade path from 2G
GSM is to W-CDMA which is a form of CDMA unrelated to what is
presently used by such carriers as Verizon and Sprint PCS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 10:00:00 PM

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

In news:p t57r0l0d2hthgjch2ljn9guehvghnoiq0@4ax.com,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> typed:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable
>> with current equipment.
>>
>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>> equipment for each upgrade.
>
> I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
equipment.

CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to users.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 5:03:55 AM

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

In article <pt57r0l0d2hthgjch2ljn9guehvghnoiq0@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their networks
>>to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable with current
>>equipment.
>>
>>Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new equipment
>>for each upgrade.
>
>I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?
>

I think their point is in the former case, the CDMA > CDMA2000 upgrade is
cheaper because the infrastructure for CDMA2000 is easier to implement
with what already exists for CDMA, whereas, in the latter case TDMA > GSM
involves a complete change of everything, and the same from GSM to WCDMA.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Scott
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 8:27:59 AM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> chose to add
this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>In news:p t57r0l0d2hthgjch2ljn9guehvghnoiq0@4ax.com,
>Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> typed:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable
>>> with current equipment.
>>>
>>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>>> equipment for each upgrade.
>>
>> I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?
>
>TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
>equipment.
>
>CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to users.

All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a transition
from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would require new
equipment just as would the transition from GSM.

--
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.
"I've really been burning the midday oil." - Ronald Reagan
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 8:28:00 AM

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

David S wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> chose
> to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
> everything:
>
>> In news:p t57r0l0d2hthgjch2ljn9guehvghnoiq0@4ax.com,
>> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> typed:
>>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>>>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are
>>>> compatable with current equipment.
>>>>
>>>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>>>> equipment for each upgrade.
>>>
>>> I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?
>>
>> TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
>> equipment.
>>
>> CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to
>> users.
>
> All true, but other posts in this thread have indicated that a
> transition from CDMA2000 to WCDMA would not be transparent but would
> require new equipment just as would the transition from GSM.

Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from CDMA2000 to
WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?

Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily STUPID and
insane to even consider it!
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 7:09:23 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from CDMA2000 to
>WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>
>Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily STUPID and
>insane to even consider it!

Why?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 7:09:24 PM

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

singha_lvr wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from
>> CDMA2000 to WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>>
>> Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily
>> STUPID and insane to even consider it!
>
> Why?

WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 7:09:25 PM

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

Quick wrote:
> singha_lvr wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
>> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from
>>> CDMA2000 to WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>>>
>>> Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily
>>> STUPID and insane to even consider it!
>>
>> Why?
>
> WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?

Yes.. but they are gsm/i-mode going towards wcdma, and have never been
cdma/cdma2000.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:28:11 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <4sf5r0169j7sojd0uavfg17g0gg9qv64b3@4ax.com> on Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:59:02
-0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:31:13 +1100, John Phillips
><flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:07:43 -0500, SinghaLvr wrote:
>>
>>> Do you ever see Sprint/Verizon migrating to GSM/WCDMA?

No, but there is some chance that CDMA and WCDMA will merge.

>I don't think you understand the question. The upgrade path from 2G
>GSM is to W-CDMA which is a form of CDMA unrelated to what is
>presently used by such carriers as Verizon and Sprint PCS.

WCDMA is a type of CDMA only in the air interface, which is considerably
different from what's called CDMA -- the infrastructure of WCDMA is based on
GSM, and WCDMA is designed to complement GSM. Thus WCDMA is actually more GSM
than CDMA.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:28:12 AM

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

GSM really resides in the higher layers of the network protocol stack. In
the lower layers - the air interface, there is currently TDMA. (Granted,
it's not exactly the same as the IS-136 version (like the old AT&T network),
but it still is TDMA.) In 3G incarnation, GSM will become UMTS in the
higher layers, and it will rely on WCDMA in the lower layers. What this
means is that the UMTS network will provide additional services to
subscribers. Because these services require higher bandwidth than what's
possible with the current TDMA system, it will be substituted with WCDMA.
While there is a lot of overlap between these terms, you have to
differentiate between the network and the air interface layers.

