Talk:Comparison of mobile phone standards

Kudos to the Authors

Hey guys, just wanted to thank everyone for the "cocktail party" analogy explaining the difference between TDMA and CDMA. I am by no means an expert on modulation technologies, but I've made a good living as a technical writer, and that was one of the best analogies I have ever seen in my life. Thank you. Yiddophile (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

is this Avneesh Rupal's personal page?--Hattusili 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but this seems to be the only page that user has ever edited, and I don't think there's ever been a good edit. I've added a note to the user's talk page. --Mdwyer 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I take that back and apologize. Apparently, Avneesh wrote the initial article. However, editors on Wikipedia generally do not sign or otherwise take ownership of an article. --Mdwyer 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apples/Pears

Isn't comparing GSM to CDMA like comparing Apples and Pears... Or even Apples and Peanuts.

Compare GSM vs. UMTS, etc. and then Compare CDMA, FDMA, etc. would be more usefull I guess.

Moreso we're comparing Fruits to Oranges. Technically, we should be comparing TDMA versus CDMA, possibly against FDMA. Especially since the lines are getting rather blury. I understand that the next generation of GSM services is going to use a CDMA air-interface. I think what the article is trying to do, however, is compare the GSM phones used by most of the world with the CDMA phones used by some American carriers and much of the Asian markets. Frankly, the stuff I wrote was comparing my SprintPCS CDMA phone against what I know of a friend's T-Mobile phone.

This article really doesn't need to be here -- it just invites religious wars. I hoped I could add a little more to it, though. --Mdwyer 05:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good analogy with "fruites and oranges", better then mine (Apples/Pears). I see, there have been some changes made towards this. I'll see what I can do to improve it further... Tried a few things here and there, didn't like it in the end, so I didn't submit. I don't think this will go anywhere. IMO the article should be either completely rewritten (which I don't have time/will to do) or deleted since as it is now it doesn't make any sense from either a technical or a scientific point of view. -def

Gosh, I dunno... I kind of liked this article. I was trying to understand Qualcomm's big to-do in India, and the combination of this article and the individual articles on CDMA and GSM, along with Qualcomm cleared everything up for me. I was considering buying Qualcomm stock, and since their CDMA patents are pretty much their biggest asset, this article helped me understand what is perceived as the major alternative (GSM) and how it compares. Beagley

Power consumption

It doesn't seem to follow that CDMA uses less power than GSM. GSM phones are almost invariably smaller than equivalent CDMA phones, and have longer talk and standby times. My coworkers with CDMA phones are amazed that I can go a week or more without charging my tiny little phone, and can talk for 4 hours. If the article is saying that CDMA cell 'towers' use less power, then that should be made clear. ~19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

History and security

My company is trying to outlaw GSM phones based on a claim that they are less secure than CDMA phones. I've found evidence that some of the GSM algorythms have been cracked, but localo cell providers tell me that their implementation doesn't use these algorythms because they're obsolete.

Now my company's security guy is claiming that CDMA is more secure because it was developed by the US military. (They also developed Ada (programming language), but that doesn't make it better than any other computing language) Unless the reference is to the use of CDMA in GPS, I haven't read anywhere that the US military was involved in CDMA.

I would like to see some comparison of security for the two standards from someone with experience in the area. ~19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment doesn't make any sense for the same reasons as above. There is no GSM vs. CDMA, since 3G GSM does use CDMA. CDMA was not developed by anybody, it is just one of the different possible principles of how to manage concurrent access to one single ether. Anybody could develop his/her own TDMA, FDMA or CDMA protocol as he/her likes. --65.241.15.227 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CDMA certainly has uses in the military, because it is difficult to jam and very spectrum-efficient. It is also somewhat difficult to detect, since it doesn't show up on a traditional radio scanner. I rather like Steve Denbeste's answer: It is harder than a wired phone, but possible to eavesdrop[1]. If someone wants to monitor your calls, they can do it easier by monitoring the wired portion of your call. Your cell phone isn't totally secure -- nothing is -- but it is usually more than sufficient, and it is MUCH better than the old AMPS phones, which you could listen to with any old scanner.

For what it is worth, CDMA's 'encryption' hasn't been broken yet, to my knowledge. --Mdwyer 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IS-95 and the iPhone

I have deleted for the second time something about how the iPhone is being released for GSM only so far. I don't think this is the right audience for this kind of sour-grapes stuff, so I have removed the specific mention of the iPhone again. Instead I mentioned that features come later to CDMA phones. I don't even think THAT is true, though -- CDMA has been leading the charge in high-speed data, and I'm pretty sure they were the first to have GPS functionality in their phones.

As an aside: The fact that the American phone companies can't seem to deliver the PRODUCTS is another issue entirely *grumble*. Here's some sour grapes of my own: Maybe if Apple would have chosen CDMA, they would have been able to have decent high-speed data with good battery life on their shiny little toy.

