Is GSM the Future?

[lowbar01]

I was fat, dumb and happy with a CDMA phone on Verizon. Due to work reasons I find myself with my company sponsored phone going away and I need to go out and get my own service. Is GSM the future? If I go GSM it appears Verizon is out and I need to find someone else. Does one network have better GSM coverage than the others?

lowbar

[agentHibby]

Originally Posted by lowbar01

I was fat, dumb and happy with a CDMA phone on Verizon. Due to work reasons I find myself with my company sponsored phone going away and I need to go out and get my own service. Is GSM the future? If I go GSM it appears Verizon is out and I need to find someone else. Does one network have better GSM coverage than the others?

lowbar

Cingular gives you the Best GSM coverage in the US both Cellular and PCS coverage for GSM. T-mobile gives you more minutes, but only PCS coverage for GSM. Verizon has network problems in GA right now, and nobody knows when that will get fixed. From what I understand (Roamer1 will know more) that Verizon is acting like AT&T was last year, that when you have an increase in dropped calls and/or weak signal ect. You call Customer Service and they say it is your phone! and it really is there network that is at fault.

The main reason why wireless companies go GSM so they can have international roaming especially with Europe. In 2 years most GSM users will be upgrading their base stations to W-CDMA (for faster data transfers) and a maybe some GSM providers might go with GSM 1X (Qualcom GSM/CDMA).

You can read all the posts on CDMA vs GSM (Their are tons on the old forums)
GSM is an 80's technology; CDMA is a 90's technology
What will be the popular technology of the future for 3G? W-CDMA, CDMA EV-DV, GSM 1X?? only time will tell

[Bugwart]

Bear in mind, Lowbar, that longterm GSM is not even the future for GSM. Many GSM providers will migrate users to wCDMA or HSDPA.

Many of the European GSM networks need to add UMTS soon, because they are running out of bandwidth on the 900/1800 MHz GSM frequencies. UMTS operates on 2.1 GHz.

Outside of Western Europe and Japan, the rest of the world is moving slowly on the GSM->wCDMA transition.

China Unicom (the world's second largest cellular provider) needs the bandwidth, but they are installing GSM 1X rather than wCDMA.

[Scrumhalf]

Are there good online references for next-gen mobile technogies, i.e what current GSM/CDMA is likely to evolve into? I have ordered a couple of books under the recommended reading section, but I would like to do some online reading in the meantime. Pardon me if this a frequently asked question - I looked around in the forums but didn't find the info. Maybe one of the moderators can make this a sticky on this forum.

[jones]

GSM migrating to WCDMA is still up in the AIR, BIG multi-million $ Question.
Will they be able to afford WCDMA paying royalties to Qualcom? I'll say GSM will be here for the Next 5 years moving to EDGE.

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by lowbar01

I was fat, dumb and happy with a CDMA phone on Verizon. Due to work reasons I find myself with my company sponsored phone going away and I need to go out and get my own service. Is GSM the future? If I go GSM it appears Verizon is out and I need to find someone else. Does one network have better GSM coverage than the others?

lowbar

My humble opinion is that as a consumer, you/I/whoever should look at primarily a) coverage and b) plan value (i.e. minutes/$, other frills, etc.) that the various carriers are offering and not so much the precise nature of the technology.

Evaluate whatever is the best fit for your needs and sign up. Neither GSM nor CDMA is going to fold and go away in 1-2 years, so when your contract expires, you can re-evaluate your needs and see if another carrier is a better match.

I am personally looking to ATTWS GSM because my wife has family that has the same and mobile to mobile minutes are free if we sign up as well. If her folks were on a CDMA carrier like Verizon or Sprint, we wouldn't be giving a second thought to switching to that carrier as long as the price is right and the coverage in my area is good. GSM or CDMA are just acronyms to me as a consumer (of course as an engineer, I am very interested in the technological aspects which is why I read this forum!)..

[jones]

GSM is used in more than 120 countries; they will not FOLD in 5 years. Some can't afford new Hardware.

