We've noticed that you've been inactive for over 10 minute(s). We've stopped running the Shoutbox due to your inactivity. If you are back again, please click the I'm Back button below.
Basically the communication in the wireless world between 2 people can be accomplished by dividing the medium into time or frequency or codes.
If you assign time slots to a user then it is TDMA.
If you assign codes to user then its CDMA.
If you assign frequency slots to users then its FDMA
As far as security is concerned CDMA is best as when a code is assigned to a transmitted signal only the receiver whose frequency response is programmed with the same code can actually be able to intercept the signal.But the fact that CDMA phones don't work in multiple countries is a major negative point..
The market share and popularity does go in favour of GSM.
Even the way SIM works for GSM and the way it works for CDMA varies.The fact that a GSM SIM can be easily swaped from an old cellphone to a newer one with your data intact but incase of CDMA phones since all contact information gets stored in the operator's database so it works fine if the operator service is the same one.
Well that again has a positive point with CDMA phones as incase the phone gets stolen there is always a way to recover the lost contact information.
Posted 03 March 2011 - 09:31 AM
CDMA IS BESTCDMA vs GSM
I have tried a GSM service in the US. CDMA is a better service. I have service in many places, like mountains, valleys, and in the middle of the desert. My main reason for having a phone is to make phone calls. In this regard, GSM sucks in the US. There were too many times I had to walk up and down a sidewalk or stop and start my car to get a signal with GSM. When I finally switched to CDMA it was a breath of fresh air. I don't ever worry about a signal now. If I cant talk, nobody can and generally I am the only one with service when in a group of people with GSM.
It may be good in Europe, but in the US it is the runnerup.
-reply by Dwight Palmer
Posted 30 December 2009 - 12:20 PM
GSM is the best!!!CDMA vs GSM
I think GSM service providers are much more focused on the quality aspects...
Once upon a time, I had a reliance CDMA mobile, but I didn't enjoy using those services as compared to my IDEA, HUTCH and other GSM service providers...
So, I vote for GSM...
Thanks.
Parag V. Soni
-reply by Parag
Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:05 PM
I just thought I would add my 3c worth in as a 3G engineer.
As someone who has worked on both technologies for many years, CDMA is probably the better engineered network - I think this was due to Qualcomm owning most of the patents on the technology - you can fine tune the whole system a little better than what you can with UMTS. Plus, the range at any given power is slightly greater for CDMA. It was a very cleverly designed system that was unfortunate in that Qualcomm doomed it.
Where CDMA was let down was Qualcomm overcharging for it, litigating against Nokia who was keen to develop handsets for it over patents.
So these days UMTS is the system that everyone is using, the upgrade from GSM is pretty clearly defined - many operators have a core network that is designed operate with both GSM and UMTS access networks.
Replying to ivobrettReplying to xboxrulzReplying to solanky CDMA has been developed for an isolated society and bases its product on one PERCEIVED need- the need for spped. They have missed the main point of mobile communication- COMMUNICATION and this is what GSM provides! A great GLOBAL communication experience. I am South African, visiting in Canada, and coming from a developing world, I had a few base expectations of maintaining contact with my friends and family in SA and UK through sms's. I was disillusioned to find out that it would cost me a minimum of $35 for access to the network which I would pay $0.10 in South Africa. And what do I get for this? Nothing! A further $10 will give me airtime to that value. For $0.15 I can send and recieve an sms!? which would cost me $0.08 in South Africa (only to send- we don't pay for receiving!!??) and $0.30 to make (and receive!!??) a call which would cost me $0.22 only to receive (so halve it again!!). Oh and I STILL won't be able to send and receive sms from my friends and family in UK and SA. Now that I am using a basic CDMA phone- there are LOTS of other things that I find are better on GSM; like predictive text! T9 word is so 10 years ago!! OK so maybe I have an old phone... But the sim card offers such flexibility and offordability I believe that Americans who dominate the CDMA market are purchasing with their eyes closed. GSM rocks!! and in the gloabal world that we live in GSM has come to the fore- CDMA have developed their technology for an isolated society. I found this article VERY informative about the two types (CDMA and GSM, although it has not been updated to include 3G which I used in SA and it was great!)
