>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Regional >
Americas
> America?
Bookmark topic
Bingo. Coverage costs money. Margins on return are low for wireless companies (can believe that or not, but I have seen the figures). Everyone wants coverage, but no one wants the tower in sight. Why would a carrier put up a tower that has a low rate of usage up? That is a loss of money. And that is what it comes down to. $$$$.
--
Posted: 2004-02-15 16:07:16
Edit :
Quote
One of the things that impressed me while I was living in Hong Kong is the difference in competitiveness between mobile providers in the US and Asia. Over there, you buy your phone unlocked, and if you are not happy with one provider's service, you can pull out your SIM and go subscribe to another. This keeps the various providers on their toes and extremely customer-focussed.
Back in the US, it's a different matter. The business model is to deeply discount phones, which are then locked so the customer can't easily switch. There are contracts with high penalties for breaking. This makes it harder for the consumer to switch if he isn't getting good service.
--
Posted: 2004-02-25 21:55:05
Edit :
Quote
One big reason that gsm sucks in the US is the fact that the landline(fixed) telecom penetration is around 104% , thus the request for mobile comunication is lower than in other countries.These days in Europa is easier to get a mobile phone, than a fixed one.
Another reason is the fact that u guys put up the analogic network in the whole US in the last 20 years and now times caught up with u ..digital era came for u sooner than expected.They've tried to improve the analogic netws with TDMA and PCS (which are digitals) but then GSM came and they have abandoned the ideea and switched to 1900 mhz and now the 850mhz.
Also u have the problem(in my opinon) with the obsolete CDMA networks which r the most established netws in the States.They r behind a bit comparing to GSM but they put up the CDMA2000 mode, which is better and up to par with GSM but requires an upgrade..which i guess some of the carriers r doing.
But u do fine, gsm spereads more and more and in time, u'll get coverage. For the other questions, some of the guys in here already replied.
--
Posted: 2004-02-26 00:45:49
Edit :
Quote
I would disagree with your opinion regarding CDMA. CDMA is actually ahead of GSM in most places. 3G technology has been available on the US CDMA network for more than a year now which means US is one of the few countries where 3G is available.
--
Posted: 2004-02-26 08:02:58
Edit :
Quote
But how much 3G is actually available? Not much. But, then again, those in the USaren't that interested in it. Yet. Willbe years before really becomes a more general want.
--
Posted: 2004-02-26 14:07:33
Edit :
Quote
TDMA/GSM/CDMA: The US was infact ahead of europe, and the AMPS standard reflects that. Before there was GSM or talk about GSM there was AMPS. Original AMPS was simply analog FDM. Which means there was a frequency division. So your handset would send on one frequency and receive on another. This allowed "full duplex" comminication that we're all so used to. Anyways, GSM started to grow up around the same time as D-AMPS (IS-136) started be shaped. D-AMPS is what people call TDMA. D-AMPS used the same frequency and channel width as AMPS, but added the concept of time slots. This timeslot concept is TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) and is the same concept that GSM is built off of. So when you say "TDMA" you're describing BOTH GSM AND D-AMPS (IS-136).
They differ however in implementation. Because early US cellular systems were analog, they only needed very small (30khz FD) ammounts of spectrum for transmit and receive (per channel). When they decided to go digital, they were required to maintain backwards compatability with old analog systems. To do so they needed to keep the size of their channels the same (to maximize their spectrum). Mixing GSM 200 KHz and D-AMPS 30KHz channels would create overlap or unused spectrum, and this is not acceptable.
Additionally, Europe first decided on the 900MHz band for thier TDMA implementation. For the US, this was not possible as that band is reserved for ISM (Industrual, Scientific, Medical) unlicensed use. Changing this would be no walk in the park.
I'm not sure which digital standard was ratified first, but its clear that both are very similar technologies. D-AMPS uses a 30KHz channel divided into 3 timeslots - GSM uses 200KHz channels with 8 timeslots. IIRC, the transmit time on GSM is very short on GSM (time per slot) compared to D-AMPS. However, in the end they do the same thing.
