Why is GSM "better" than CDMA?

That probably is a matter of opinion and of where you use your phone. I personally prefer to GSM since I travel back home to California from time to time and I like to stick with one phone that I can use in Europe too. GSM voice quality tends quite clear but that is also dependent on what phone and what network you are using.

 

R32VW, everything you said is right. GSM is more of a newcomer to the US in terms of footprint, but is catching up fast and getting better daily. GSM coverage is strong in all cities and large towns and interstates. CDMA still has the edge with rural coverage, but GSM is catching up quickly there, development of 800MHZ GSM has pushed service into many rural areas. GSM in general offers better call quality, and much much better battery life. The latency on voice calls is also significantly better. CDMA has the advantage of soft-handoffs between towers, with GSM, when driving for example, your service will sometimes cut out (never for more than half a second) while it essentially switches towers, I really don't consider this much of an issue with GSM, because you can barely notice but some people are really bothered by it. If you think GSM coverage will do what you need, I would go GSM for better voice quality, better handsets and the ability to roam worldwide. If you are concerned about covearge in rural areas and GSM doesn't serve those areas, then stick with CDMA and Analog.

 

Personally, i would go with CDMA, specifically Sprint. I use to have GSM using Voicestream (now t-mobile), and it sucked to say the least. It filtered out no background noise, where as CDMA networks automatically filter out the extra noise.

I do not know if it has gotten any better recently, but from my past experience, i would go with CDMA.

 

I think the GSM call quality thing is a myth. When I was on GSM (T-Mobile/Cingular in California), the call quality was far worse than what I was used to with AT&T TDMA (which I had just prior to T-Mobile). My family and friends constantly told me I "sounded like I was in a wind tunnel" when I was talking to them from the car. This is also the case when friends on GSM call me from their car. Due to my long commute and need for call quality while driving, CDMA's noise cancellation technology far exceeds what is available on GSM phones. I asked on this forum once "What is the best GSM phone for noise cancellation" and got no response .. I imagine that means there is no good phone for this.

 

I think thats exactly right. When calling my friend on his previous phone (Samsung R-225) all i could here was backgound noise as if he was in a subway car. I asked him where he was, and he said "in my room, why?"

 

Personally I prefer CDMA over GSM. I was told I sounded quieter while talking on GSM. If I traveled around the globe I could see getting GSM for that. It is really personal preference. I don't like the background static associated with GSM, but that's me.

 

CDMA equipment such as base stations and towers are a lot more expensive to build than GSM equivalents. Doesn't that tell you something? Of course I'm going to get blasted by some GSM people now

 

I think it tells you that the royalties qualcomm charges are too high. On a properly optimized GSM network, call quality is better. Sure if you compare the poorly optimized network that VoiceStream had six years ago, it doesn't sound so great, but try it now that its fully optimized, a PCS GSM call is hard to beat.

 

I could not agree more with ShoresGuy and GoodmanR. I have used both CDMA and TDMA previously but could not be happier with GSM today. Again, the equipment and location are factors. Make certain it works for you.

 

But the CDMA equipment (base stations) must be technologically superior to the GSM equipment or they wouldn't cost so much more to build. This comparison has nothing to do with royalties. When I look at a typical Cingular base station and compare it to a Sprint base station (here in CA) I can see a big difference in the quality of the components.

 

ok maybe the base stations are better built, i think that tells more about how long a base station will last than how good the technology is.

 

Or how more efficient they are.

 

I respectfully disagree based on recent experience -- ... I was on T-Mobile/Cingular from September 2002-Feb 2003, when I agreed to pay the ETF to get off of T-Mo (they never charged me the ETF for some reason).

Let's start way back in 1997 -- not too long after Sprint and Cingular launched in the Bay Area, a friend and I traded phones for a day (I had Sprint, he had Cingular). After one long call, I called my phone and said I want my phone back, the sound quality was so poor I couldn't stand talking on his phone. 6 years later, I signed up for T-mobile because of the better deal they offered ... and guess what... once again I had the exact same feeling about voice quality. I was _annoyed_ while talking to people on my phone.