--

\/ L /\ D


"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:%15td.9771$_3.114986@typhoon.sonic.net...
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

WCDMA is a type of CDMA only in the air interface, which is considerably
different from what's called CDMA -- the infrastructure of WCDMA is based on
GSM, and WCDMA is designed to complement GSM. Thus WCDMA is actually more
GSM
than CDMA.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:28:13 AM

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

Vlad Andreyev wrote:
> GSM really resides in the higher layers of the network protocol
> stack. In the lower layers - the air interface, there is currently
> TDMA. (Granted, it's not exactly the same as the IS-136 version
> (like the old AT&T network), but it still is TDMA.) In 3G
> incarnation, GSM will become UMTS in the higher layers, and it will
> rely on WCDMA in the lower layers. What this means is that the UMTS
> network will provide additional services to subscribers. Because
> these services require higher bandwidth than what's possible with the
> current TDMA system, it will be substituted with WCDMA. While there
> is a lot of overlap between these terms, you have to differentiate
> between the network and the air interface layers.

Ok...
1) Is the WCDMA air interface backward compatible with the
TDMA air interface?

2) If not, will it be able to concurrently occupy the same bandwidth?
(Will it require "throwing a switch" after which all WCDMA equipment
will work and all TDMA equipment won't?)

3) Is there any difference in the air interface for WCDMA and CDMA2000?
3a) If so, do they scale the same?

-Quick
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:28:14 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102386246.247801@sj-nntpcache-5...

Ok...
1) Is the WCDMA air interface backward compatible with the
TDMA air interface?

No, they have absolutely nothing in common.

2) If not, will it be able to concurrently occupy the same bandwidth?
(Will it require "throwing a switch" after which all WCDMA equipment
will work and all TDMA equipment won't?)

Yes, they can co-exist. AT&T (now Cingular) is currently running both UMTS
(WCDMA-based) and GSM (TDMA-based) systems in 6 metro areas around the
country, both in the 1900MHz band, but in different parts of it. The
operator can allocate how much of their spectrum is occupied by which
system.

3) Is there any difference in the air interface for WCDMA and CDMA2000?
3a) If so, do they scale the same?

Yes, there is a difference. They are two totally different standards. One
has been chosen as the migration path for GSM, and the other one - as the
migration path for CDMA. What they share is the underlying concept of
simultaneously sending digital signals between multiple phones within a cell
over a spread spectrum. (I'm not sure about scaling.)

In TDMA environment, your phone receives on one frequency during a call and
transmits on another. So do several other phones at the same time, using
the same receive/transmit frequencies as yours, and you all take turn, so
that no two phones receive or transmit at the same time. There are a few of
such groups of phones in a cell, which take turn to use the same frequency.
It's quite a simple concept.

CDMA, on the contrary, is rather complicated. It uses the time and spectrum
more efficiently and, therefore, is capable of higher bandwidth. I can't go
into details, because it can make anyone's head spin, but in CDMA, your
phone actually doesn't stay on one frequency during a call but continuously
hops from one frequency to another, as do all the other phones in the cell.
This is called spread spectrum.

-Quick
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:29:37 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <VvGsd.83493$EZ.74227@okepread07> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their networks
>to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable with current
>equipment.

Likewise TDMA / GSM.

>Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new equipment
>for each upgrade.

It's actually an easier hardware upgrade than from GSM to CDMA.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:29:38 AM

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

In news:l35td.9772$_3.114997@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <VvGsd.83493$EZ.74227@okepread07> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable
>> with current equipment.
>
> Likewise TDMA / GSM.
>
>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>> equipment for each upgrade.
>
> It's actually an easier hardware upgrade than from GSM to CDMA.


I thought there was a different handset required for TDMA and GSM - there
are seperate plans for each.

Why have ATT, Cingular, etc required users to get new handsets for GSM?

Actually in the ATT user forum they have been talking about the need to
change to a Cingular plan AND Cingular handset to access all of the Cingular
features.

Since TDMA and GSM currently use forms of "Time Division Multiple Access" to
access their respective systems and W-CDMA uses a "Code Division Multiple
Access" - I thought there would be different handset required to access the
W-CDMA system due to the different transmission process.