-reply by gs2889
Posted 27 July 2008 - 06:55 PM
CDMA sucks! CDMA vs GSM
Replying to solanky CDMA has been developed for an isolated society and bases its product on one PERCEIVED need- the need for spped. They have missed the main point of mobile communication- COMMUNICATION and this is what GSM provides! A great GLOBAL communication experience. I am South African, visiting in Canada, and coming from a developing world, I had a few base expectations of maintaining contact with my friends and family in SA and UK through sms's. I was disillusioned to find out that it would cost me a minimum of $35 for access to the network which I would pay $0.10 in South Africa. And what do I get for this? Nothing! A further $10 will give me airtime to that value. For $0.15 I can send and recieve an sms!? which would cost me $0.08 in South Africa (only to send- we don't pay for receiving!!??) and $0.30 to make (and receive!!??) a call which would cost me $0.22 only to receive (so halve it again!!). Oh and I STILL won't be able to send and receive sms from my friends and family in UK and SA. Now that I am using a basic CDMA phone- there are LOTS of other things that I find are better on GSM; like predictive text! T9 word is so 10 years ago!! OK so maybe I have an old phone... But the sim card offers such flexibility and offordability I believe that Americans who dominate the CDMA market are purchasing with their eyes closed. GSM rocks!! and in the gloabal world that we live in GSM has come to the fore- CDMA have developed their technology for an isolated society. I found this article VERY informative about the two types (CDMA and GSM, although it has not been updated to include 3G which I used in SA and it was great!) Http://www.Wisegeek.Com/what-is-the-difference-between-gsm-and-cdma.Htm
-reply by gs2889
Posted 27 July 2008 - 06:55 PM
CDMA sucks! CDMA vs GSM
Replying to solanky CDMA has been developed for an isolated society and bases its product on one PERCEIVED need- the need for spped. They have missed the main point of mobile communication- COMMUNICATION and this is what GSM provides! A great GLOBAL communication experience. I am South African, visiting in Canada, and coming from a developing world, I had a few base expectations of maintaining contact with my friends and family in SA and UK through sms's. I was disillusioned to find out that it would cost me a minimum of $35 for access to the network which I would pay $0.10 in South Africa. And what do I get for this? Nothing! A further $10 will give me airtime to that value. For $0.15 I can send and recieve an sms!? which would cost me $0.08 in South Africa (only to send- we don't pay for receiving!!??) and $0.30 to make (and receive!!??) a call which would cost me $0.22 only to receive (so halve it again!!). Oh and I STILL won't be able to send and receive sms from my friends and family in UK and SA. Now that I am using a basic CDMA phone- there are LOTS of other things that I find are better on GSM; like predictive text! T9 word is so 10 years ago!! OK so maybe I have an old phone... But the sim card offers such flexibility and offordability I believe that Americans who dominate the CDMA market are purchasing with their eyes closed. GSM rocks!! and in the gloabal world that we live in GSM has come to the fore- CDMA have developed their technology for an isolated society. I found this article VERY informative about the two types (CDMA and GSM, although it has not been updated to include 3G which I used in SA and it was great!) Http://www.Wisegeek.Com/what-is-the-difference-between-gsm-and-cdma.Htm
-reply by gs2889
Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:59 AM
Facts:
WCDMA is a 3G for GSM, UMTS is a part of WCDMA
EVDO(CDMA2000)is a 3G for CDMA
WCDMA != CDMA <----- FACT! (WCDMA does not equal CDMA)
My thoughts:
CDMA > WCDMA
UMTS will not rule the world and those history books will remain blank for years to come.
If you travel the world GSM is right for you, if you travel the states CDMA is right for you.
If you like to get a new phone every month GSM is right for you. If you like to send and receive large amounts of data CDMA is right for you.
Verizon has the best coverage, over Sprint (both CDMA) but the software on the phones **** (Verizon)! options: Smartphones; Sprint has coverage in concentrated coverage areas, more people in the target areas.
I have both PC cards Sprint and Verizon, Sprint seems to be in more spots I travel, however Verizon seems faster when I can connect to the faster network.
AT&T has the best phones! Lowest dropped calls my [explitive]!
I have had 6 dropped calls on Verizon, 4 of which in the same area in TN while traveling it is just a bad spot, and 50 million on AT&T. This comes back to the type of network, CDMA hands the call hand off to the next tower much much better. I drive a good distance often, if you are not moble and in one area during most of your conversations dropped calls are a moot point.
Thanks - I'd heard that CDMA is supposed to be superior voice quality, but I've also heard reception sucks for CDMA in large cities - specifically Montreal..
Can anyone confirm or argue with this? I'll be moving there soon and my contract with Rogers is almost finished, so I'm thinking of switching to Solo or Telus because their plans are cheaper.