Anyone switch from Cingular to Verizon, or the other way around?

"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402071604.7f250bb@posting.google.com...
> "David" <no.spam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:<Jd8Vb.9657$Ig5.6017@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>
> > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402070759.71fad4fd@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:<Steve-FB571D.22394106022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > >
> > > > BTW-today there are 1 billion GSM cellular users worldwide, compared
to
> > > > 1.8 million CDMA users. I just read that today on some unbiased
website
> > > > (since I have been heavily researching this all day), and I really
wish
> > > > I could remember where I saw it so I could post the url and back up
my
> > > > statement, but I can't.
> > >
> > > The reason you can't remember where you read this is because it's
> > > utter nonsense. As of 12/31/2003
> > >
> > > * VZW had 37.5 M customers,
> > > * SPCS had 20.4 M customers,
> > > * ALLTEL had 8.0 M customers, and
> > > * USCC had 4.4 M customers.
> > >
> > > That's a total of 70.3 M CDMA customers solely from the top 4 CDMA
> > > carriers in the United States. This does not include smaller CDMA
> > > carriers (like Cellular South, Western Wireless, Rcc, etc.) or the
> > > vast amounts of CDMA users in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts
> > > of the world. Total worldwide CDMA subscribership is actually in
> > > excess of 188 M (see
> > > http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp).
> >
> > Just so we have all the facts, this compares to 1,027million GSM users
in
> > 2002
> >
> > http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/index.shtml
>
> The page you're quoting speaks of "GSM Total Subscribers - 863.6
> million (end May 2003)". Are we looking at the same thing?

I am not sure I understand your question. So I think the answer is no, we
are not.

I used:

World Cellular Subscribers
Subscriber Growth 1992 - 2002 View Graph

Hope that helps. Please understand that I am open to all opinions.

 

"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402070833.2c092343@posting.google.com...
> Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:<Steve-FB571D.22394106022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
>
> > The above "jet engine" statement:
> > It's a cute statement but I don't care, per se, of the technology used,
> > or how the entire procedure is accomplished. The fighter and the jet
> > both get you to the same place. I just want a reliable signal coming
> > in and going out of my phone, as much coverage as possible, and a choice
> > of solid, reliable phones. With that said, I don't mean a phone that
> > takes picture, plays mp3s, sends instant messages, or anything like
> > that. I don't play games. I'm looking for pure performance from my
> > phone and cellphone service provider.
>
> From a *consumer* point of view, the main differences between GSM and
> CDMA can be summed up as follows:
>
> GSM
> ===
> * worldwide dominance leads to greater handset selection and cheaper
> handset prices due to economics of scale
> * same phone can be used in more parts of the world (assuming you get
> a quad-band world phone which are fairly common now)
> * slightly better sound quality due to superior vocoder
> * most GSM phones are digital only and do not allow use in analog only
> areas (GAIT phones are available from few carriers and are not very
> common and are being phased out)
> * higher likelihood of dropped calls due to hard handoff
> * inferior data offerings (GPRS is a joke and EDGE can barely keep up
> with 1xRTT rel. 0)
> * SIM card technology allows easy transfer of personal data from one
> phone to another but also creates a market for stolen GSM phones
>
> CDMA
> ====
> * better US coverage (at the moment)
> * most CDMA phones allow use in analog only areas
> * lower likelihood of dropped calls due to soft and softer handoff
> * vastly superior data offerings (1xRTT rel. 0 deployed nationwide -
> 1xEV-DO being rolled out 2004/2005, 1xEV-DV coming shortly after)
> * stolen CDMA phones are largely useless - destroying any such market

As someone who has the luxury of both a quad band GSM and GAIT phone, I can
assure you that they both have benefits.

 

"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402070833.2c092343@posting.google.com...

<snip>

Good summary.

