Jump to content

If lte is gsm, then what's the CDMA 4g?

Ascertion
 Share

Recommended Posts

lordsutch Member Level: eHRPD

lordsutch

Posted
Posted

Technically the hypothetical UMB was CDMA's (3GPP2's) answer to LTE. WiMax and WiMax Advanced was a whole different industry grouping.

 

LTE is an evolution (hence the "E") of the ideas behind GSM and UMTS (W-CDMA, including HSPA etc.), but airside it's yet another incompatible thing, so it's not really GSM except that pretty much everyone in the GSM camp went GSM->UMTS->LTE and in the US SIM cards have mostly been associated with GSM carriers but not with CDMA carriers (CDMA SIMs do exist but no carrier in the US uses them - even on Verizon, the user-removable SIM only does LTE and sometimes GSM roaming).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigsnake49 Member Level: LTE Advanced

bigsnake49

Posted
Posted

Technically the hypothetical UMB was CDMA's (3GPP2's) answer to LTE. WiMax and WiMax Advanced was a whole different industry grouping.

 

LTE is an evolution (hence the "E") of the ideas behind GSM and UMTS (W-CDMA, including HSPA etc.), but airside it's yet another incompatible thing, so it's not really GSM except that pretty much everyone in the GSM camp went GSM->UMTS->LTE and in the US SIM cards have mostly been associated with GSM carriers but not with CDMA carriers (CDMA SIMs do exist but no carrier in the US uses them - even on Verizon, the user-removable SIM only does LTE and sometimes GSM roaming).

 

There's absolutely nothing GSM abt LTE. Not the air protocol nor the backend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iansltx Member Level: 4G WiMax

iansltx

Posted
Posted

LTE is to GSM as German is to English or Latin is to Spanish. Am I right?

 

LTE has more in common with WiMAX and 802.11n WiFi than it does with W-CDMA or GSM. Heck, it has more in common with iDEN than it does with GSM.

 

The big reason LTE is associated with GSM, bigger even than the fact that both techs always use SIMs, is that both LTE and GSM/UMTS/HSPA came from the same standards body: 3GPP. WiMAX came from IEEE, like WiFi. CDMA is a Qualcomm tech, but its standards branch has wound up as 3GPP2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boosted20V Member Level: eHRPD

Boosted20V

Posted
Posted

LTE has more in common with WiMAX and 802.11n WiFi than it does with W-CDMA or GSM. Heck, it has more in common with iDEN than it does with GSM.

 

The big reason LTE is associated with GSM, bigger even than the fact that both techs always use SIMs, is that both LTE and GSM/UMTS/HSPA came from the same standards body: 3GPP. WiMAX came from IEEE, like WiFi. CDMA is a Qualcomm tech, but its standards branch has wound up as 3GPP2.

 

I know Qualcomm's licensing revenues are doing very nicely seeing as 3G EVDO/CDMA tech is still heavily used and will be around for quite a while (especially in other parts of the world) but... in the future it must hurt them that they have no 4G tech to collect licensing revenue from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iansltx Member Level: 4G WiMax

iansltx

Posted
Posted

I know Qualcomm's licensing revenues are doing very nicely seeing as 3G EVDO/CDMA tech is still heavily used and will be around for quite a while (especially in other parts of the world) but... in the future it must hurt them that they have no 4G tech to collect licensing revenue from.

 

I think they'll be okay. There's this little think called Snapdragon that they've been making for awhile. I don't see that going out of style any time soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boosted20V Member Level: eHRPD

Boosted20V

Posted
Posted

I think they'll be okay. There's this little think called Snapdragon that they've been making for awhile. I don't see that going out of style any time soon.

 

I agree they've done a good job diversifying... also picking up ATI's mobile graphics division was excellent. I don't think the margin on the processors is near as nice as on licensing tech though! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boosted20V Member Level: eHRPD

Boosted20V

Posted
Posted

Sorry, I don't.

 

This article might explain things better than I can.

 

http://m.networkworl...mobify-bookmark

 

Haha, I just found the same article. Looks like Samsung/Qualcomm and Intel have solid portfolios. Intel did a good job acquiring patents from other players it looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fraydog Member Level: LTE Advanced

Fraydog

Posted
Posted

Why exactly was UMB development axed? Was it because they "projected" LTE to be more popular. Wasn't it cancelled along time ago?