As far as 3G goes. I dont know of any major carriers that have genuine 3G fully rolled out anywhere. GPRS/EDGE/1xRTT are NOT 3G. These are 2.5G technologies (except GPRS which is 2G). UMTS (WCDMA) will be 3G (if my understanding is correct). Verizon has started to roll out EVDV in the US which is genuine 3G.
Others have properly explained why we pay for incoming calls (which is basically because local calls are free).
In general, despite what other posters have said, the US has always been ahead of the world in telecom issues (it was invented here, afterall). The fact that we're ahead sometimes dictates that we have to stay compatible with our legacy systems and can't always be jumping on the "international standards" bandwagon.
As far as the P900 goes, that has everything to do with consumer demand. People in the US dont spend that much on their phones.
--
Posted: 2004-02-26 20:52:56
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
Additionally, Europe first decided on the 900MHz band for thier TDMA implementation. For the US, this was not possible as that band is reserved for ISM (Industrual, Scientific, Medical) unlicensed use. Changing this would be no walk in the park.
As far as 3G goes. I dont know of any major carriers that have genuine 3G fully rolled out anywhere. GPRS/EDGE/1xRTT are NOT 3G. These are 2.5G technologies (except GPRS which is 2G). UMTS (WCDMA) will be 3G (if my understanding is correct). Verizon has started to roll out EVDV in the US which is genuine 3G.
In general, despite what other posters have said, the US has always been ahead of the world in telecom issues (it was invented here, afterall). The fact that we're ahead sometimes dictates that we have to stay compatible with our legacy systems and can't always be jumping on the "international standards" bandwagon.
Yes, the mobile phone was invented in the US but then nothing happened. Other countries had national networks rolled out before the US. As in the popular case of the Scandinavian countries, where the NMT network covered the entire Scandinavian peninsula very early on and where the phone per capita penetration amassed very early on. Finland, Sweden, Japan, and Hong Kong were the countries that first could brag with having most of their population using the mobile phone technology.
GPRS is 2.5G and I would say that EDGE and 1xRTT is 2.75G to be exact. Anyway, there are several countries that now have WCDMA or UMTS fully rolled out including Austria, Sweden, Japan, Korea, and others.
As for a lot of other issues, US are often ahead in technology but lag behind when providing it to the general public.
_________________
Everyone is welcome to visit my latest web projects:
Nudie Jeans Forum and
Wine Forum[ This Message was edited by: amagab on 2004-02-26 21:39 ]
--
Posted: 2004-02-26 22:36:38
Edit :
Quote
"As for a lot of other issues, US are often ahead in technology but lag behind when providing it to the general public."
You got it right.
--
Posted: 2004-02-27 22:39:38
Edit :
Quote
What EXACTLY defines 3G?
AT&T US is advertising 3G access, but I know they are still using GSM, GPRS and some EDGE (total rollout yet?). I am meeting with some AT&T reps tomorrow and I want to know why they are advertising 3G when their services are obviously still 2G.
Someone help me make AT&T look like fools... They deserve it, if only because they call their GPRS and related services mMode. (Of course, T-Mobile is calling it T-Zones, which is just as stupid.)
--
Posted: 2004-03-04 00:02:33
Edit :
Quote
A lot of companies in the US has advertised 3G when it's not. There was also an article in a wireless magazine that talked about 3G and there was a picture of the T68i. They couldn't have been more off topic.
3G is the technology that allows for video conference conversations or streaming video (without interruptions) broadcasting.
GPRS is considered 2.5G and is available on T-Mobile, AT&T, Cingular, and others.
EDGE is somewhat between GPRS and 3G. I guess you can call it 2.75G if you want term like that.
The terms used in the US has been a little off target because there is not nationwide standard as in other parts of the world. I would blame the confusion on the fact that US providers don't cooperate or talk to each other to come up with mutual standards. They all want to do their own thing. However, there have been some improvements lately between the US GSM providers.
--
Posted: 2004-03-04 06:41:02
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
