Verizon dumps CDMA for GSM-based LTE in 4G networks
By Chris Ziegler 
posted September 21st 2007 12:28PM
posted September 21st 2007 12:28PM
Just a few months removed from rumors that Vodafone would offload its stake in Verizon Wireless altogether, the two networks have announced that they'll share a common selection for their fourth-generation data networks: Long-Term Evolution. Endorsed by the 3GPP as the official way to burn wireless rubber in the next few years, LTE is a progression of GSM's UMTS platform, making it an ironic choice for CDMA stalwart Verizon and a huge blow for the CDMA Development Group's competing UMB standard. It seems that the unusual move was influenced by the fact that the sister networks -- two of the world's largest -- should probably enjoy some semblance of technological synergy if they're going to carry on their blissful matrimony for the foreseeable future, with Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg saying the company has been looking for "stability" in the relationship. Whatever the case, don't throw away that brand spanking new VX8550 or anything rash like that -- the companies aren't looking to roll anything out for another three or four years.
And as I said in Engadget mobile; Qualcomm is laughing all the way to the bank with this one.
Is qualcomm laughing and broadcom crying? I'm trying to figure out who is getting screwed here so I can short their stock
what does this mean for blackberry users? What about traveling internationally?
What does this mean for voice? Is there any hope of VZW dumping CDMA in favor of GSM?
Why the hell would they want to do that? To force their users to get new headsets? That would be incredibly stupid.
For voice, CDMA is superior to GSM. Data remains yet to be seen, but right now EVDO rev. a (CDMA) is on top.
Yeah, I'm kind of hoping that CDMA and EVDO remain for a long time. I love the transfer speed and sound quality. (That and I don't have to listen to my speakers pop every time someone messages me.)
Are you kidding me? This, if true, is the biggest news in wireless telephony ever in the US. Even more monumental than a new carrier entering the market.
Does this mean Verizon may finally allow sim cards?
IN YOUR FACE cdma!
Yea in your face LTE = UMTS = CDMA! So your happy that Verizon is abandoning CDMA in favor of the next version of CDMA. Yea....
Trent, why do you say LTE = CDMA??? They are nothing alike...
The good thing is that they're running with the GSM association. This should mean that they'll be a lot more competition in the US market - between both the carriers and the handset manufacturers. You might finally be able to use some of the great high-end Nokia, Sony Ericsson and (yup, you've guessed it) Apple hardware on Verizon.
Of course, this is still a long way off. By then everything might have changed. Maybe Qualcomm will completely disappear up their own asses never to be seen again. Maybe Verizon will go bankrupt. Maybe carrier-controlled telecoms will be a distant memory.
Xbit-
It won't happen. If it does, and VZW sees some cool hardware from SE, Apple, whatever, you can bet it will be locked down tighter than Guantanamo. Verizon will disable half of its stock abilities and load it up with their horrible RED operating system, strip any cool unique features to the device. Typical Verizon style. Don't expect anything to change because of this announcement.
PARTNERS with INCOMPATIBLE NETWORKS.
A move for Verizon to the GSM Evolution of network (UMTS/LTE) would be HUGE!!
- Greater global reach for subscribers (without the need for one-off hybrids) like AT&T.
- Vodafone Subs will be able to roam on Verizon’s US (currently on T-mobile & AT&T).
- CDMA Should have been dumped like years ago (like AT&T dumped TDMA).
- ESNs instead of device independent SIMs (like AT&T), is, well, antiquated & stupid.
- Qualcomm gets to bite the BIG one. This makes Broadcom, Ericsson, Nokia all happy.
SO WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG VERIZODAFONE? SCHMUCKS!
I couldn't have said it any better.
But CDMA is better than GSM for voice! And before you say SIM, look at R-UIM. It's doing great in other countries that use CDMA.
But CDMA is better than GSM for voice! And before you say SIM, look at R-UIM. It's doing great in other countries that use CDMA.
"like AT&T dumped TDMA"
GSM is, in fact, an implementation of TDMA
This would certainly suck for Sprint clients. We only get a slim selection of phones as it is, it would be even worse if Verizon doesn't order similar units - less incentive for manufacturer's to make CDMA phones, the prices would probably go up as well. Worse yet - who will we roam to if Verizon isn't using CDMA?
I'd say China, Korea, and other countries are a big encentive for CDMA headsets.
Yeah, unfortunately, I'm never in China when I need to roam to Verizon. Also not many of the WM PDAPhones I'm interested are sold in those markets.