The GSM network in California is one of the most mature in the US, and I believe my time on it is after Cingular had just spent a billion dollars upgrading the network. So I can't agree that "optimization" has done much to equal the voice quality of Verizon Wireless or Sprint this area.

I'm not arguing this to convince you ... I'm sure GSM does sound better to you, and I wish you luck with that. I'm saying this for those people who are open to looking at either solution --- don't buy into this myth (at least I think it's a myth) without trying both, or evaluating phones your friends have (both using their phone and talking to them from a landline).

Oh, and as far as the expense of basestations go... it's that good old American made technology, it's more expensive because it's built better

 

After reading this thread, i decided to do a test of my own at the mother of all noise places, a stadium. I was at a hockey game today (Islanders vs Hurricanes) and called my friend (also at the game) on his tmobile phone.

My results:

I could not hear a word the person using the tmobile phone was saying. All i could hear was the crowd of people, and a faint voice.

My sprint phone preformed very well. I left myself a voicemail, and i could hear very well. The crowd sounds were much lower than on the tmobile phone.

I now have to say that CDMA is 100% better than GSM, at least in my area.

 

As noted in my earlier post, I have asked on this forum and on Howards for any thoughts on what GSM phone has the best noise cancellation. I not only didn't get a good answer -- I didn't get a single response.

For the most part I believe the noise cancellation has to do with the encoder technology used by the system. I might be wrong on that though. So all phones using EVRC should have the same cancellation performance, and the difference then is with the gain on the microphone, etc.. Clearly a clamshell will beat a candybar for picking up noise in the first place.

 

I know it's a little late, but for me the best GSM phones with the best noise cancelation are Motorolas. My mom works in one of the casinos in Laughlin. When she used to call me on her Nokia 3390 I could never hear her, but I could hear the slot machines perfectly. But after she got her V60i I have no problems hearing her.

I have had both CDMA & GSM and I think it comes down to weather the network is cellular or PCS, & the equipment you are using. But I agree with calbee, "Make certain it works for you."

 

Seriously...take in all these comments and anylyze em for what its worth. Most of the CDMA cheerleaders on this thread would like you to believe that GSM is was developed by co-co the chimp and that you'll need the services of NSA to decode voice conversations. For those of us on the engineering development aspect of the business as opposed to the retail aspect can tell u that both standards are pretty much equal and that generally GSM has consistenly had better reviews with respect to voice.

Does that mean GSM is the best....absolutely not..its merely a technology and it depends entirely on your providers implementation. But with all things equal GSM voice quality tends to be better than CDMA. Combine that with cheaper voice&data services, better phone selection, more providers, more development and global roaming....well you get the picture.

 

For those of us in the network side: let me give you a perspective I got at an APCO convention about utilizing commercial wireless network to support public safety communications:

only ONE network topology is being considered: CDMA...does this tell you anything?

any TDMA based signal is easy to crack...I proved that to a Craptel rep who bragged about Nextel being "scanner proof", yeah, well simply programming any Motorola 800MHz portable capable of VSELP operation (such as a pre-P25 Astro or XTS3000) on the Nextel base station freqs and set the Astro radio to "digital carrier squelch" and you will hear everything on that site...not much fun to listen to, but you CAN decode the audio. I know, I have done it.

a UHF (450MHz) CDMA based public safety network is already being considered in Sweden as an alternative to TETRA. Why? Because TETRA's vulnerabilites are well known, CDMA is the best bang for the buck for low cost secure RF. Not everyone can afford FASCINATOR or AES-OFB radio systems, and CDMA based cellular/PCS networks optimized for public safety (priority access, regrouping, etc) can offer the same features for alot less in the long run. And it's goodbye Mr.fakecop police scanner crowd if your local PD starting dispatching on a CDMA system...