Actually the slightly better sound of GSM is more likely due to the fact
that GSM won't degrade the voice quality to increase capacity. The
independent tests of CDMA and GSM phones show no difference in voice quality
when the CDMA network is not cramming more users into the same bandwidth.

International roaming is not an issue for most users. Personally I keep a
GSM world phone around to use when traveling to Asian countries that are GSM
(most of them, other than Korea and Japan) and I buy a prepaid SIM card. But
if you simply must be reachable on your U.S. phone number, then GSM is
indeed a better choice.

I tried GSM in the U.S. for a year, but it was just horrible (Cingular in
California) and it continues to be ranked as the worst carrier for my region
(though AT&T passed it as the worst carrier in Southern California).

The number of worldwide GSM users versus the number of GSM users is
interesting, but meaningless. Even the GSM carriers are ultimately moving to
a type of CDMA.

Read:

" GSM in the U.S." at http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/gsmusa.htm

 

"David" <no.spam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message news:<bSiVb.9911$we.4003@fe1.texas.rr.com>...

> "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0402071604.7f250bb@posting.google.com...
>
> > "David" <no.spam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message news:<Jd8Vb.9657$Ig5.6017@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> >
> > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0402070759.71fad4fd@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message news:<Steve-FB571D.22394106022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > > >
> > > > > BTW-today there are 1 billion GSM cellular users worldwide, compared to
> > > > > 1.8 million CDMA users. I just read that today on some unbiased website
> > > > > (since I have been heavily researching this all day), and I really wish
> > > > > I could remember where I saw it so I could post the url and back up my
> > > > > statement, but I can't.
> > > >
> > > > The reason you can't remember where you read this is because it's
> > > > utter nonsense. As of 12/31/2003
> > > >
> > > > * VZW had 37.5 M customers,
> > > > * SPCS had 20.4 M customers,
> > > > * ALLTEL had 8.0 M customers, and
> > > > * USCC had 4.4 M customers.
> > > >
> > > > That's a total of 70.3 M CDMA customers solely from the top 4 CDMA
> > > > carriers in the United States. This does not include smaller CDMA
> > > > carriers (like Cellular South, Western Wireless, Rcc, etc.) or the
> > > > vast amounts of CDMA users in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts
> > > > of the world. Total worldwide CDMA subscribership is actually in
> > > > excess of 188 M (see
> > > > http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp).
> > >
> > > Just so we have all the facts, this compares to 1,027million GSM users in
> > > 2002
> > >
> > > http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/index.shtml
> >
> > The page you're quoting speaks of "GSM Total Subscribers - 863.6
> > million (end May 2003)". Are we looking at the same thing?
>
> I am not sure I understand your question. So I think the answer is no, we
> are not.

My question (or rather observation) was in regards to the fact that
you stated 1,027 M GSM users when the site you quoted as your source
actually stated 863.6 M GSM subscribers, in other words the site you
quoted to support your claim didn't support it.

> I used:
>
> World Cellular Subscribers
> Subscriber Growth 1992 - 2002 View Graph

Clearly, that graph depicts total worldwide subscribership, regardless
of technology used.

> Hope that helps. Please understand that I am open to all opinions.

Understood, but this is not a matter of opinion, numbers don't lie,
it's either one or the other.

 

> if you simply must be reachable on your U.S. phone number, then GSM is
> indeed a better choice.

Verizon offer a program with Vodaphone (one of their minority
shareholders) You can rent a GSM "world phone" or just a SIM (if you
already own an unlocked GSM phone). That way your US cell phone
number will ring around the world, even with Verizon

 

In alt.cellular MGH <mgh02114@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> if you simply must be reachable on your U.S. phone number, then GSM is
>> indeed a better choice.
>
> Verizon offer a program with Vodaphone (one of their minority
> shareholders) You can rent a GSM "world phone" or just a SIM (if you
> already own an unlocked GSM phone). That way your US cell phone
> number will ring around the world, even with Verizon

Indeed they do. International Traveler, I believe they call it.