 

Mainly it died on the vine because Verizon chose LTE and Sprint was already committed to WiMax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WiWavelength Member Level: LTE Advanced

WiWavelength

Posted
Posted

So how difficult would be to upgrade to Rev B? It is not just a software update I take.

 

EV-DO Rev B single carrier is likely just a software upgrade, as it adds in 64-QAM DRCs. But EV-DO Rev B multi carrier is a hardware upgrade, since the number of carrier channels is scalable, and those multiple carrier channels have to coordinate data throughput.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ascertion Member Level: LTE Advanced

Ascertion

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

EV-DO Rev B single carrier is likely just a software upgrade, as it adds in 64-QAM DRCs. But EV-DO Rev B multi carrier is a hardware upgrade, since the number of carrier channels is scalable, and those multiple carrier channels have to coordinate data throughput.

 

AJ

It would shut all of the HSDPA+ fanboys up if there was a CDMA carrier that had revB. Isn't revB friendly to battery too? I'm just assuming its not very cost efficient for Sprint, otherwise we'd probably have it.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lilotimz Member Level: LTE Advanced

lilotimz

Posted
Posted

I assume the problem is not cost efficiency but the fact that everything is to be replaced by NV hardware so why bother with getting new hardware just for rev B. Not to mention... I doubt it'd help that most sprint towers are over capacity and bogged down thanks to the T1 lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ascertion Member Level: LTE Advanced

Ascertion

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I assume the problem is not cost efficiency but the fact that everything is to be replaced by NV hardware so why bother with getting new hardware just for rev B. Not to mention... I doubt it'd help that most sprint towers are over capacity and bogged down thanks to the T1 lines.

Sprints adding back haul to every tower and depending on the type of RevB (as AJ mentioned), it could be software upgrade. Sprint will definitely have the right amount of back haul if the site is sporting lte speeds.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lilotimz Member Level: LTE Advanced

lilotimz

Posted
Posted

Sprints adding back haul to every tower and depending on the type of RevB (as AJ mentioned), it could be software upgrade. Sprint will definitely have the right amount of back haul if the site is sporting lte speeds.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm taking about people yelling for ReV. B last year before NV upgrades began. I remember people were complaining everywhere to upgrade to Rev B and idiots cancelling contracts because they didn't. Good times. It was all based on rumors and conjectures iirc.

 

Nowadays, sprint towers with NV and upgraded backhaul has the potential to do a lot more things than just a year before so rev B is definitely possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • topdownat4
      Keep a Word, Drop a Word #7

      By topdownat4 · Posted

      Fury Gran Coupe (My First Car - What a Boat...)
    • dkyeager
      Dish Network/Boost Mobile cell/5G buildout thread

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Definite usage quirks in hunting down these sites with a rainbow sim in a s24 ultra. Fell into a hole yesterday so sent off to T-Mobile purgatory. Try my various techniques. No Dish. Get within binocular range of former Sprint colocation and can see Dish equipment. Try to manually set network and everybody but no Dish is listed.  Airplane mode, restart, turn on and off sim, still no Dish. Pull upto 200ft from site straight on with antenna.  Still no Dish. Get to manual network hunting again on phone, power off phone for two minutes. Finally see Dish in manual network selection and choose it. Great signal as expected. I still think the 15 minute rule might work but lack patience. (With Sprint years ago, while roaming on AT&T, the phone would check for Sprint about every fifteen minutes. So at highway speed you could get to about the third Sprint site before roaming would end). Using both cellmapper and signalcheck.net maps to hunt down these sites. Cellmapper response is almost immediate these days (was taking weeks many months ago).  Their idea of where a site can be is often many miles apart. Of course not the same dataset. Also different ideas as how to label a site, but sector details can match with enough data (mimo makes this hard with its many sectors). Dish was using county spacing in a flat suburban area, but is now denser in a hilly richer suburban area.  Likely density of customers makes no difference as a poorer urban area with likely more Dish customers still has country spacing of sites.
    • dkyeager
      SignalCheck Beta Crew Forum

      By dkyeager · Posted

      Mike if you need more Dish data, I have been hunting down sites in western Columbus.  So far just n70 and n71 reporting although I CA all three.
    • S4GRU
      Keep a Word, Drop a Word #7

      By S4GRU · Posted

      Nissan Coupe
    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      Good catch! I meant 115932/119932. Edited my original post I've noticed the same thing lately and have just assumed that they're skipping it now because they're finally able to deploy mmWave small cells.

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...