USA chooses GSM, not CDMA for army bases

Hey, this was brought up in another post...all us CDMA people are thrilled the government picked GSM because, well, the government is known for making very curious decisions when awarding contracts and spending money. Obviously GSM people lobbied harder (donated more $$$) or had better connections in the right places...that is all that really matters in politics you know!

 

I agree with Anthromatt!! Our goverment is notrious for makeing bad choices. Once again we see that Money talks, and of course the right thing never gets done!! CDMA is the Futre of Cell Phones, NOT TDMA or GSM!!!

 

There is actually a litle inteligence behind this decision. Think about it, if you are in thwe army and you get deployed overseas which phones are most likely to work NOW (read GSM). Now i have never used a GSM phone and don't plan on it anytime soon because well i live in NYC (Verizon country) and travel in the northeast US 99.9% of the time(again Verizon country) so CDMA is my prefered choice. However, for people being stationed all over the world, for the imediated furture, GSM makes sence.

 

But VEALOTS (with the rose colored glasses) cant see that, dont want to see that or understand that. If its not VZN then it's wrong right guys?

Guy's pull out the Webster's and a pen I got a new word for ya'll
VEALOT's.

VEALOT's:
A person who acts irrational when their precious Verizon Wireless is
spoken about. They freak out and act like a zealot on a screwed up, not
thought out quest. There are several VZN cheerleaders out there.
They have been pointed out in other provider threads. Vzn cheerleaders
are very touchy about anything said about about vzn, and will argue just
about anything. Acting like they are better than everyone else. They
call be spotted with the rose colored glasses on, these glasses seem to
block out real facts about VZN.

 

CCCC--

why must you equate CDMA with Verizon as if they are one in the same? This post had nothing to do with Verizon or any other service provider for that matter, yet you found a way to make it so. We all know you hate Verizon. No need to keep bringing it up. Honestly, I don't much care for them either. My original comment was actually in jest, in case you failed to notice the little winking smiley.

I, and others, see your posts over at HoFo and here...I don't understand why you don't pay your ETF if you hate Verizon so much? I guess you really can't afford to lose your phone number. I sure hope number portability comes this November because your anti-Verizon posts are just as annoying and painful to read as posts from those you call "Verizon cheerleaders." You and the "cheerleaders" are cut from the same cloth, just with opinions from opposite sides of the spectrum.

The portable systems described in the link posted by Bobolito have nothing to do with regular service personnel. I GUARANTEE you these little portable GSM networks are not for the personal use of the military personnel. NYCDru is correct in that these little kits can be deployed all over the world more effectively than a CDMA equivalent and I am sure that is why GSM was selected. But there is no way your average soldier is going to get to take their Nokia with them on their next tour of duty and use it to call home. Additionally, these systems, if I understand the article correctly, won't even be for regular use on the bases in the US. So all the service personnel will still be able to use their same phones from whichever provider they choose. It's not as though the military just selected T-Mobile or something. These "networks-in-a-box" are to be used for emergency communications.

 

Dont hate anything..... Dislike some Verizon nonsence. Dont like VZN treatment of some issues. for the last 7 years they have been fighting number port. What is really disliked is VEALOT's need to spin every statement pro / con/ or sometimes thread not even having anything to do with VZN. Most of the time its flase info, and nothing is ever brought to the table to back it up. I know to take certain people with a grain and disreguard the BS, but people coming to the threads looking for real info before they purchase, thats the bigger problem with VEALOTS. Vzn is a good service for some but others would rather choose something else. But when all you see and all you get is vzn vzn vzn, and your not even remotely talking about vzn vzn and then the spin kicks in....

VEALOTS could be a bad word, but maybe not, there is no word to discribe what the actions of vzn fanatics. There for the word VEALOT came up. Its much better than saying you, you, you and pointing people out.

"WATCH FOR SPIN!"

 

Whoa...the last 7 years? I had no idea it went back that far! Is your cell your only business phone or something? My goodness...7 years? Why haven't you canceled??

 

Anyone know if encryption is easier to do on GSM? That might be a factor in the military decision.

 

Actually CDMA encryption is better than GSM encryption.

Both CDMA and TDMA were originally used as encryption methods. CDMA by the US, and TDMA by the other guys during the cold war. GSM's encryption is better than TDMA, but not as secure as CDMA.

 

Could we standardise on a code for Verizon? People seem to use all sorts of shortenings and it just gets confusing. I thought that people just used VZW (since Verizon themselves use it to refer to Verizon Wireless), but now here's VZN.

Anyway, CDMAOne, CDMA 1xRTT, etc. actually have NO encryption what-so-ever. GSM uses millitary grade encryption in areas that it is not banned (there are export controls on encryption). Qualcomm's CDMA relies on the pseudo-random code used to spread the call to offer voice privacy.

The CDMA that the millitary used during the cold war did use encryption, but the US millitary's CDMA has about as much to do with Qualcomm's CDMA as analog has to do with iDEN. Qualcomm CDMA equipment doesn't support encryption so if the millitary wanted a CDMA-style system with encryption they would have to develop their own (and the phones to go with it).