Well, Apple now also launched the iPhone on time for the holiday season 2007 in European countries like the UK or Germany, expected in France soon. They hadn't been able to do so if they had chosen IS-95, which is never heart of in most parts of the world. Since Apple wants to gain market share aggressively, GSM is their only option.--65.241.15.227 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the German (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) Wikipedia explains that "GSM Phone" is just another word for "Mobile Phone"

Ein [= "a"] Mobiltelefon (auch [= "also"] Handy, Funktelefon, GSM-Telefon, Funker, in der Schweiz auch Natel) ist …

and the article doesn't mention other standards. Mobiltelefon--68.6.44.232 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, these are marketing issues, and I'd prefer to keep this article about technical issues, especially since marketing of cellular phones is so drastically different between continents. --Mdwyer 19:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Network Effect

iPhone and other GSM users will be able to use their handsets in Air France's inflight full mobile phone service:

http://corporate.airfrance.com/index.php?id=communiques_detail&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2699&L=1&no_cache=1

CDMA phones will not work.

Flight companies of course will select GSM, because they target over 80 % over their global flight guests with it.

So if I want my device to work in airplanes, I better follow Apple and build a GSM device. --65.241.15.227 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GSM interference with audio devices

Under cons of GSM, it says that it interferes with audio devices. But then it says "3G uses W-CDMA now." How is that relevent?? Fresheneesz 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

TDMA signals turn on and off about 50 times a second. This shows up as a 50hz noize in unshielded electronics -- especially amplifiers. CDMA signals are always on, and so they do not interfere in this particular way. Many people consider that particular interference to unique to GSM. It isn't. It is a feature of TDMA, and when GSM moves to its next generation, they will no longer be using TDMA, and GSM phones will no longer cause that terrible noise. Does that help? --Mdwyer 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What audio codec is used?

Which codec and at what bitrate are these various standards sending audio? Might be worthwhile to add to the article (since I'm curious to know). - Theaveng 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

CDMA (IS-95) uses the Enhanced Variable Rate Codec, which runs from about 8kb/s to as low as 800bytes/s. GSM (2G) appears to use a number of codecs, (see GSM) which range from 13kb/s to 1.8kb/s.

Although it looks like CDMA is the clear winner, it is important to note that EVRC is not intended to transmit understandable speech at that rate. The full story must always take into account the quality of the transmitted signal. It might be best to direct you to the GSM or List of codecs articles. --Mdwyer 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Spectral efficiency comparison table

Please feel free to add more mobile phone standards to the Spectral efficiency comparison table. Mange01 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Time

Why not list the standard according to their time of first use?--218.103.189.9 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Traceability comparison of networks and cell phones

Which include

• the time of sms receiving
• the time of sms sending
• the time of calling
• the time of answering

etc--222.67.219.83 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Need to add AWS

Advanced Wireless Services is missing from the comparison. Should be added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

IS-95 benefits?

It lists "Capacity is IS-95's biggest asset; it can accommodate more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology." Is there any documentation to back this up? At least on spectral efficiency it is not true. Also WCDMA with CS over HSPA can offer significant increases. Seems that it's more of a marketing claim without any evidence provided in the article. Facts/figures? Anyone? Nasula (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole GSM and IS-95 advantages disavantages reads a bit like a cut&paste from marketing slides of both technologies. Some data is outdated and some make claims that seem a bit "bold". How should we compare the different technologies? By timeline? With additions as to why some technology superceded it? It would maybe give people a better understanding of the true relative strengths and weaknesses. As it now stands it's a mediocre comparison of two already diminshing 2G technologies. Not that they are not important, but many would likely like to learn more about EV-DO, WCDMA, HSPA, LTE & WiMax. The question is how should we proceed? The current comparison doesn't really scale to more tech. Nasula (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

NMT should be removed from the table

As the last NMT network in Scandinavia formally closed down 31 December 2007, and as the network in practice had lost all but a few subscribers to GSM already 15 years earlier, I think the NMT column should be removed from the table.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Reason: it was a 1G technology and as the most widespread of the 1G technologies, gives a viewpoint into the evolution of the standards via comparison. Nasula (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! It's not a "standard" color!?

The Wiki guidelines for opening leads might be considered here. In particular, the opening sentence and first few sentences.

The lazy overuse of hyperlinks in Wiki leads are liable to land people from all walks of life here who only want a quick def.
A specific example: A "standard" what!? A standard computer controlled telephoney communication protocol perhaps? I dunno.

Quotes: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—

... Provide an accessible overview

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSINTRO#First_sentence

Doug Bashford--69.110.90.60 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?

