Comment Re:GSM Playing Catch-up to CDMA (Score 1) 225
(sorry about fat-fingering the original post's format; this should be more legible)
CDMA (2G) -> CDMA-2000(3G)
GSM (2G) -> WCDMA(3G)
Its funny how these 3G GSM-based technologies are achieving these technology milestones now, while CDMA-based technologies (ie. CDMA-2000) have been commercially deployed for months at much cheaper costs, and much greater flexibility. A testament to the ongoing wireless industry debate between GSM and CDMA.
The way it looks right now, GSM-based carriers are going to have a much more expensive and difficult time evolving their networks; especially in Europe, where the 3G migration path was mandated by the European Commission years ago in an effort to protect all of the European companies supporting (and making huge revenues off of) GSM. Now that a better way to 3G exists (ie. CDMA-2000, based off of CDMA), European carriers can't switch technologies and are finding it near impossible to keep up with the evolving pace of CDMA-2000. Euro-carrier Orange all but scrapped their 3G plans today due to mounting costs and complexities of developing WCDMA networks.
Its the reason why NTT Docomo (Japanese carrier) is now getting blown away by their competitor(s) in Japan, when 2 years ago they led the market. The same reason why Europe has gone from first to last in terms of carrier technology and services.
Some really good thoughts on the GSM vs. CDMA topic from people who know way more than me:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G. sh tml
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s= f5b64 b062368aae582d6f4f7895ce712&threadid=73028
CDMA (2G) -> CDMA-2000(3G)
GSM (2G) -> WCDMA(3G)
Its funny how these 3G GSM-based technologies are achieving these technology milestones now, while CDMA-based technologies (ie. CDMA-2000) have been commercially deployed for months at much cheaper costs, and much greater flexibility. A testament to the ongoing wireless industry debate between GSM and CDMA.
The way it looks right now, GSM-based carriers are going to have a much more expensive and difficult time evolving their networks; especially in Europe, where the 3G migration path was mandated by the European Commission years ago in an effort to protect all of the European companies supporting (and making huge revenues off of) GSM. Now that a better way to 3G exists (ie. CDMA-2000, based off of CDMA), European carriers can't switch technologies and are finding it near impossible to keep up with the evolving pace of CDMA-2000. Euro-carrier Orange all but scrapped their 3G plans today due to mounting costs and complexities of developing WCDMA networks.
Its the reason why NTT Docomo (Japanese carrier) is now getting blown away by their competitor(s) in Japan, when 2 years ago they led the market. The same reason why Europe has gone from first to last in terms of carrier technology and services.
Some really good thoughts on the GSM vs. CDMA topic from people who know way more than me:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s