But if you can handle not being available at the main number, grabbing a
rental or PAYG phone in Europe is a better option. And going with AT&T
Wireless, T-Mobile or another US GSM provider that offers "world" phones and
reasonable roaming rates is probably an even better option.

I'm not a big fan of the GSM providers in this country, in general, as their
customer service and coverage tend to suck. But international usage is an
area where they probably do better than the CDMA carriers.

I mean, I enjoy using my Verizon phone, but I don't think I can afford
International Traveler.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

 

"XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402082015.60005312@posting.google.com...
> "David" <no.spam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:<bSiVb.9911$we.4003@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
>
> > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402071604.7f250bb@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > "David" <no.spam@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:<Jd8Vb.9657$Ig5.6017@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> > >
> > > > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:298d9cbf.0402070759.71fad4fd@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:<Steve-FB571D.22394106022004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > BTW-today there are 1 billion GSM cellular users worldwide,
compared to
> > > > > > 1.8 million CDMA users. I just read that today on some unbiased
website
> > > > > > (since I have been heavily researching this all day), and I
really wish
> > > > > > I could remember where I saw it so I could post the url and back
up my
> > > > > > statement, but I can't.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason you can't remember where you read this is because it's
> > > > > utter nonsense. As of 12/31/2003
> > > > >
> > > > > * VZW had 37.5 M customers,
> > > > > * SPCS had 20.4 M customers,
> > > > > * ALLTEL had 8.0 M customers, and
> > > > > * USCC had 4.4 M customers.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a total of 70.3 M CDMA customers solely from the top 4 CDMA
> > > > > carriers in the United States. This does not include smaller CDMA
> > > > > carriers (like Cellular South, Western Wireless, Rcc, etc.) or the
> > > > > vast amounts of CDMA users in the Asia-Pacific region and other
parts
> > > > > of the world. Total worldwide CDMA subscribership is actually in
> > > > > excess of 188 M (see
> > > > > http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp).
> > > >
> > > > Just so we have all the facts, this compares to 1,027million GSM
users in
> > > > 2002
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/index.shtml
> > >
> > > The page you're quoting speaks of "GSM Total Subscribers - 863.6
> > > million (end May 2003)". Are we looking at the same thing?
> >
> > I am not sure I understand your question. So I think the answer is no,
we
> > are not.
>
> My question (or rather observation) was in regards to the fact that
> you stated 1,027 M GSM users when the site you quoted as your source
> actually stated 863.6 M GSM subscribers, in other words the site you
> quoted to support your claim didn't support it.
>
> > I used:
> >
> > World Cellular Subscribers
> > Subscriber Growth 1992 - 2002 View Graph
>
> Clearly, that graph depicts total worldwide subscribership, regardless
> of technology used.
>
> > Hope that helps. Please understand that I am open to all opinions.
>
> Understood, but this is not a matter of opinion, numbers don't lie,
> it's either one or the other.

I apologize for the error. I misread the data. I assumed they were talking
about GSM users, as it is a GSM related web site. That will teach me to read
data more carefully.

 

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:02:03 -0800, Jesse McGrew
<jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> chose to add this to
the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>The GSM infrastructure has been in place a lot longer than CDMA, and the
>big investments have already been made and paid off. To go back to the

You guys have been talking about this in worldwide terms, but given the
different frequencies in use in North America vs. the rest of the world (or
at least Europe and Asia), it's somewhat moot. In the U.S., I think CDMA
had been in place longer than GSM.

>VHS/DVD analogy: DVDs were more expensive than VHS tapes when they were
>first introduced, and still are in many cases. That's not because DVDs
>are harder to make or inherently more expensive than cassettes, but
>because the facilities to make cassettes had already been around for 20
>years and were no longer a factor in VHS pricing, while the price of
>DVDs had to include part of the cost to set up new facilities.