As I said with VZW, Alltel, etc using CDMA - old handsets still work on
CDMA2000 and new handsets work on CDMA-1. The old handsets only display "D"
for digital, while newer phones display "D" for CDMA-1 and "1X" for
CDMA2000. Therefore the user with an old handset is not aware when the
system is upgraged and users of newer phones can tell when they are on a
CDMA-1 or CDMA-2000 system if they look at their display.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:30:23 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <laOsd.83918$EZ.28676@okepread07> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:00:00 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>TDMA, GSM & WCDMA are three different systems all requiring different
>equipment.
>
>CDMA thru CDMA2000 are compatable with each other - transparent to users.

In fact the respective upgrade paths are more similar than different.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:31:42 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1102368129.811392@sj-nntpcache-5> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:24:52 -0800,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>singha_lvr wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:08 -0800, "Peter Pan"
>> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why in heck would anyone in their right mind want to go from
>>> CDMA2000 to WCDMA?!?!?!?!? Who is even considerring it?!?!?!?!?!?
>>>
>>> Sure it would not be transparent, since it would be incredibily
>>> STUPID and insane to even consider it!
>>
>> Why?
>
>WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?

DoCoMo had some teething problems with WCDMA, like most new technologies, but
WCDMA is now pretty solid.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:31:43 AM

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:31:42 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <i55td.9774$_3.114986@typhoon.sonic.net>):

>> WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?
>
> DoCoMo had some teething problems with WCDMA, like most new technologies, but
> WCDMA is now pretty solid.


Who's docomo?
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:33:06 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <41b3be0b$0$576$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> on 06 Dec 2004 02:03:55
GMT, scott@mit.edu (Scott Ehrlich) wrote:

>In article <pt57r0l0d2hthgjch2ljn9guehvghnoiq0@4ax.com>,
>Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their networks
>>>to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable with current
>>>equipment.
>>>
>>>Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new equipment
>>>for each upgrade.
>>
>>I know you're trying to make a point, but what is it?
>
>I think their point is in the former case, the CDMA > CDMA2000 upgrade is
>cheaper because the infrastructure for CDMA2000 is easier to implement
>with what already exists for CDMA, whereas, in the latter case TDMA > GSM
>involves a complete change of everything, and the same from GSM to WCDMA.
>
>Please correct me if I am wrong.

TDMA > GSM doesn't require "a complete change of everything" -- GSM overlay of
TDMA can be accomplished within the same hardware platform (depending on how
old it is).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:42:52 AM

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

AT&T and Cingular required different handsets for their "TDMA" and GSM
systems, because they are different and incompatible. What's commonly
referred to as "TDMA" is actually the IS-136 system. Both the "SIM-less"
IS-136 and the SIM-card GSM systems are based on the slightly different
versions of the Time Division Multiple Access technology, as you point out.
The two systems co-exist peacefully, and the operators allocate parts of
their spectrum to each one. There are a few GAIT (GSM ANSI Interoperability
Team) handsets that support both the systems. Recently, WCDMA has been
added to the mix in some markets, and now there are handsets that support
GSM and UMTS (WCDMA).

--

\/ L /\ D


"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:D k9td.84794$EZ.63077@okepread07...
In news:l35td.9772$_3.114997@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <VvGsd.83493$EZ.74227@okepread07> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable
>> with current equipment.
>
> Likewise TDMA / GSM.
>
>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>> equipment for each upgrade.
>
> It's actually an easier hardware upgrade than from GSM to CDMA.


I thought there was a different handset required for TDMA and GSM - there
are seperate plans for each.

Why have ATT, Cingular, etc required users to get new handsets for GSM?

Actually in the ATT user forum they have been talking about the need to
change to a Cingular plan AND Cingular handset to access all of the Cingular
features.

Since TDMA and GSM currently use forms of "Time Division Multiple Access" to
access their respective systems and W-CDMA uses a "Code Division Multiple
Access" - I thought there would be different handset required to access the
W-CDMA system due to the different transmission process.