[agentHibby]

Originally Posted by jones

GSM migrating to WCDMA is still up in the AIR, BIG multi-million $ Question.
Will they be able to afford WCDMA paying royalties to Qualcom? I'll say GSM will be here for the Next 5 years moving to EDGE.

I don't think WCDAM providers have to pay a penny for royalties to Qualcom for W-CDMA since that is european (UMTS) CDMA. If it was GSM 1X that is 100% true.

[jones]

Originally Posted by agentHibby

I don't think WCDAM providers have to pay a penny for royalties to Qualcom for W-CDMA since that is european (UMTS) CDMA. If it was GSM 1X that is 100% true.

Nope they will still have to pay since it is still a form of CDMA.

[Scrumhalf]

Looking at 3gtoday.com, it seems that but for a handful of countries in Western Europe and Australia who are focusing on WCDMA, most of the rest of the world is on a GSM/CDMA -> CDMA2000 1X -> CDMA 1XEV-D* evolution path. So, gazing into one's crystall ball and looking say 5 to 10 years in the future, are the WCDMA proponents in Western Europe going to become the minority in the cellular universe?

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by agentHibby

I don't think WCDAM providers have to pay a penny for royalties to Qualcom for W-CDMA since that is european (UMTS) CDMA. If it was GSM 1X that is 100% true.

You'd be surprised to know that Qualcomm has patents to WCDMA. Therefore, phone manufacturers have to pay a little something to Qualcomm. Nokia has some patents as well.

[Bugwart]

Originally Posted by agentHibby

I don't think WCDAM providers have to pay a penny for royalties to Qualcom for W-CDMA since that is european (UMTS) CDMA. If it was GSM 1X that is 100% true.

The creators of wCDMA tried to dodge the Qualcomm CDMA patents, but they failed.

[Stupiud]

in the end, who cares?

its not likely ur gonna keep the same phone for more then 2 yrs anyhow, by which point u would prolly want another phone/service provider.

gets whats best and proven now; CDMA. =p

In 5 years GSM may catch up and then switch to GSM.

(It took me 3 years to leave TDMA and go CDMA.)

[Pedal2Medal00]

I believe the main reason why people want to know where the future lies for cellular is so they can choose a carrier that will be the best. Many people are looking for security when they look for that, but the cellular market is a pretty insecure on at this time. People are just looking for a carrier to choose and stay with.


Does anyone else agree with my on this one but this is one...?

[Scrumhalf]

Pedal2Medal00, I agree that that is the reason many people are interested in knowing where the future lies because they want to choose a carrier that will be the best. However, that method of thinking is flawed.

In choosing a provider or plan, the technology should play NO part in my opinion as long as it will continue to be available for the duration of the minimum contract, i.e. 1-2 years. The ONLY factors that should play a part in choosing carriers is coverage that suits one's calling patterns, quality of such coverage and cost. At the end of the 1-2 years, one should re-evaluate these factors and switch if apporpriate. A year ago when there was no number portability, I agree that there was considerable inertia to change carriers, especially for business customers but now, I think there is really no excuse.

Of course, I am preaching to the choir here with this audience (except for the occasional greenhorn that asks the question).

[Stupiud]

Originally Posted by Scrumhalf

Pedal2Medal00, I agree that that is the reason many people are interested in knowing where the future lies because they want to choose a carrier that will be the best. However, that method of thinking is flawed.

In choosing a provider or plan, the technology should play NO part in my opinion as long as it will continue to be available for the duration of the minimum contract, i.e. 1-2 years. The ONLY factors that should play a part in choosing carriers is coverage that suits one's calling patterns, quality of such coverage and cost. At the end of the 1-2 years, one should re-evaluate these factors and switch if apporpriate. A year ago when there was no number portability, I agree that there was considerable inertia to change carriers, especially for business customers but now, I think there is really no excuse.

Of course, I am preaching to the choir here with this audience (except for the occasional greenhorn that asks the question).

yep. i was gonna bring up number portablity.

[Gabriel]

i think that GSM and its derivatives are what the future has for us. proof of this is that some CDMA phone makers are now putting in RUIM cards in their devices, to copy the excellent idea the former Groupe Spècial Mobile had.

besides, GSM has more things to offer the customer, more handsets, and especially more standardizations. for example, it sucks that sprint uses JAVA and verizon BREW... they are both CDMA, but incompatible data systems for downloads...