DVD also has more patent royalties to pay per disc than VHS has per tape,
and in the case of older movies, the distributor has to go back to everyone
who owns a piece of the rights to the movie to renegotiate the video rights
(which originally considered only VHS) so that they can do DVD, and the
owners may want more money for it. Then there's also the higher cost of
setting up the master DVD (programming the menus, etc. -- it's more than
just pumping the signal from the master tape into the DVD recorder),
producing any extra material they include, and such like that.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Fewer acts of rudeness are committed in Iowa in an entire year than during
a single morning in any given New York City subway car." - Dave Barry

 

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<_1jVb.19218$uM2.9501@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:298d9cbf.0402070833.2c092343@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Good summary.
>
> Actually the slightly better sound of GSM is more likely due to the fact
> that GSM won't degrade the voice quality to increase capacity. The
> independent tests of CDMA and GSM phones show no difference in voice quality
> when the CDMA network is not cramming more users into the same bandwidth.
>
> International roaming is not an issue for most users. Personally I keep a
> GSM world phone around to use when traveling to Asian countries that are GSM
> (most of them, other than Korea and Japan) and I buy a prepaid SIM card. But
> if you simply must be reachable on your U.S. phone number, then GSM is
> indeed a better choice.
>
> I tried GSM in the U.S. for a year, but it was just horrible (Cingular in
> California) and it continues to be ranked as the worst carrier for my region
> (though AT&T passed it as the worst carrier in Southern California).
>
> The number of worldwide GSM users versus the number of GSM users is
> interesting, but meaningless. Even the GSM carriers are ultimately moving to
> a type of CDMA.
>
> Read:
>
> " GSM in the U.S." at http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/gsmusa.htm

In the article it states

"As part of the deal, AT&T decided to spurn Qualcomm's CDMA technology
in the near term and build out a GSM network in the U.S. AT&T made
this decision freely; they wanted the money from NTT Docomo, and
moving to GSM and W-CDMA was the price they had to pay."

Even though AT&T decided to spurn (what a weird word) Qualcomm's CDMA
technology in the near term, I dont suppose (even if they have it in
the back of their mind) they will switch to it any time soon.

As you may or may not know the upgrades from GSM to W-CDMA is really
just to a better version of GSM. W-CDMA = UTMS = 3GSM (3G GSM). In
the mean time they have GPRS and EDGE upgrades to satiate some.
http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/3g/index.shtml
http://www.gsmworld.com/news/media_2002/rightchoice.shtml

Currently GSM uses a TDMA air interface, it transmits the over the
air in TDMA, just as IS-136 (what is commonly referred to as TDMA AT&T
and Cingular's old systsm) also uses a TDMA air interface to transmit.
When the upgrade to 3GSM is done, GSM will use a more efficient and
superior W-CDMA technology to transmit the data, but it will still be
GSM.

I thought about this a long time and could not come up with a good
analogy but there goes. You can hit me over the head later

Imagine GSM is a TV. and the TDMA and W-CDMA air interfaces are NTSC
and PAL (not saying one of those is better) Which ever you use, NTSC
or PAL, the end result is still TV. I know its bad.

 

David S wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:02:03 -0800, Jesse McGrew
> <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> chose to add this to
> the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>
>>The GSM infrastructure has been in place a lot longer than CDMA, and the
>>big investments have already been made and paid off. To go back to the
>
>
> You guys have been talking about this in worldwide terms, but given the
> different frequencies in use in North America vs. the rest of the world (or
> at least Europe and Asia), it's somewhat moot. In the U.S., I think CDMA
> had been in place longer than GSM.

I don't think so; Sprint Spectrum was GSM.

But you're right that the GSM infrastructure in the U.S. hasn't been big
enough, long enough for it to have that much influence on the pricing of
GSM vs. CDMA carriers. A better comparison might be TDMA vs. CDMA.