As I said with VZW, Alltel, etc using CDMA - old handsets still work on
CDMA2000 and new handsets work on CDMA-1. The old handsets only display "D"
for digital, while newer phones display "D" for CDMA-1 and "1X" for
CDMA2000. Therefore the user with an old handset is not aware when the
system is upgraged and users of newer phones can tell when they are on a
CDMA-1 or CDMA-2000 system if they look at their display.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:42:53 AM

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

In news:o 6SdnYKaEogkuyjcRVn-vQ@comcast.com,
Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> typed:
> AT&T and Cingular required different handsets for their "TDMA" and GSM
> systems, because they are different and incompatible. What's commonly
> referred to as "TDMA" is actually the IS-136 system. Both the
> "SIM-less" IS-136 and the SIM-card GSM systems are based on the
> slightly different versions of the Time Division Multiple Access
> technology, as you point out. The two systems co-exist peacefully,
> and the operators allocate parts of their spectrum to each one.
> There are a few GAIT (GSM ANSI Interoperability Team) handsets that
> support both the systems. Recently, WCDMA has been added to the mix
> in some markets, and now there are handsets that support GSM and UMTS
> (WCDMA).
>
>
> "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:D k9td.84794$EZ.63077@okepread07...
> In news:l35td.9772$_3.114997@typhoon.sonic.net,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <VvGsd.83493$EZ.74227@okepread07> on Sun, 5 Dec 2004 10:16:48
>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> VZW, Sprint, Alltel, etc which started with CDMA can upgrade their
>>> networks to CDMA2000 incrementally since the upgrades are compatable
>>> with current equipment.
>>
>> Likewise TDMA / GSM.
>>
>>> Converting from TDMA to GSM and then from GSM to WCMA requires new
>>> equipment for each upgrade.
>>
>> It's actually an easier hardware upgrade than from GSM to CDMA.
>
>
> I thought there was a different handset required for TDMA and GSM -
> there are seperate plans for each.
>
> Why have ATT, Cingular, etc required users to get new handsets for
> GSM?
>
> Actually in the ATT user forum they have been talking about the need
> to change to a Cingular plan AND Cingular handset to access all of
> the Cingular features.
>
> Since TDMA and GSM currently use forms of "Time Division Multiple
> Access" to access their respective systems and W-CDMA uses a "Code
> Division Multiple Access" - I thought there would be different
> handset required to access the W-CDMA system due to the different
> transmission process.
>
> As I said with VZW, Alltel, etc using CDMA - old handsets still work
> on CDMA2000 and new handsets work on CDMA-1. The old handsets only
> display "D" for digital, while newer phones display "D" for CDMA-1
> and "1X" for CDMA2000. Therefore the user with an old handset is not
> aware when the system is upgraged and users of newer phones can tell
> when they are on a CDMA-1 or CDMA-2000 system if they look at their
> display.

Which supports what I initally posted:
CDMA - phones continue to work as systems are upgraded.
TDMA, GSM, & W-CDMA - New phone required for each system upgrade/change.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 2:16:37 AM

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

Well, this is based on the assumption (or fact) that older CDMA networks are
instantaneously and completely replaced with backwards-compatible newer
ones, as opposed to the operators running the old and the new networks
simultaneously during the transition period, which is what's happening in
the GSM world. I don't know that much about CDMA, so I'm not sure how it's
done.

Either way, if you have an old CDMA phone, you won't be able to use any of
the features offered by a newer CDMA network, so you would have to get a new
phone for that. The Sprint PCS "Vision" handsets are an example, I think.
For operators, however, different upgrade paths do come at different prices.

--

\/ L /\ D


"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:aQ9td.84864$EZ.82559@okepread07...

Which supports what I initally posted:
CDMA - phones continue to work as systems are upgraded.
TDMA, GSM, & W-CDMA - New phone required for each system upgrade/change.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 2:16:38 AM

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

I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when not in
Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were areas on VZW &
Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then
after a while all the "D" areas changed to "1X". With CDMA the carriers
just upgrade the cell sites with compatible newer ones. There is no
difference in the Over-The-Air interface. For making & recieving calls any
phone (new or old) works. For web browsing, sending messages, taking
pictures, etc, it actually depends on what functions are on the phone. The
new phones range from very basic to all the bells and whistles.


