Welcome to Our WirelessAdvisor Community!

You are viewing our forums as a GUEST. Please join us so you can post and view all the pictures.
Registration is easy, fast and FREE!

CDMA vs GSM Debate by Development group

Discussion in 'GENERAL Wireless Discussion' started by Fire14, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. Fire14

    Fire14 Easy,Cheap & Sleazy
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,446
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    293
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Union County NJ
    My Phone:
    EnV
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon
    CDMA Development Group reignites GSM vs. CDMA debate

    Striking back at concerns over CDMA operators switching to GSM, the CDMA Development Group said it now counts 39 GSM operators that either have deployed or are deploying CDMA2000 networks for voice and data services.
    The group attributed the move in part to carriers in emerging markets, noting that building a CDMA2000 network in the 450 MHz and 800 MHz frequency bands is significantly less expensive than deploying other wireless technologies in higher frequency bands. The group said GSM operators in Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, Africa, India, Indonesia and the Middle East are deploying CDMA2000-based technology.


    Perry LaForge, executive director of the CDG, explained, “CDMA2000’s voice clarity and broadband connectivity makes it ideal for emerging economies that want to increase their gross domestic production per capita. Also, in today’s competitive market, 2G GSM operators are looking towards 3G CDMA2000 to provide service differentiation and improve their average revenue per user.”

    The GSM Association was not immediately available for comment. The group promotes GSM technology and has previously discussed carriers moving from CDMA to GSM.

    CDMA-based technology has had a hard time gaining momentum in emerging markets since it is typically more expensive than GSM network infrastructure. However, CDMA backers have long claimed that CDMA technology offers a less expensive upgrade path as carriers morph their networks from 2G to 3G. In addition, CDMA vendors have indicated that carriers’ operating costs can be reduced because CDMA networks require less spectrum and power than GSM-based networks due to the design of CDMA technology.

    But purveyors of GSM technology played down the CDG’s pronouncements.

    “There are approximately 340 million CDMAOne, CDMA2000 and CDMA 1xEVDO users in the world, compared to 2.1 billion GSM, GPRS, EDGE and 3GSM (W-CDMA) users today,” stated Mark Smith, spokesman for the GSM Association. “The debate over which will be the global technology path is over.”

    And 3G Americas’ Vick Livingston, director of marketing, said, “3G Americas is not aware of one GSM operator, of 700 commercial networks in 215 countries worldwide, that has abandoned GSM in favor of CDMA.”

    http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27795
     
  2. jones

    jones Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    CDMA2000 VS WCDMA,
    Depends on How Many Carriers
    will support Which Technology.
    (or is it CDG Vs 3G AMERICA)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Dogma

    Dogma Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    My Phone:
    Moto Razr
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Alltel/Verizon
    Both technologies have their strengths, however I personally believe CDMA based technology gets the edge especially when we look long term into 3G. The article listed a couple of the strenghts that make CDMA the better choice especially when it comes to 3G and the cost effectiveness. Not naming names (Cingular) is upgrading their GSM network to UMTS which is requiring a lot more investment, equipment and engineering than CDMA IS-95 operators going to CDMA2000 1x-EVDO ever did.

    Do I believe CDMA will ever overtake GSM...no. Reason being is so many populated countries started out with GSM there is no way they will be converting to CDMA at this point. The billions this would cost GSM providers are the sole reason CDMA does not enter the conversation. So by default, GSM is kind of the winner.

    GSM...Its like the old home you keep sticking money into....it may have been better to just buy new!! :wink:
     
  4. jones

    jones Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reading CDG Press Release
    these 39 GSM Operators have plans
    to Deploy CDMA2000
    and is Not Confirmed.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. bobolito

    bobolito Diamond Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    12,735
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    50
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    in front of my computer
    My Phone:
    iPhone SE
    Wireless Provider(s):
    T-Mobile
    The path to CDMA2000 is less costly to those operators who already have CDMA networks established. But for a GSM operator it is far more costly to move from GSM to CDMA2000 than to go to UMTS. So it makes more sense to move to UMTS for them.

    As for end-user performance, I see UMTS with HSDPA having more of a technological future because it is a nascent technology, so it has more room for upgrades than CDMA2000, especially when you take into consideration that UMTS uses a wider channel.

    HSDPA still has 4 upgrades from the current 1.8mbps: 3.6mbps, 7.2mbps, and 14.4mbps, plus HSUPA.