Jesse

 

Jesse McGrew <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote:
>> You guys have been talking about this in worldwide terms, but given the
>> different frequencies in use in North America vs. the rest of the world (or
>> at least Europe and Asia), it's somewhat moot. In the U.S., I think CDMA
>> had been in place longer than GSM.
>
> I don't think so; Sprint Spectrum was GSM.

Was Sprint around before GTE and AirTouch went CDMA back in 1995?

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

 

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jesse McGrew <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote:
>
>>>You guys have been talking about this in worldwide terms, but given the
>>>different frequencies in use in North America vs. the rest of the world (or
>>>at least Europe and Asia), it's somewhat moot. In the U.S., I think CDMA
>>>had been in place longer than GSM.
>>
>>I don't think so; Sprint Spectrum was GSM.
>
>
> Was Sprint around before GTE and AirTouch went CDMA back in 1995?
>

According to one site (http://www.decodesystems.com/mt/96oct/), Sprint
Spectrum was doing 1900 MHz GSM in 1995. Another
(http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa072199.htm) says both CDMA
and GSM-1900 have been operational since 1996.

Jesse

 

Jesse McGrew <jmcgrew@hanshorseprestigepelican.com.remove.animals> wrote:
> According to one site (http://www.decodesystems.com/mt/96oct/), Sprint
> Spectrum was doing 1900 MHz GSM in 1995. Another
> (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa072199.htm) says both CDMA
> and GSM-1900 have been operational since 1996.

Since 1996? Heh. I picked up my first GTE Mobilnet CDMA phone in September of
1995. Sounds like Sprint Spectrum had been around since about that time, or
perhaps a little earlier.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED

 

On 10 Feb 2004 08:14:56 -0800, phillipd@mac.com (Phillip) chose to add this
to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>Currently GSM uses a TDMA air interface, it transmits the over the
>air in TDMA, just as IS-136 (what is commonly referred to as TDMA AT&T
>and Cingular's old systsm) also uses a TDMA air interface to transmit.
>When the upgrade to 3GSM is done, GSM will use a more efficient and
>superior W-CDMA technology to transmit the data, but it will still be
>GSM.
>
>I thought about this a long time and could not come up with a good
>analogy but there goes. You can hit me over the head later
>
>Imagine GSM is a TV. and the TDMA and W-CDMA air interfaces are NTSC
>and PAL (not saying one of those is better) Which ever you use, NTSC
>or PAL, the end result is still TV. I know its bad.

You're right, I can't come up with a better analogy, but the difference is
that GSM is sort of an uber-protocol using either TDMA or CDMA as its base;
TV has no such uber-protocol.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Oh, Hawkeye, the tent is spinning around." - B.J. Hunnicutt
"Which way?" - Hawkeye Pierce
"Cuh-lockwise." - B.J.
"Mine's going counterclockwise. Maybe together we're sober." - Hawkeye

 

David S <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message news:<4ubk20hvb0tugd797hbl28spmbluaol1hj@4ax.com>...

> You're right, I can't come up with a better analogy, but the difference is
> that GSM is sort of an uber-protocol using either TDMA or CDMA as its base;
> TV has no such uber-protocol.

GSM has only one (TDMA-based) air interface. There's no version of
GSM that deploys a CDMA-based air interface. Perhaps you're thinking
of UMTS.

 

"David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message =
news:4ubk20hvb0tugd797hbl28spmbluaol1hj@4ax.com...
>=20
> You're right, I can't come up with a better analogy, but the =
difference is
> that GSM is sort of an uber-protocol using either TDMA or CDMA as its =
base;
> TV has no such uber-protocol.
>=20
> --=20
>=20
GSM will always be whatever the GSM people define it to be.
(Global Standard for Mobile communications.)
That'll include wrapping it in WCDMA, whenever they get that working.

The terms CDMA and TDMA are acronyms of technical words,
so they are less likely to morph into something else.