In news:XN6dnQ2oA7I_syjcRVn-rQ@comcast.com,
Vlad Andreyev <vlad@atlantech.net> typed:
> Well, this is based on the assumption (or fact) that older CDMA
> networks are instantaneously and completely replaced with
> backwards-compatible newer ones, as opposed to the operators running
> the old and the new networks simultaneously during the transition
> period, which is what's happening in the GSM world. I don't know
> that much about CDMA, so I'm not sure how it's done.
>
> Either way, if you have an old CDMA phone, you won't be able to use
> any of the features offered by a newer CDMA network, so you would
> have to get a new phone for that. The Sprint PCS "Vision" handsets
> are an example, I think. For operators, however, different upgrade
> paths do come at different prices.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 3:04:15 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <0001HW.BDDA58590006D563F03055B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004
18:41:29 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:31:42 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <i55td.9774$_3.114986@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>>> WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?
>>
>> DoCoMo had some teething problems with WCDMA, like most new technologies, but
>> WCDMA is now pretty solid.
>
>Who's docomo?

"Google is your friend!"
http://www.google.com/search?q=docomo

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:30:20 AM

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:04:15 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <3s6td.9797$_3.115210@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
> Date: Yesterday 7:04 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.gsm
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <0001HW.BDDA58590006D563F03055B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004
> 18:41:29 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:31:42 -0500, John Navas wrote
>> (in article <i55td.9774$_3.114986@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>>
>>>> WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?
>>>
>>> DoCoMo had some teething problems with WCDMA, like most new technologies,
>>> but
>>> WCDMA is now pretty solid.
>>
>> Who's docomo?
>
> "Google is your friend!"
> http://www.google.com/search?q=docomo

According to google:

1) Some Japanese network company (I can't read the page ...)

2) A private hobby site

3) A Public Wireless LAN access service for Japanese-speaking residents in
the United States (http://www.docomo-usa.com/intro/index.html)

4) A cell phone manufacturer
(http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/nec/docomo-ne...)


I'll assume one of the above .... did I miss any?
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:30:21 AM

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

In news:0001HW.BDDAB82C001D4AFCF03055B0@news-50.giganews.com,
SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> typed:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:04:15 -0500, John Navas wrote
> (in article <3s6td.9797$_3.115210@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>
>> Subject: Re: CDMA and WCDMA?
>> From: John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>
>> Date: Yesterday 7:04 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.gsm
>>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <0001HW.BDDA58590006D563F03055B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Mon, 6
>> Dec 2004 18:41:29 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:31:42 -0500, John Navas wrote
>>> (in article <i55td.9774$_3.114986@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>>>
>>>>> WCDMA doesn't scale? Did Docomo try to deploy it 2 or 3 times?
>>>>
>>>> DoCoMo had some teething problems with WCDMA, like most new
>>>> technologies, but
>>>> WCDMA is now pretty solid.
>>>
>>> Who's docomo?
>>
>> "Google is your friend!"
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=docomo
>
> According to google:
>
> 1) Some Japanese network company (I can't read the page ...)
>
> 2) A private hobby site
>
> 3) A Public Wireless LAN access service for Japanese-speaking
> residents in the United States
> (http://www.docomo-usa.com/intro/index.html)
>
> 4) A cell phone manufacturer
> (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/nec/docomo-ne...)
>
>
> I'll assume one of the above .... did I miss any?

"DoCoMo is Japan's leading mobile communications operator"
http://www.nttdocomo.com/
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:45:00 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1102386246.247801@sj-nntpcache-5> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:26:46 -0800,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Vlad Andreyev wrote:
>> GSM really resides in the higher layers of the network protocol
>> stack. In the lower layers - the air interface, there is currently
>> TDMA. (Granted, it's not exactly the same as the IS-136 version
>> (like the old AT&T network), but it still is TDMA.) In 3G
>> incarnation, GSM will become UMTS in the higher layers, and it will
>> rely on WCDMA in the lower layers. What this means is that the UMTS
>> network will provide additional services to subscribers. Because
>> these services require higher bandwidth than what's possible with the
>> current TDMA system, it will be substituted with WCDMA. While there
>> is a lot of overlap between these terms, you have to differentiate
>> between the network and the air interface layers.
>
>Ok...
>1) Is the WCDMA air interface backward compatible with the
> TDMA air interface?

No.

>2) If not, will it be able to concurrently occupy the same bandwidth?
> (Will it require "throwing a switch" after which all WCDMA equipment
> will work and all TDMA equipment won't?)

WCDMA is designed to coexist with GSM, including seamless call handoff.

>3) Is there any difference in the air interface for WCDMA and CDMA2000?

Yes.