[RichXKU]

The presence or absence of a SIM card or proprietary data systems doesn't change the fact that Verizon has the most expansive coverage RIGHT NOW.

lowbar1: It doesn't matter what the future of wireless is. What matters is YOU finding the most reliable provider right NOW. If the provider you choose ever starts to deteriorate, you simply switch to another one, and bring your number with you. There's no sense in choosing a provider with a poor network now because they MIGHT be good in the future.

[jgar2005]

Originally Posted by lowbar01

I was fat, dumb and happy with a CDMA phone on Verizon. Due to work reasons I find myself with my company sponsored phone going away and I need to go out and get my own service. Is GSM the future? If I go GSM it appears Verizon is out and I need to find someone else. Does one network have better GSM coverage than the others?

lowbar

DON'T go with At&t. The two best GSM providers are T-Mobile (very cheap) or Cingular

[jgar2005]

Originally Posted by Scrumhalf

My humble opinion is that as a consumer, you/I/whoever should look at primarily a) coverage and b) plan value (i.e. minutes/$, other frills, etc.) that the various carriers are offering and not so much the precise nature of the technology.

Evaluate whatever is the best fit for your needs and sign up. Neither GSM nor CDMA is going to fold and go away in 1-2 years, so when your contract expires, you can re-evaluate your needs and see if another carrier is a better match.

I am personally looking to ATTWS GSM because my wife has family that has the same and mobile to mobile minutes are free if we sign up as well. If her folks were on a CDMA carrier like Verizon or Sprint, we wouldn't be giving a second thought to switching to that carrier as long as the price is right and the coverage in my area is good. GSM or CDMA are just acronyms to me as a consumer (of course as an engineer, I am very interested in the technological aspects which is why I read this forum!)..

CDMA has really good coverage in the U.S. but not internationally. Don't go with AT&T because Cingular bought them out and is charging $1.50 a min for roaming on their network(phone reads cingular)

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by jgar2005

DON'T go with At&t. The two best GSM providers are T-Mobile (very cheap) or Cingular

Well, that's a debatable point. I don't think labeling any provider as the "best" or "worst" is very useful, because such descriptions are very specific to the area of the country in question and the particular user's calling pattern. For example, ATTWS has arguably the best coverage in Oregon (if you consider their TDMA/AMPS system; GSM is much worse) and T-Mo is nonexistent away from the metro areas and the interstates.

Moreover, unless you get an unlocked quad band phone, the fact that GSM is used in other parts of the world is irrelevant.

[Steve B]

I personally prefer CDMA, the little things CDMA has that GSM does not helps me out quite a bit. I can care less about a SIM card type thing for phones. If I get a new phone, I can transfer the phone book my self. Hell, Verizon has got this little gadget that transfers the phone book for you.

I believe that CDMA will be the future, by design, it has more capacity and to me, just sounds better. It doesn't matter if the majority of the world uses GSM while most people in the US uses CDMA. Verizon has a phone out that is both CDMA and GSM. So it is a true world phone. More are on the way. If anyone is interested, take a look at the Motorola A840 on phonescoop.com it is a nice phone. Even in some of the previous posts from other people in this forum bluntly says to everyone that CDMA is the future. GSM is the thing of the past. It works fine for now. It's just that at some point, it's gotta go.

[agentHibby]

I know that I put something on this post last month.
GSM is delevolpment is dying. I think any GSM user know the future is CDMA or WCDMA take your pick. Some of these rural providers going GSM right now does not make any sence to me. Why don't they wait 1 year for WCDMA?? I understand Cingular AT&T since they have lots of metros that want faster data tranfer speeds and have lots of customers.

One thing I did not get is why doesn't RCC go with GSM 1X?? I understand why they go with CDMA service where the other cellular provider is GSM or vice versa. They could service CDMA or GSM depeding on other provider, people who live in a CDMA service area (Minnesota) could roam in a GSM service area (Maine) on native network, or vice versa.