CDMA? Looks great! But...
Sunday, 17. February 2008, 11:04:08
I've used GSM mobile phone for years but I'll be frank. I'm a new user in the world of CDMA network mobile telecommunication. At first when I heard of that CDMA is better than GSM, I was curious and believed it. Now that I finally got my hands on a USB CDMA modem, I can see it for myself. Both as a consumer and as a programmer.
As a consumer...
There isn't any significant difference between CDMA and GSM except the data bandwidth. I can't argue that CDMA network has far greater speed over GSM network (up to 5 times). It's the second place after UMTS/3G network. You'll want this instead of GSM or the ancient 56k phone lines. Most CDMA devices are well designed although some don't. Talking about those that don't, I want to give BIG bold red WARNING to all consumers who are considering to purchase Venus VT-21 USB CDMA modem or any other types. Let me tell you: DON'T! - Don't even consider buying that product. It's an unstable device which has undergone THREE revisions (VT-10, VT-11, VT-21) but still doesn't solve a problem where the device will get unresponsive when it's overheated. Don't say I didn't warn you...
And as a programmer...
Ugh... The CDMA network sure is more complicated than GSM. In general, CDMA is more analog than GSM. The fact that CDMA has larger data bandwidth than GSM is because it was designed after the GSM. Thus it uses newer base of technology. But alas... it was designed by a commercial company and not by a telecommunication organization. Although it's accepted as a standard by telecommunication industry, it's only for the hardware part. There is minimal standard for the interface between the hardware to the software or vice versa. This makes CDMA device manufacturer to provide propietary interface. The largest manufacturer which is largely adopted by other ones is Qualcomm. So most of the devices in the market have similar interface (but not the same). Regardless, since Qualcomm is a commercial company, the specification for the interface is not an open specification. Although there is a publicly (and freely) accessible specification, it only covers the "outer" part of the interface. The core itself, which is about 80% of the specification is most probably not free. This forces programmers to purchase the specification and may need to do that for EACH AND EVERY manufacturer. How's that? Feeling sick already?
As a consumer...
There isn't any significant difference between CDMA and GSM except the data bandwidth. I can't argue that CDMA network has far greater speed over GSM network (up to 5 times). It's the second place after UMTS/3G network. You'll want this instead of GSM or the ancient 56k phone lines. Most CDMA devices are well designed although some don't. Talking about those that don't, I want to give BIG bold red WARNING to all consumers who are considering to purchase Venus VT-21 USB CDMA modem or any other types. Let me tell you: DON'T! - Don't even consider buying that product. It's an unstable device which has undergone THREE revisions (VT-10, VT-11, VT-21) but still doesn't solve a problem where the device will get unresponsive when it's overheated. Don't say I didn't warn you...
And as a programmer...
Ugh... The CDMA network sure is more complicated than GSM. In general, CDMA is more analog than GSM. The fact that CDMA has larger data bandwidth than GSM is because it was designed after the GSM. Thus it uses newer base of technology. But alas... it was designed by a commercial company and not by a telecommunication organization. Although it's accepted as a standard by telecommunication industry, it's only for the hardware part. There is minimal standard for the interface between the hardware to the software or vice versa. This makes CDMA device manufacturer to provide propietary interface. The largest manufacturer which is largely adopted by other ones is Qualcomm. So most of the devices in the market have similar interface (but not the same). Regardless, since Qualcomm is a commercial company, the specification for the interface is not an open specification. Although there is a publicly (and freely) accessible specification, it only covers the "outer" part of the interface. The core itself, which is about 80% of the specification is most probably not free. This forces programmers to purchase the specification and may need to do that for EACH AND EVERY manufacturer. How's that? Feeling sick already?
WIDGETIZE