>3a) If so, do they scale the same?

No.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:56:05 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <aQ9td.84864$EZ.82559@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:54:44 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>Which supports what I initally posted:
>CDMA - phones continue to work as systems are upgraded.

Just as AMPS phones continue to work as long as AMPS is maintained. Likewise
TDMA. Likewise GSM.

>TDMA, GSM, & W-CDMA - New phone required for each system upgrade/change.

A new phone is always required with any technology to take advantage of that
technology.

With all due respect, you're trying to make something out of nothing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:56:06 AM

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

In news:FJatd.9853$_3.115961@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <aQ9td.84864$EZ.82559@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:54:44
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Which supports what I initally posted:
>> CDMA - phones continue to work as systems are upgraded.
>
> Just as AMPS phones continue to work as long as AMPS is maintained.
> Likewise TDMA. Likewise GSM.
>
>> TDMA, GSM, & W-CDMA - New phone required for each system
>> upgrade/change.
>
> A new phone is always required with any technology to take advantage
> of that technology.
>
> With all due respect, you're trying to make something out of nothing.


All I said was that users need to BUY different handsets to use TDMA, GSM,
and/or W-CDMA systems.
If you have a TDMA handset and want to use the GSM system - You must BUY
another handset to use those cell sites.
Likewise if you have a GSM handset and want to use the WCDMA system - You
must BUY another handset to use those cell sites.

With CDMA the OLD handsets continue to work to make and receive calls as new
cell sites are added and old cell sites are upgraded.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:05:39 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when not in
>Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were areas on VZW &
>Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then
>after a while all the "D" areas changed to "1X". With CDMA the carriers
>just upgrade the cell sites with compatible newer ones. There is no
>difference in the Over-The-Air interface. ...

In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences are
transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is transparent to older
TDMA handsets.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:05:40 AM

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

In news:D Satd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when
>> not in Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were
>> areas on VZW & Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were
>> "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then after a while all the "D" areas changed to
>> "1X". With CDMA the carriers just upgrade the cell sites with
>> compatible newer ones. There is no difference in the Over-The-Air
>> interface. ...
>
> In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences
> are transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is transparent
> to older TDMA handsets.

TDMA & GSM are transparent to each other as well as to CDMA, IDEN & Amps.
Actually FIVE different incompatable systems.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:05:05 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Aybtd.85080$EZ.68864@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:52:29 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>In news:FJatd.9853$_3.115961@typhoon.sonic.net,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:

>> With all due respect, you're trying to make something out of nothing.
>
>All I said was that users need to BUY different handsets to use TDMA, GSM,
>and/or W-CDMA systems.
>If you have a TDMA handset and want to use the GSM system - You must BUY
>another handset to use those cell sites.
>Likewise if you have a GSM handset and want to use the WCDMA system - You
>must BUY another handset to use those cell sites.
>
>With CDMA the OLD handsets continue to work to make and receive calls as new
>cell sites are added and old cell sites are upgraded.

As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing. AMPS handsets
still work just fine. TDMA handsets still work just fine. GSM handsets still
work just fine. As do old CDMA handsets. In *all* cases you need a new
handset to take advantage of new technology. Old CDMA handsets don't
magically get better any more than do old TDMA handsets.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:05:06 AM

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

In news:lKbtd.9866$_3.116267@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Aybtd.85080$EZ.68864@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:52:29
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:FJatd.9853$_3.115961@typhoon.sonic.net,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>
>>> With all due respect, you're trying to make something out of
>>> nothing.
>>
>> All I said was that users need to BUY different handsets to use
>> TDMA, GSM, and/or W-CDMA systems.
>> If you have a TDMA handset and want to use the GSM system - You must
>> BUY another handset to use those cell sites.
>> Likewise if you have a GSM handset and want to use the WCDMA system
>> - You must BUY another handset to use those cell sites.
>>
>> With CDMA the OLD handsets continue to work to make and receive
>> calls as new cell sites are added and old cell sites are upgraded.
>
> As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing. AMPS
> handsets still work just fine. TDMA handsets still work just fine.
> GSM handsets still work just fine. As do old CDMA handsets. In
> *all* cases you need a new handset to take advantage of new
> technology. Old CDMA handsets don't magically get better any more
> than do old TDMA handsets.