    CDMA2000 has rev. A, and rev. B coming. There was also EV-DV which was killed before being born. So that leaves two upgrades from the current rev. 0, unless we count CDMA2000 3X as a 3rd upgrade but I've read that will never be deployed in the US. So are there any more CDMA2000 upgrades I am not aware of? Maybe rev. C?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. Dogma

    Dogma Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    My Phone:
    Moto Razr
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Alltel/Verizon
    Keep in mind those speeds promised by HSDPA are MIR only, not CIR. Same thing goes with EVDO and its REV's....In other words those speeds will probably never be reached by Joe Customer. My EVDO card which is supposed to get approx 768K usually gets around 500-600 K of throughput....but I'm not complaining.
     
  7. nKrypteD1

    nKrypteD1 Software Architect
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,606
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    My Phone:
    Motorola Droid X
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon
    Still better than the alternatives.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. jones

    jones Silver Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    i Don't think these Wireless Carrier will
    ever Match my CATV Carrier Speed
    Download = 10 MBs
    Upload = 1.9 MBs
    All for $35/month

    And for an Additional $10/month
    Download = 20 MBs
    Upload = 5 MBs
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    T-Mobile UK is apparently planning a 20 Mbps download rate by the end of the decade.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. ctk74

    ctk74 Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis/St Paul (651)
    My Phone:
    Motorola Droid
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon
    Can you take that speed with you on the road?
     
  11. UFO

    UFO Bronze Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Hampton Roads, VA
    My Phone:
    Palm Centro
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Sprint and alltel
    This is the 'Too much invested to quit' way of thing. Governments and corporations are very good at it. The military uses it a lot with older ships and aircraft. I think I saw a 'Fleecing of America' on this a while back. But you never know, Europe converted all their currency to the Euro. When GSM becomes too far out of date and anybody given a choice knows to go with the alternative technology, I could eventually see a change.
     
  12. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    When it comes to 3G I think this is spot on! Simply put the networks have invested too much in 3G to allow it to fail, they have to make it work. To be fair though, the tales of 3G's demise are somewhat exaggerated I think. Whilst 3G may not have gone to plan e.g. video calling proving less popular than expect, I think other services may promote greater 3G usage e.g. music downloads.

    It's this situation that makes me somewhat skeptical over 4G. The networks are probably going to be more cautious when thinking about replacing their 3G networks.

    Not all of Europe. :p
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. bobolito

    bobolito Diamond Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2002
    Messages:
    12,735
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    50
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    in front of my computer
    My Phone:
    iPhone SE
    Wireless Provider(s):
    T-Mobile
    That's correct. But the point is, they are not far from reality. My 1.8mbps card maxes out at about 1.4mbps, so I would expect that if whenever 14.4mbps is deployed, we will probably see real speeds around 10mbps.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. UFO

    UFO Bronze Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Hampton Roads, VA
    My Phone:
    Palm Centro
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Sprint and alltel
    lol Good point, so it wasn't a perfect analogy! :D

    And I meant to put 'way of thinking' instead of 'way of thing' in my earlier post. It doesn't make as much sense with that typo.
     
  15. Bugwart

    Bugwart Bronze Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Pennsylvania
    My Phone:
    Samsung SCH i760,
    Wireless Provider(s):
    SKT, Verizon, China Mobile, EPlus
    Note my emphasis.

    After all the hype that never came to fruition, please excuse me if I do not accept plans as reality.
     
  16. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    I think you are probably wise to treat such announcements with a degree of skepticism. However, one imagines that in making such an announcement they must at least think it is possible.

    The thing is of course, how fast do you need your connection to be? If one is simply using one's handset to conenct to the web then one is probably not going to be doing anything terribly data intensive, and as such probably won't need anywhere near 20 Mbits. On the other hand one may wish to use one's handset as a modem, and perhaps a fast download rate would be advantageous.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. Bugwart

    Bugwart Bronze Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Pennsylvania
    My Phone:
    Samsung SCH i760,
    Wireless Provider(s):
    SKT, Verizon, China Mobile, EPlus
    Regardless of how high the wireless speed is, there will be bandwidth issue from the tower to the to the internet. There will always be bottlenecks somewhere.
     