I don't see any good television analogies either.
---JRC---

 

GSM with better sound quality than CDMA? Ha. Nothing could be
further from the truth. CDMA is much better all around. The only
advantage to GSM is that different types of switch equipment from
different manufacturers can be used by a wireless carrier, allowing
this competition to get the carrier better pricing on the equipment.
By contrast, under CDMA, if you use Nortel equipment at first, you can
add in Lucent equipment later and have it work, so you are the pricing
mercy of the equipment provider you are already with. But other than
that, GSM is just plain inferior. Also, the upgrade path to true 3G
is much longer and more expensive with GSM. Verizon is already
rolling out close to true 3G nationally this year with EVDO, after
having tested it in Washington and San Diego, with 400KBps and up.
Cingular, AT&T and others will be way behind with real 3G.


"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rRr.com> wrote in message news:<vOQWb.2898$WM6.1392@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4ubk20hvb0tugd797hbl28spmbluaol1hj@4ax.com...
> >
> > You're right, I can't come up with a better analogy, but the
> difference is
> > that GSM is sort of an uber-protocol using either TDMA or CDMA as its
> base;
> > TV has no such uber-protocol.
> >
> > --
> >
> GSM will always be whatever the GSM people define it to be.
> (Global Standard for Mobile communications.)
> That'll include wrapping it in WCDMA, whenever they get that working.
>
> The terms CDMA and TDMA are acronyms of technical words,
> so they are less likely to morph into something else.
>
> I don't see any good television analogies either.
> ---JRC---

 

I am with modeman. CDMA is much superior to GSM. I can't figure why anyone
stays with Cingular. It is the worst. If they get AT&T it will be a
customer service and phone service disaster for years to come as they try to
merge too really messed up systems.

"TriModeMan" <trimodeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b70b36a3.0402121646.3c44a60d@posting.google.com...
> GSM with better sound quality than CDMA? Ha. Nothing could be
> further from the truth. CDMA is much better all around. The only
> advantage to GSM is that different types of switch equipment from
> different manufacturers can be used by a wireless carrier, allowing
> this competition to get the carrier better pricing on the equipment.
> By contrast, under CDMA, if you use Nortel equipment at first, you can
> add in Lucent equipment later and have it work, so you are the pricing
> mercy of the equipment provider you are already with. But other than
> that, GSM is just plain inferior. Also, the upgrade path to true 3G
> is much longer and more expensive with GSM. Verizon is already
> rolling out close to true 3G nationally this year with EVDO, after
> having tested it in Washington and San Diego, with 400KBps and up.
> Cingular, AT&T and others will be way behind with real 3G.
>
>
> "John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rRr.com> wrote in message
news:<vOQWb.2898$WM6.1392@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> > "David S" <dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:4ubk20hvb0tugd797hbl28spmbluaol1hj@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > You're right, I can't come up with a better analogy, but the
> > difference is
> > > that GSM is sort of an uber-protocol using either TDMA or CDMA as its
> > base;
> > > TV has no such uber-protocol.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > GSM will always be whatever the GSM people define it to be.
> > (Global Standard for Mobile communications.)
> > That'll include wrapping it in WCDMA, whenever they get that working.
> >
> > The terms CDMA and TDMA are acronyms of technical words,
> > so they are less likely to morph into something else.
> >
> > I don't see any good television analogies either.
> > ---JRC---

 

"AgingBoomer" <gg@aol.com> wrote in message news:<sKgXb.7660$jx3.833996@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

> I am with modeman. CDMA is much superior to GSM. I can't figure why anyone
> stays with Cingular. It is the worst.

Here are a couple reasons that persuaded me to go with Cingular:

* vastly superior coverage (only speaking about Texas here)
* rollover minutes are very very cool (eliminate overage charges)
* allowed me sign up without contract as long as I provided my own
handset

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against VZW. I also use VZW for
my mobile data needs, an area where VZW clearly surpasses Cingular.
Just making a point that there are several good reasons to choose
Cingular as a carrier.