But Old CDMA handsets can use the new/upgraded CDMA cell sites to make phone
calls.

TDMA handsets do not even know the GSM cell sites exist.
And neither TDMA or GSM handsets will know that W-CDMA cell sites exist.

It's about buying new handsets to make phone calls on the new cell sites!
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:08:51 AM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <FGbtd.85101$EZ.54624@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:01:07 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>In news:D Satd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>
>> In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26
>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when
>>> not in Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were
>>> areas on VZW & Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were
>>> "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then after a while all the "D" areas changed to
>>> "1X". With CDMA the carriers just upgrade the cell sites with
>>> compatible newer ones. There is no difference in the Over-The-Air
>>> interface. ...
>>
>> In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences
>> are transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is transparent
>> to older TDMA handsets.
>
>TDMA & GSM are transparent to each other as well as to CDMA, IDEN & Amps.
>Actually FIVE different incompatable systems.

If you had a point I missed it.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:08:52 AM

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

In news:TNbtd.9868$_3.116044@typhoon.sonic.net,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <FGbtd.85101$EZ.54624@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:01:07
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:D Satd.9855$_3.116120@typhoon.sonic.net,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>>
>>> In <CQatd.85077$EZ.53571@okepread07> on Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:03:26
>>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had an old Digital/Analog phone which showed "D" everywhere when
>>>> not in Analog. I got a new 3G phone and noticed that there were
>>>> areas on VZW & Alltel that were "D" (CDMA-1) and others that were
>>>> "1X" (CDMA-2000). Then after a while all the "D" areas changed to
>>>> "1X". With CDMA the carriers just upgrade the cell sites with
>>>> compatible newer ones. There is no difference in the Over-The-Air
>>>> interface. ...
>>>
>>> In fact there are big differences. It's just that these differences
>>> are transparent to older handsets, just as GSM overlay is
>>> transparent to older TDMA handsets.
>>
>> TDMA & GSM are transparent to each other as well as to CDMA, IDEN &
>> Amps. Actually FIVE different incompatable systems.
>
> If you had a point I missed it.

CDMA handsets can make and receive calls on all CDMA cell sites.
Any CDMA cell site added regardless of technology benefits all users.

TDMA phones will only make calls on a TDMA cell site.
GSM phones will only make calls on a GSM cell site.
Adding GSM cell sites does not benefit TDMA users.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:04:45 PM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <0001HW.BDDAB82C001D4AFCF03055B0@news-50.giganews.com> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004
01:30:20 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:04:15 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <3s6td.9797$_3.115210@typhoon.sonic.net>):

>>> Who's docomo?
>>
>> "Google is your friend!"
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=docomo
>
>According to google:
>
>1) Some Japanese network company (I can't read the page ...)

That's it.

>2) A private hobby site
>
>3) A Public Wireless LAN access service for Japanese-speaking residents in
>the United States (http://www.docomo-usa.com/intro/index.html)
>
>4) A cell phone manufacturer
>(http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/nec/docomo-ne...)
>
>I'll assume one of the above .... did I miss any?

Indeed you did, the English link right below the first link:

<http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/index.shtml&gt;

In other words, if you'd spent as much time actually looking as being a s-a,
you would have gotten your answer. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:12:40 PM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <10ctd.85554$EZ.37050@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:23:51 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>In news:TNbtd.9868$_3.116044@typhoon.sonic.net,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>
>> In <FGbtd.85101$EZ.54624@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:01:07
>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>>> TDMA & GSM are transparent to each other as well as to CDMA, IDEN &
>>> Amps. Actually FIVE different incompatable systems.
>>
>> If you had a point I missed it.
>
>CDMA handsets can make and receive calls on all CDMA cell sites.

That is of course a truism. Just like any other technology.

>Any CDMA cell site added regardless of technology benefits all users.

Not necessarily. It's not that simple.

>TDMA phones will only make calls on a TDMA cell site.
>GSM phones will only make calls on a GSM cell site.
>Adding GSM cell sites does not benefit TDMA users.

With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS*) serves both TDMA and
GSM users.