  18. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    Quite possibly. Interestingly enough I heard that one of the networks (which one escapes me at the moment), is planning to try and get customers to use their handsets for home broadband. One imagines this wouldn't be until HSDPA/HSUPA has been implemented.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. jrip

    jrip Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    328
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    W.Michigan
    My Phone:
    Sanyo MM-7400
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Sprint,Boost
    To me the GSM vs CDMA debate was over when the worlds GSM operators chose the CDMA air interface for their upgrade to 3G. Before anybody starts flaming.....W-CDMA/UMTS/HSDPA all use a CDMA air interface. Not the TDMA air interface like GSM. Of this there is no doubt or question. A much less efficient form of CDMA, but still CDMA none the less. So when somebody says "GSM covers more of the world, so it must be better". Ponder this for a moment.....since the most of the worlds GSM operators are upgrading their GSM networks with CDMA air interface based UMTS/W-CDMA/HSDPA for their 3G networks. Wouldn't this appear to suggest that CDMA will cover almost (if not) every where GSM covers... PLUS the existing and future CDMA footprint?
     
  20. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    I think the most important thing about this whole debate is that the vast majority of people do not care. Most people want a system that works, they probably could care less whether it is GSM, CDMA, UMTS or any other abbreviation one cares to mention. If it allows them to do what they want to do at ana ffordable price then they will most likely be happy with it.

    I've said this before, but it fascinates me how the GSM vs CDMA debate seems to be very much a North American thing. I can't think of anyone I know of from other parts of the world who even bothers with this matter.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  21. strunke

    strunke .:|Always Covered|:.
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    BVR
    My Phone:
    Blackberry 8230, KRZR K1m
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Alltel, T-Mobile, Sprint, Centennial
    I think it may seem strange because your area already has an accepted standard. That and us Americans like to argue about these kind of things :).
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  22. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    I understand that there are unified standards here, but even if we leave that aside for a moment, the intensity of the debate seems to be rather curious. I say that because the chances are that most people don't care what standard they use, infact most people probably don't know which standard they are using, as long as it works. It does seem a rather odd thing for some people to get worked up about, a wireless communication standard.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  23. jrip

    jrip Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    328
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    W.Michigan
    My Phone:
    Sanyo MM-7400
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Sprint,Boost
    The debate is because we do have more than one standard, and therefore a choice. Which gives people the option of preferring one standard over the other. And with any choices some "feel" their choice is the best, not only for themselves but everyone else also. Which is why these debates sometimes get a little out of hand. As far as the "infact most people probably don't know which standard they are using, as long as it works" comment, that is true to some extent. I would have to say that the majority do know which standard their cellular phone operates on. This in no way implies they understand the differences between the standards, or the advantages/disadvantages of each. In the end it's having the choice that counts the most. And causes these debates.
     
  24. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    I take the point that some people may very well be aware of the standard they are using in terms of the abbreviation e.g. if asked they could say thy are using CDMA. However, I wonder whether most people could tell you what that actually means, and I'm not talking about what the letters stand for. Do most people really know what the difference between CDMA and GSM is, for example?

    I have to pick up on your point about choice. It seems to me that the choice of standards in the U.S. is more a case of choice for the sake of choice rather than it being a valid choice that actually benefits the market. I'm sure the different standards probably do benefit the market on some level, but as I see it they do more harm to the American mobile market than they do good.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  25. Fire14

    Fire14 Easy,Cheap & Sleazy
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,446
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    293
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Union County NJ
    My Phone:
    EnV
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Verizon
    I don't know if they hurt the market as much as you think, also a few other countries are now offering both standards, such as Russia, South America and others and if it was doing harm to the mobile market they wouldn't be doing it.

    Even if we had 1 standard here in the U.S. doesn't mean carriers would allow roaming on each others networks either, but if we did have 1 network & carriers were forced to allow roaming on each others networks it would force the companies to offer more competative plans & CS, since coverage would be equal for all carriers.
     
  26. eagle63

    eagle63 Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the comeback to that, of course, is where would GSM be right now without CDMA/Qualcomm? Probably still languishing with GPRS and *maybe* EDGE. I agree that the US market probably suffered initially with having too much choice and not enough coverage, but long term it was a good thing. If nothing else it pushed GSM to increase data speeds. Even if CDMA never gains another dollar of market share against GSM, I at least hope it sticks around for competition's sake. A little competition keeps everyone honest. :)
     
  27. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    There are a couple of points here:

    First of all I don't think it is necessarily appropiate to compare different markets in direct terms. Different markets will have unique properties that serve to heighten or diminish both generally negative and positive factors. For example, one could claim that a combination of a relatively small market and different standards might hinder the Japanese market, but one could argue that such negative factors are negated to an extent by the consumer culture of Japan.