And not to mention, AT&T, who developed and pioneered TDMA technology (such as IS-136), is on the bandwagon with their CDMA base station offerings..this says volumes about CDMA if anything else doesn't.

GSM is a good topology, but it is based on 1980's technology, the next generation GSM systems are being built around CDMA...I think the "arguement" (as if there is one) ends right here.

 

Just to give everyone a little notice, this thread should and will be moved to the general discussion forum later today.

 

Hm. Well, for the record the phone I have and am dissatisfied with is a v60g. Hands free in the car with this phone is absolutely unacceptable. It is far better for me to talk on it without hands free, but even then it still has a significant noise problem. But I don't doubt your story -- I'm sure it is better than any candybar Nokia given the distance of the mic ...

 

Whow! Dejavu (or however you spell it).

This was a highly debated topic just 3 years ago between Larry, myself and a few others (except that at that time TDMA was also in the discussion mix).

This time the misunderstanding seems to be between larry's technological stance and everyone else's subjective experience.

GSM is an enhanced version of TDMA. Both are time-division multiplex. CDMA is code-division multiplex. The encoding and security that CDMA brings is undisputedly better. However, the "bone of contention" for the rest of the posters here, is not technology but end-result service. "Warble" is infamous in the CDMA arena. I have personally used TDMA, GSM and CDMA technologies. All have their qwirks. One poster hit it on the head when he said it all comes down to coverage in your area. And that is truly the baseline decision we should all use. Obviously, even if CMDA is the best technology around, if your area doesn't have good tower representation, a lot of good the claim of techno-superiority will do you.

Once again it must be noted that GSM is only an interim step of 2.5 technology. True 3G, for both CDMA and GSM is UTMS which IS cdma (w-cdma for current GSM carriers (ATT, Cingular, T-Mobile) and CDMA2000 for current CDMA carriers (Sprint, Verizon)).

So once again I point you to: http://www.umts-forum.org/servlet/dycon/ztumts/umts/Live/en/umts/Home

 

Hey Kevin good to see you back posting more often. Yeah I remember those discussions we used to have about 3 years ago. At that time everybody seemed to be anti-Sprint (because they were still the new carrier lacking in coverage in many areas). Times have changed and more and more people now are using Sprint and happy with the service. But AT&T seems to have gone in the opposite direction and now they are the ones often made out to be the bad guys.

 

Hey Larry, I think it's a shame this thread got moved from the Western forum, I think it should have been locked.

I know many people want to debate the intrinsics of CDMA vs. GSM, but I think I gave a lot of real-world experience in California for people who might be interested in the differnces between the two largest providers there (Cingular/T-Mo for GSM and CDMA for Verizon).

 

Hi Larry,

Not sure what the point of your comment was. I was actually commending your sticking to the facts while others were being subjective. I sensed some defensiveness on your part (yes/no?)

As far as ATT's performance, I readily agree that it is suffering. Hopefully when Cingular takes over that will change. Right now, ATT is a short-timer and probably isn't too interested in any long range goals. In talking with a Cingular employee, they are already predicting the network cutover will happen "last quarter 2004." As far as loyalty to a wireless carrier, or a feeling of "my religion, my country, my wireless carrier," no, I don't have that feeling at all. ATT is just another carrier and wireless service is just another monthly bill like my utilities, my media provider (DISH) or my grocery bill. One carrier is just as good and just as bad as the next. Its never greener on the other side of the hill, its just trading one set of problems and benefits for another.

Personally, I'm taking a waiting position. My wife wants another phone. I'm waiting for the transition and seeing what the rates look like.

Another option I'm considering is to switch one of our phones to Cingular now. Then, that will give me nearly a year of service to compare and see whether or not to stay with Cingular or go to Verizon or Sprint.

 

Kevin,

No I wasn't being defensive at all. I was just talking and remembering the old days of discussion here.