* Cells are typically served by more than one BTS.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:12:41 PM

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <10ctd.85554$EZ.37050@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:23:51
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:TNbtd.9868$_3.116044@typhoon.sonic.net,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>>
>>> In <FGbtd.85101$EZ.54624@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:01:07
>>> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>> TDMA & GSM are transparent to each other as well as to CDMA, IDEN &
>>>> Amps. Actually FIVE different incompatable systems.
>>>
>>> If you had a point I missed it.
>>
>> CDMA handsets can make and receive calls on all CDMA cell sites.
>
> That is of course a truism. Just like any other technology.
>
>> Any CDMA cell site added regardless of technology benefits all users.
>
> Not necessarily. It's not that simple.
>
>> TDMA phones will only make calls on a TDMA cell site.
>> GSM phones will only make calls on a GSM cell site.
>> Adding GSM cell sites does not benefit TDMA users.
>
> With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS*) serves both
> TDMA and GSM users.
>
> * Cells are typically served by more than one BTS.

That is not what I've gathered to be the point here. Let's simply
focus on the air interface and network and user equipment.

I can be using one of the first digital StarTacs on CDMA.
VZW can add 1xRTT and my phone still does what it
used to do and I don't see a difference. VZW can go
to true 3g or CDMA2000 and my phone still does what
it used to and I don't see a difference. VZW is using all
their spectrum efficiently and only maintaining (for each cell)
1 technology and the equipment for it.

I get the impression that this will not be true for TDMA -> GSM
and GSM -> WCDMA. The carrier will have to partition their
spectrum and maintain separate equipment for each technology.
At some point users will have to be told "tough luck, you have to
get different equipment". There will be some transitional period
where the carrier will be using their spectrum inefficiently and
incur the cost of maintaining "duplicate" equipment for dual or
triple air interfaces.

I still haven't heard if WCDMA will scale to the same bandwidth
and/or user density that CDMA2000 will.

-Quick
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:18:29 PM

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

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <Sactd.85814$EZ.28099@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:35:28 -0600, "IMHO"
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>In news:lKbtd.9866$_3.116267@typhoon.sonic.net,
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:

>> As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing. AMPS
>> handsets still work just fine. TDMA handsets still work just fine.
>> GSM handsets still work just fine. As do old CDMA handsets. In
>> *all* cases you need a new handset to take advantage of new
>> technology. Old CDMA handsets don't magically get better any more
>> than do old TDMA handsets.
>
>But Old CDMA handsets can use the new/upgraded CDMA cell sites to make phone
>calls.
>
>TDMA handsets do not even know the GSM cell sites exist.

With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS, which may well serve
more than one cell, just as a given cell may well be served by more than one
BTS) serves both TDMA and GSM users.

>And neither TDMA or GSM handsets will know that W-CDMA cell sites exist.

No biggie, since WCDMA is designed to complement, not replace, GSM.

>It's about buying new handsets to make phone calls on the new cell sites!

As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:18:30 PM

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Sactd.85814$EZ.28099@okepread07> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:35:28
> -0600, "IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:lKbtd.9866$_3.116267@typhoon.sonic.net,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> typed:
>
>>> As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing. AMPS
>>> handsets still work just fine. TDMA handsets still work just fine.
>>> GSM handsets still work just fine. As do old CDMA handsets. In
>>> *all* cases you need a new handset to take advantage of new
>>> technology. Old CDMA handsets don't magically get better any more
>>> than do old TDMA handsets.
>>
>> But Old CDMA handsets can use the new/upgraded CDMA cell sites to
>> make phone calls.
>>
>> TDMA handsets do not even know the GSM cell sites exist.
>
> With GSM overlay, the same "cell" (more accurately BTS, which may
> well serve more than one cell, just as a given cell may well be
> served by more than one BTS) serves both TDMA and GSM users.
>
>> And neither TDMA or GSM handsets will know that W-CDMA cell sites
>> exist.
>
> No biggie, since WCDMA is designed to complement, not replace, GSM.
>
>> It's about buying new handsets to make phone calls on the new cell
>> sites!
>
> As I wrote, you're trying to make something out of nothing.

No. I disagree. It is a very big something if user equipment has to change
with the network. It's not a matter of old equipment being able to use
new features, etc. It is a matter of old equipment continuing to do what
it did before. Don't lose sight of the fact that you have an existing
customer
base numbering in the millions.

-Quick
!