...and so starts the biggest logistical night mare ever.
Unlike the (Legacy) AT&T Wireless born out of Mc Caw / Cellular One, I think big red will actually know how to implement a migration without looking like total tards.
Also, if anyone thinks Qualcomm doesn't have a piece of the upcoming pie, think again. *cough flarion*
"I think big red will actually know how to implement a migration without looking like total tards" - I disagree. Have you seen how long it takes them to even launch a new phone? I can't imagine they'll make a big more like this without dragging their feet forever
Verizon's adoption of GSM also adds to the pool of stuff AT&T is eventually going to absorb. Are there any more substantial-sized US GSM operators not owned by AT&T?
you guys do realize, that the air interface used in 3G is a form of CDMA (W-CDMA), and that current GSM (2G) uses TDMA as its air interface? qualcomm owns many patents related to W-CDMA (as do Nokia and Ericsson) so they're not entirely losing out.
and the same can be said about the OFDM-based technology behind LTE and UMB. No matter who wins, Qualcomm wins.....well....except if Wi-Max wins....
Victor, WiMAX is also OFDM based.
good because i just got my VX8550 a month ago haha
Ya I think for free & fair competition all networks should use the same tech. Thats the one thing good about Europe and the ability to take your phone to any network (provided its unlocked and they all unlock one way or the other).
I always buy unlocked phones anyways.
...CDMA phones are unlocked. I can go take my plethora of Verizon and Sprint phones, and go use them on Altel (or did Altel stop doing that?), or move to China or Korea or Africa or some European countries and use them there.
Everyone should just switch to CDMA...it is better than GSM, and if carriers allow R-UIM cards, there are pretty much no pros for GSM over CDMA.
...CDMA phones are unlocked. I can go take my plethora of Verizon and Sprint phones, and go use them on Altel (or did Altel stop doing that?), or move to China or Korea or Africa or some European countries and use them there.
Everyone should just switch to CDMA...it is better than GSM, and if carriers allow R-UIM cards, there are pretty much no pros for GSM over CDMA.
(Sorry if ym\\my comment shows up twice, Engadget's crappy comments system is messing with me.)
CDMA phones are not unlocked. If they were one would be able to switch from Verizon to Sprint at any time. Even the R-UIM phones can be locked to a specific carrier.
Well, that kind of locking is happening on the carrier end. And also, R-UIM phones are sold unlocked here in China (with Hong Kong counted as international roaming they'd have a bunch of pissy subscribers if they forced them to pay for international roaming in freakin' HK- hello, what happened to "one country"?) so if Verizon decides to do it and sells them locked you have a choice.
China uses GSM as well actually. My dad works there, his phone is a GSM Nokia. All CDMA phones sold in the US are locked to their carriers. Most carriers discourage moving phones to another network and is done by the process of lengthy codes and not simply inserting a SIM.
If my phone failed today... I just swap my SIM to another phone. If I was on Verizon I would have to call and make a lengthy process out of it.
"If my phone failed today... I just swap my SIM to another phone. If I was on Verizon I would have to call and make a lengthy process out of it."
If my phone failed today... I just call Sprint, order a new phone (through insurance), and do an ESN change on my account and use another phone. It took me 10-15 minutes tops (including the time do dial, and go through the options).
Good so now my Att phone can roam off T-mobile and Verizon towers
I'll be the first to claim general ignorance in this area, so please keep the flaming to a minimum, but isn't EDGE a GSM technology, and if so, if the 4G standard went back to GSM, doesn't that mean AT&T could leapfrog to the front of the bandwidth race? Does this also mean that 2G phones (iPhone) could be upgraded to 4G with just a firmware update? That last is probably an irrelevant question given the article says this is 3-4 years out. Still, I'm trying to understand.
No.
I'm sorry but I do not quite understand what exactaly is being questioned. I understand that Verizon uses CDMA and basically the rest of the world is GSM. But what is Verizon and Vodafone talking about switching to, GSM? Is this network that they are going to switch going to diminish call quality to carriers like ATT and Tmobile?
Could someone care to explain this background info.
Thanks
A quick break down of what is going on as I understand it.
Verizon and Vodaphone agreed to use the same G4 technology. The story also claimed it is GSM based.
So here is what this means for us now...
NOTHING, not a darn thing!! G4 is so far of it isn't even funny. Guestimates are at least four years, likelyhood is more..