 

CDMA is not encrypted because it doesn't need to be encrypted...it is already secure by the nature of the technology. Maybe people are using the words "secure" and "encrypted" interchangeably, and that is not correct. However, CDMA is every bit as secure as GSM, even though it is not encrypted, right?

 

Oh yeah, well you started it! ("Sorry Issa, even your army prefers GSM.")

 

CDMA is secure, but that still doesn't make it encrypted. CDMA is meant to look like indisinguishable background noise to anything tring to discern the signal. Basically, it blends in with all of the other calls that are transmitting in the same airspace at the same time. By contrast TDMA-style systems transmit in a way that looks like burst interfearance so, to "untrained" equipment, it looks like noise as well. Of course, TDMA-style "noise" is much easier to find an easy pattern to and seperate from the other calls. That is why GSM included encryption. A new technology to GSM, frequency hopping, also increases the security of GSM even though it was intended to increase cell capacity.

Realistically, between code shifting, frequency hopping and rolling encryption, it would be much easier to tap the call when it went over landlines (which happens even for m2m calls - well, possibly not if the two callers are on the same network connected to the same tower).

Basically, CDMA keeps people out by like low level background noise and changing the pseudo-random code used to identify one call's "noise from another call's "noise" at varying intervals - so even if one could get the code to seperate the call from the other calls it would be changed at a future point in the call. GSM encrypts the data being transmitted using varying keys and changes the frequency and timeslot at varying intervals. Again, much easier to listen in on copper wires - or even fiber.

 

I seem to remember that Colin Powell played some cell phone intercepts for all the bored folks at the UN. Some were radio, but there were several that were cell phone. The only cell phone system that the Iraqis have (outsdie of Kurdtel in the north west of Iraq) is the GSM system that Saddam's government bought from Alcatel several years ago for the use of the Baath Party and the Iraqi military.

 

I love this forum...its both educational and amusing....lol

 

LOL, it sure is!

 

That is why we keep coming back.

 

Yeah it is. It wouldn't be as fun around here if all the GSM people admitted their preferred technology was inferior.

How bout them dallas stars? bwahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Good point Bugwart!! However, lets keep in mind that this is the US Goverment we are talking about, they can break ANY CODE, LISTEN TO ANY CONVO of any kind if they wanted to! Just ask those good ole boys deep inside a mountain somewere that work for the NSA!! With all this new Home-land security stuff, its been made easier for goverment to listen to us when ever they want!

 

You are such a troll. How is GSM inferior? It is more spectrally efficient and offers better voice quality than CDMA.

 

ROF LOL


One might start be saying that GSM is a 2G technology. (1xRTT and EV-DO are not)
GSM is more spectrally efficient than AMPS, or TDMA. (But GSM is less spectrally efficient than CDMA)

It is just a matter of basic physics. In GSM you have a time slot that sets the duration of each data transmission. You also have a specific MHz of bandwidth available per connection. This gives you a bandwidth per time slot from which you can determine the maximum bits per downlink or uplink time slot in GSM. Since this is a TDMA system, 2 time slots are reserved for each GSM conection (one up and one down). These two time slots are reserved, even if there is no voice or data being transmitted in either direction. Since both the time and bandwidth are set in GSM, you have zero degrees of freedom.

In CDMA, the amount of data transmitted on the uplink and downlink will cause the size of the data burst to vary. CDMA connections have a certain amount of MHz of bandwidth, but the duration is variable. If on a CDMA uplink or downlink you have a small amount of data, or silence, the size of the data burst is minimized. This provides an additional degree of freedom that is not available in GSM.

When I talk on one of my GSM phones, I am alway using a certain amount of spectrum (time slot duration times bandwidth). This is true whether I hesitate for a few seconds between words or talk in rapid fire like an auctioneer. In GSM, I use the same amount of spectrum throughout the conection.

In CDMA the situation is much different. If I hesitate between words, the silent periods take up much less spectrum than the words. Thus in CDMA, the spectrum used in each connection is determined by the content. This is why CDMA is more spectrally efficient than GSM.

 

Thanks for the immature name calling northform. Anyone that pays attention to the posts I make on these forums knows I am far from a troll. Apparently it takes more than a winking smiley to get my SARCASM across to you! My remark was nothing more than a light-hearted joke, hence the smiley.

 

Frito, you are correct. The NSA (and MI5, Moussad, and many others) can crack any encryption method. However, several years ago, some academic types cracked GSM encryption. This leads me to believe that CDMA is more secure than GSM.

 

i'll give you better voice wuality based on a "warmer" feel...but cdma has btter background noise cancellation and it DEFINTELY has better spectral efficiency....spectral effeciecy is one of the biggest advantages cdma had...even people who favor gsm have reported that cdma is more spectral effecient than gsm..

 

Interesting since GSM uses some aspects of Spread Spectrum. and next generationGSM will use more CDMA type aspects.

 

Uh-oh, that's not a winking smiley is it?

 

is GSM call barring you are speaking of bobo the option to press ignore and send the caller straight to the answering machine?
if it is... sanyo got that beat with the "answering machine call screening" thingie... listen to them leave a message AND choose whether or not to interrupt and answer their call
SHEESH!!
damn sanyo.. i cant wait to join sprint