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

    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      As far as I know it's ubiquitous. Ultimately the network decides if you should use VoNR vs VoLTE but pretty much anytime my phone is in standalone mode and I place a call, it goes over NR.   Yup, it was terrible. After a while, I just connected to the WiFi, and that worked fine at about 90Mbps. I get the feeling that rather than doing a "real" upgrade where they install new antennas, upgrade backhaul, etc., T-Mobile instead installed new radios onto the existing and already overloaded DAS and called it a day, which isn't enough. Compared to Yankee Stadium, where they actually went and deployed new antennas/radios for their n41 upgrade, and you're able to get upwards of 200Mbps at sold-out games, Arthur Ashe really is a joke. What's worse is that the folks in their NOC likely know this already, but no effort is being made to change that. I'm not asking for T-Mobile to deploy mmWave everywhere like Verizon but there is a real use case for it at stadiums.
    • Wfmets45
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Wfmets45 · Posted

      Does anyone know how well implemented is VoNR in the 5 boroughs. Does anyone use it? I have an iPhone 15 Pro. Does anyone know if T-Mobile is still working on upgrading their network? It seems like the service has gone down. My phone struggles in parts of the Belt Pkwy, and data is slow. 
    • RAvirani
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By RAvirani · Posted

      I come to the US Open men’s semifinals and finals every year, and I’ve never been able to use my T-Mobile phone successfully. Usually AT&T is the top performer—good to hear Verizon has upped their game. 
    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      All done!
    • Paynefanbro
      Network Vision/LTE - New York City Market

      By Paynefanbro · Posted

      One sector down, two more to go — — — — —  I was at Arthur Ashe Stadium for the U.S. Open today and the good news is that there is an n25/41 DAS setup throughout USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. From the "boardwalk" to the outdoor concession area, to inside the stadium; you connect to standalone n41 and n25 everywhere via oDAS and iDAS. The bad news is that in the actual stadium it's beyond useless. While I saw strong coverage as indicated by signal bars and I was able to make calls and send texts, there was no data throughput at all. Running a speed test failed 9 out of 10 times. The only time I got a speed test to work was by switching to LTE funnily enough or by using NSA 5G where the test would initiate via LTE and then n41 would kick in giving me ~20Mbps. T-Mobile has so much traffic on their 5G network that now n41 gets bogged down before LTE. That was a first for me! In the stadium in the same area Verizon got 1.2Gbps on mmWave and LTE kept timing out when trying to test it. My Boost line on AT&T got upwards of 150Mbps on C-band and I know they have mmWave deployed as I saw their Nokia mmWave antennas deployed but I was unable to test it. In the outdoor concession area T-Mobile performed well getting over 150Mbps on n41. AT&T in these areas saw over 250Mbps on C-band and I didn't get the opportunity to test Verizon there. It just seems like 140MHz n41 is not enough capacity for the amount of people inside the stadium. Hopefully T-Mobile is considering deploying n258 to all of these stadiums since they now own that mmWave nationwide. It'd make a world of difference in terms of capacity at these venues. Bonus Pics: Verizon and AT&T mmWave Hidden carrier neutral DAS: 

  • Recently Browsing

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