Either way GSM as we know it is dead!!! The carriers in America already killed it, the current network Is Actually GPRS.. And UMTS which is the 3G highspeed version of GPRS is in actuallity a CDMA based technology.
Now here is the funny thing.. CDMA which is the Siuperior technology by all acounts is running out of time. Currently with EVDO Rev A, CDMA is WAY faster than GPRS and of course the Voice quality is better, but there is only so much faster or better that you can make CDMA so the carriers have been looking for alternatives for a while now. You don't hear about it, because carriers do not want the people worried about the future. Truth is people are so affraid to embrace change that the future we should have had by now will never come as quickly as it could have, (but I digress). So any way in a few years all current technolgy will be dead and I just hope all carriers can finally start agreeing to make technology that works together. Eventually all Communiation devices will work off of a Wireless Internet backbone anyway. It is just a matter of what wireless signals are used to do that. All the carriers know that things need to change, technolgy needs to change. It is just a matter of how and when, but do NOT expect it to happen any time soon. We were reading about 3G in 93 and it has only become ubiquitus over the last few years and even then only on CDMA. The GSM/GPRS carriers have yet to fully role out 3G. Heck T-Mobile may never even do it.
Ugh. I would explain everything that is wrong with your post to you, but I would hit some sort of character limit.
Research the GSM Association and you will understand why people are saying that this is a "GSM technology." You are referring to CDMA as being dead soon, not even knowing that the GSM Association is using W-CDMA for 3G, and likely 4G as well.
Current CDMA Technology is at it's limit. WCDMA, UMTS all that new stuff is NEW stuff, based on old stuff. Still all better than GSM in which case the new generations to come will be based on CDMA. Like you said hard to break it all down.
WIMAX is here or around the corner...Sprint will jump ahead in USA in two years... Why not?
What do you think will happen to Verizons network? The hardware will be bought up by other companies and anyone wondering, "How will I roam on Verizon if they drop CDMA???!!11" is just an idiot.
Geez, I get so tired of people saying that "CDMA is better than GSM for voice." To say one is better sounding than the other is oversimplifying.
CDMA is an air interface. GSM is NOT an air interface. GSM uses TDMA for an air interface. You are comparing apples and oranges.
To compare voice quality, you must look deeper and investigate the codecs on both systems.
Does the efficiency of an air interface transmitting the voice data affect breaking up in a call? Sure. But the codec is where you get your voice quality.
If you are comparing (at a perfect signal) the CDMA2000 codecs to EFR on GSM, or even AMR full rate, I'd take the GSM family of codecs any day. Put GSM codecs on a CDMA (or W-CDMA as UMTS is doing) and you can easily see why Vodafone is choosing this path for Verizon.
I wonder if this means they will be going with SIM cards for the new phones.
I wonder if this means they will be going with SIM cards for the new phones.
In terms of call quality CDMA calls are clearer. They also have excellent background noise filtration, unlike GSM. In terms of switching between calls, call status on the handset etc GSM is much more advanced. CDMA operates almost like a POTS service with a flash button. Whereas with GSM, switiching between calls is seamless, almost like a PC based VOIP calling system. A GSM phone, for example, can advise you if the other person you are calling is on a call themselves. On some networks you can have up to 5 callers on hold at once, using GSM, and switch seamlessly between then.
Not having a sim-style card is huge blow for CDMA. Now in terms of coverage CDMA is almost the same as the old analogue networks. It does not matter whether you are 100 miles from a base station; if the handset receives a signal you will be able to make a call. Whereas since GSM is basically TDMA, after x distance the handset is not able to process a call without affecting other people's services. Therefore it will not allow you to proceed with a call.
As far as data it's funny that Verizon is using a subset of "GSM" (it's not really GSM like you think) for high speed data, because HSDSPA that Cingular uses is just a subset of CDMA. LOL
This has nothing to do with CDMA vs. GSM in the style of voice calls and the little chips. It's just a sub-protocol used in the backhanding of data. It means nothing.
For the record CDMA for voice network is far superior, that's not opinion it's just fact of the way the network is designed. You can pretty much see this by picking up any CDMA handset and a GSM handset and making a call.
I have at least one or two phone on every north american (major) celluar provider, and I'm shocked to tell you that CDMA is so much clear for calls. It's actually frustrating because GSM networks have the cool phones, while CDMA networks sound like landlines (back when I had them). It's probably why the CIA, DoD, and Much of the military forward command uses a version of CDMA not GSM.
Also in Japan CDMA (a version) is used in the most advanced networks.