1. The title suggests the article is about standards, which are definitions set by governing bodies. However, the article makes no mention of the ITU-T, the TIA, etc. The article begins with a long discussion of encoding schemes, which are not standards. IS-95 (cdmaOne) and IMT-MC (cdma2000) are standards. "CDMA", "TDMA" and "FDMA" are just encoding schemes and describing them in detail is probably better done in an article titled "Mobile communications multiplexing schemes" or something like that.
2. Is the title still current? The 3G and 4G standards do not just apply to voice and data via phones, they also apply to data only services via USB dongles and home base stations that enable personal computers to access cellular networks. Perhaps the title needs to be moved to "Comparison of mobile communications standards"?
3. If the article is truly intended to only be about wireless phone standards then why is there a chart about wireless Internet access? My hope is that the article is supposed to be about wireless communications standards, and if so, then the two charts need to be blended together.

Normally I'd just make some edits, but I don't feel I can do that until I get some input from others. Please respond to my ideas above and share some of your own. Until we can get at least a small consensus of what this article is trying to be, it doesn't make sense to move forward. Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you fully. The article should be about mobile phone standards and the multiplexing schemes should be separate (as they have their own descriptions). However I do also believe that some basics should be stated for a basic understanding of the different mobile phone standards as their main differences lie in the multiplexing and spectral bandwidth. But all in all I agree with your points. Maybe there should be a separate page giving a primer on different mobile telecommunications techniquest (multiplexing, modulation, mobility, handovers etc.) and then on page for comparison of standards?

The original article seems like a copy of one of the links, where many of the "claims" are either wrong (favouring IS-95) or outdated. I also don't see much point in comparing just IS-95 and GSM without taking into account cdma2000, WCDMA and LTE. It's not an easy subject to do properly that's why I didn't even attempt a reorg and major fix.

As to mobile phones vs. mobile communications, then We'd have to add WLAN:s etc, which are not really mobile, but more nomadic. Thus if you must change the title, make it mobile instead of wireless. Nasula (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the problem with the proposed new title, I agree "Wireless communications standards" is too broad. We could choose to restrict it to "Wireless cellular mobile communication service standards, but "mobile" seems to arbitrarily exclude fixed wireless services that are delivered over the same cellular network as mobile services, such as those being delivered via WiMax by Clear/Clearwire in the United States. Perhaps this article is really about Wireless cellular communication service standards. This 2002 Siemens whitepaper focus on 3G, but is in my opinion a good example of a way to approach this topic, if you look past the obvious marketing slant in favor of GSM over CDMA. (edited) Ch Th Jo (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Voice and data at the same time

I want to show what networks allow voice and data at the same time.

For example GSM/UMTS allow voice and data at the same time while CDMA2000 do not until SVDO is implemented: http://www.wpcentral.com/cdma-development-group-announces-svdo-handle-calls-and-data-same-time

Where should I put it? In the "Comparison table" or in the "Comparison of wireless Internet standards"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.200.214 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Comparison of wireless data standards" ?

There seems to be a ton of overlap between this page and the Comparison of wireless data standards. Why not merge them to avoid confusion and fragmentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRIFFnDOOR (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of mobile phone standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gsmworld.com/news/statistics/pdf/gsma_stats_q1_07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509174612/http://www.arcx.com/sites/faq.htm to http://www.arcx.com/sites/faq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509174612/http://www.arcx.com/sites/faq.htm to http://www.arcx.com/sites/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

The table is very good, but I feel it lacks important (to common folk) information like theoretical/real up/down-load (or up/down-stream) speed, frequency and range. And it's missing transitional generations like 1.5G, 3.9G etc. Also, for each one whether repeaters are possible (not clear to uneducated) which is quite important from the monetary standpoint. I started dabbling out of curiosity, but I am way over my head. Information I found sometimes seems contradictory, sometimes similar but different terms are used for the same general meaning... I feel I would need a degree to finish the table. So I hope someone in the know could expand the existing table with this. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Generation	Standard(s)	Theoretical Max Download Speed*	Real Max Download Speed*	Theoretical Max Upload Speed*	Real Max Upload Speed*	Frequency band	Channel spacing	Max Range (distance from antenna)	Year of commercial implementation
0G									1946
analog & digital encoding ↓
1G	NMT, AMPS, TACS…					400-450MHz			1979
1.5G	D-AMPS						30kHz
digital encoding ↓
2G	GSM					800-1900MHz			1991
	CDMAone					800-1900MHz
2.5G	GPRS	48kB/s							2000
2.9G	EDGE/EGPRS								2003
3G	UMTS	7.2Mbit/s		2Mbit/s		400MHz-3GHz			2001
	CDMA2000					400MHz-3Gz
3.5G	HSPA
3.75G	HSPA+ **	42Mbit/s		11Mbit/s
3.95G	LTE **								2009
	(Mobile) WiMAX **
4G	LTE **	150Mbit/s		50Mbit/s			5-20(40)MHz
	(Mobile) WiMAX **
	HSPA+ **
4.5G	LTE+/LTE Advanced								2007
	WiMAX 2								2007
4.9G	LTE Advanced Pro
5G	NR								2018

* latest and optimal iteration of technology
** originally weren't considered 4G, but after a revision of 4G definition they were included Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)