    The second point is that whilst some countries may indeed offer more than one standard, that is not to say that those countries do not have disparity between them. Poland, for example, has both CDMA and GSM I believe, but as far as I am aware the CDMA presence there is negligible. From what I remember Brazil seems to have been moving further towards GSM of late. From the figures I obtained for Russia there are 142.31 million GSM subscribers out of a total population of 142.4 million. I'm not entirely sure how accurate the subscriber number figures are because that seems to be an awfuly high number of subscribers, and I didn't think Russia had that high a level of penetration. Of course that number could be partly due to multiple accounts of course.

    The U.S. has a great deal less disparity between the two main standards used, with both having roughly similar numbers of subscribers.

    The thing is, if you remove the technological distinctions between networks they then have to compete on other terms e.g. price, coverage, handsets, etc. If all the networks are using the same technology they have to then start focusing on actually making their service the best because each of their competitors has access to the same technology they do.

    Choice is a great thing, but as I said before not when it is simply choice for the sake of choice. I'm not saying that different standards are entirely to blame for every problem in the North American mobile market, but at best different standards don't seem to be foing much to help the American mobile market.

    For instance, America has no global networks in the mould of Vodafone, Telefonica Moviles, etc, which rather surprises me given that American companies are often at the forefront of many fields. In fact one American networks is owned by one European network whilst another is partly owned by another European network. America has a relatively low mobile penetration rate for a First World country. America is not at the forefront of hardware and service adoption. America has only one major handset manufacturer, again a surprising statistic given America's lead position in many technological fields.

    As I said, I am not suggesting that all of things are a direct result of using different standards, but certainly those competing standards don't seem to be doing much in the way of advancing the state of play.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  28. scotsboyuk

    scotsboyuk Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Blighty
    My Phone:
    N95
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Orange, T-Mobile
    I'm afraid I have to disagree. In the UK the networks all used the same standard, GSM, and yet the UK had a live 3G network operational before the U.S. I believe. Even if we leave that aside for a moment there is still the question of why the UK networks, or European networks in general, should bother introducing 3G at all if they were all using the same standards since there would be little or no incentive to do so based upon your model.

    The reason European networks adopted faster networks is because the market here is arguably the hardest in the world, in which to compete. The UK networks had already signed up just about everyone who could have a mobile phone, there was no room left for organic expansion. The only way to keep growing was to retain customers whilst poaching new ones from their competitors. To do that the networks seek to offer ever better handsets, deals, services, etc.

    3G was very much a network driven idea rather than a consumer driven idea. The networks wanted new revenue models, and they needed more advanced technology to do so, hence 3G.

    In the U.S. 3g has been implemented because basically everyone else was doing it. The technology each network uses is irrelevant because they would each need to implement 3G anyway to stop their competitors from gaining an advantage over them. The U.S. could be entirely CDMA or GSM and they would still have implemented 3G because if one does it they all have to.

    An interesting question to pose is why competing standards haven't seen 3G introduced earlier and more rapidly in the U.S. if they are indeed a more efficient catalyst for the adoption of new technology? The answer, in my opinion, is simple, they aren't a more efficient catalyst. Even now, after 3G has been implemented the U.S. lags behind other 3G nations, not just in terms of coverage, which it will obviously have trouble with owing to the geographic and demographic makeup of the U.S., but in terms of handsets, services, etc. I'm not trying to nitpick old bean, but I just don't see the evidence to suggest that competing standards are doing anything that a single standard couldn't accomplish.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  29. Andy

    Andy Diamond Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,281
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    130
    Likes Received:
    7
    My Phone:
    HTC Thunderbolt
    Wireless Provider(s):
    VZW, Vodafone D2, Solomo, Swisscom Mobile
    There actually is an EVDO rev. C coming...it was posted on the forum just a little while ago:

    http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/wireless-network-technologies/59427-cdma-ev-do-rev-c-called.html

    ~Andy
     
  30. jrip

    jrip Senior Member
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    328
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    W.Michigan
    My Phone:
    Sanyo MM-7400
    Wireless Provider(s):
    Sprint,Boost
    Don't forget that WiMax is backwards compatible with all IS-95 based standards. This is one reason Sprint Nextel chose WiMax for it's next generation network. EVDO rev C/UMB is very comparable to WiMax's capabilities. But I don't think Sprint Nextel (for one) will implement it though. They will most likely go straight to IMS from WiMax. VZW would be my guess for upgrading to UMB.
     

Share This Page

Copyright 1997-2022 Wireless Advisor™, LLC. All rights reserved. All registered and unregistered trademarks are the property of their respective holders.
WirelessAdvisor.com is not associated by ownership or membership with any cellular, PCS or wireless service provider companies and is not meant to be an endorsement of any company or service. Some links on these pages may be paid advertising or paid affiliate programs.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice