Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
GSM vs. CDMA?
- Thread starter jaded
- Start date
CDMA is currently far superior in North America and some Asian countries (Korea, Japan, etc).
GSM is older technology, they are currently trying to upgrade GSM networks to a W-CDMA architecture but its a slow process.
CDMA networks have already upgraded to 1X and 1X-EV DO.
You can now get DSL/Cable modem speeds through your cell phone or direct to a laptop on many verizon networks in the country.
CDMA 2000, offers a variety of benefits to consumers as well as carriers.
It has a high adoption rate here in the US, but a slow adoption rate in Europe because you can't roam between existing GSM networks and newer CDMA networks there. CDMA uses spectrum (radio bands) much more efficiently though so you will experience fewer dropped calls, and higher data throughput.
GSM is basically a dying breed here in the US, and if you've used a newer CDMA flavor you will be able to tell the difference.
GSM is older technology, they are currently trying to upgrade GSM networks to a W-CDMA architecture but its a slow process.
CDMA networks have already upgraded to 1X and 1X-EV DO.
You can now get DSL/Cable modem speeds through your cell phone or direct to a laptop on many verizon networks in the country.
CDMA 2000, offers a variety of benefits to consumers as well as carriers.
It has a high adoption rate here in the US, but a slow adoption rate in Europe because you can't roam between existing GSM networks and newer CDMA networks there. CDMA uses spectrum (radio bands) much more efficiently though so you will experience fewer dropped calls, and higher data throughput.
GSM is basically a dying breed here in the US, and if you've used a newer CDMA flavor you will be able to tell the difference.
The local network coverage is the single most salient detail for consumers right now.
Consumers don't really care that a CDMA network is a more efficient use of spectrum, the carriers to. They don't care that CDMA networks have a more efficient use of handset power depending on how close you are to a base station.
They care about their signal quality, period. And if your local GSM carrier has better coverage in your neighborhood, that would be the way to go.
Sprint for example has an excellent network, however in many areas their coverage in inadequte. This is because they started with a digital only network from the ground up, whereas other carriers laid their digital network on top of an existing analog network that they can fall back on if their digital network doesn't provide service in a particular area.
If you happen to live in a "dead zone" for a CDMA or GSM network, you'd go with the alternative of course.
Consumers don't really care that a CDMA network is a more efficient use of spectrum, the carriers to. They don't care that CDMA networks have a more efficient use of handset power depending on how close you are to a base station.
They care about their signal quality, period. And if your local GSM carrier has better coverage in your neighborhood, that would be the way to go.
Sprint for example has an excellent network, however in many areas their coverage in inadequte. This is because they started with a digital only network from the ground up, whereas other carriers laid their digital network on top of an existing analog network that they can fall back on if their digital network doesn't provide service in a particular area.
If you happen to live in a "dead zone" for a CDMA or GSM network, you'd go with the alternative of course.
Similar threads
