NEWS: GSM-HSPA captures 72% of cellular market in Western Hemisphere

3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM
family of technologies including LTE, today announced that GSM-HSPA has
captured 72% of the entire cellular market in the Western Hemisphere.
This represents a 6% increase in market share since the first quarter of
2008, according to Informa Telecoms & Media's World Cellular Information
Service. With nearly 555 million subscriptions in the Americas at the
end of the first quarter of 2009, GSM achieved an annual growth of 25%,
adding 110 million new connections in 12 months.

On a global basis, GSM and UMTS-HSPA added 680.7 million subscriptions
in the year ending March 2009, representing 89% global share of market
and annual growth of 22%, according to Informa. There were 4.16 billion
wireless cellular connections worldwide at the end of the first quarter
of which 3.7 billion are GSM-HSPA connections.

MORE: <http://www.mobiletechnews.com/info/2009/05/21/135737.html>

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
> 3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM
> family of technologies including LTE, today announced that GSM-HSPA has
> captured 72% of the entire cellular market in the Western Hemisphere.

HSPA is actually a CDMA based technology. GSM is TDMA technology.

Far from the "GSM defeats CDMA" nonsense that ignorant fanboys blather,
what actually happened was that the GSM community switched to CDMA in 3G.
HSPA is as much "3G CDMA" as EV-DO. The difference is that HSPA was
adopted by the old GSM community and EV-DO was adopted by the old CDMA
community.

There are excellent reasons to dump TDMA in favor of CDMA. Although
simpler and cheaper to deploy, TDMA has severe technical limitations which
particularly showed up in the less-densely populated continent of North
America. There is a reason why Verizon's coverage map is so extensive and
the GSM carriers' maps are not. That reason no longer exists in 3G (since
it's all a form of CDMA) but now there's a game of catch-up.

Since CDMA won the war for 3G, the next step was to eliminate multiple
incompatible forms of CDMA and have a single standard. This happened with
LTE.

The main loser in the move to LTE is Qualcomm. Qualcomm has a lock on
both forms of 3G CDMA, and loses it with LTE. The choice of LTE vs. WiMax
is all about getting rid of Qualcomm. Only Sprint seems to be sticking
with WiMax.

Other than Sprint and Qualcomm, everybody else comes out a winner with
LTE. What will be interesting is that there won't be any more excuses
possible with everybody (other than Sprint) using the same standard.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
<alpine.OSX.2.00.0910080959110.93829@hsinghsing.pa nda.com>:

>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
>> 3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM
>> family of technologies including LTE, today announced that GSM-HSPA has
>> captured 72% of the entire cellular market in the Western Hemisphere.
>
>HSPA is actually a CDMA based technology. GSM is TDMA technology.

Irrelevant. HSPA (UMTS) is totally different from CDMA2000, based on
GMS infrastructure with a different air interface.

>Far from the "GSM defeats CDMA" nonsense that ignorant fanboys blather,
>what actually happened was that the GSM community switched to CDMA in 3G.
>HSPA is as much "3G CDMA" as EV-DO. The difference is that HSPA was
>adopted by the old GSM community and EV-DO was adopted by the old CDMA
>community.

What's actually happening is the CDMA2000 is dying.
Verizon is throwing in the towel and moving to LTE.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Mark Crispin wrote:

> HSPA is actually a CDMA based technology. GSM is TDMA technology.
>
> Far from the "GSM defeats CDMA" nonsense that ignorant fanboys blather,
> what actually happened was that the GSM community switched to CDMA in
> 3G.

"GSM defeats CDMA" is about as true as "Dewey defeats Truman."

> HSPA is as much "3G CDMA" as EV-DO. The difference is that HSPA was
> adopted by the old GSM community and EV-DO was adopted by the old CDMA
> community.

Yep. Whether it's W-CDMA or CDMA2000 or EVDO, it's immaterial, it's CDMA
technology and Qualcomm gets royalties (for now). Ironically, AT&T could
have saved themselves a bundle of money (and the old AT&T Wireless would
still exist) if they had gone straight to CDMA from TDMA rather than
taking such a roundabout route. Blame NTT Docomo for the demise of the
old AT&T Wireless, a great carrier back in the AMPS/TDMA days.

> The main loser in the move to LTE is Qualcomm. Qualcomm has a lock on
> both forms of 3G CDMA, and loses it with LTE.

Moving beyond CDMA is LTE which is still not royalty free. Expect some
big battles on the patent and royalty front since many different
companies own patents for the technology that LTE uses.

It's not clear what will happen to Qualcomm. First off, any handset that
is both LTE and still has any variant of CDMA will be subjected to
royalties, and we're years, or a decade away from an LTE only network.
Second, Qualcomm, among other companies, has patents on parts of the LTE
technology. It won't be as lucrative as it is now for Qualcomm since
there will be several companies getting royalties for LTE, but they
aren't being cut out completely.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
>>> 3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM
>>> family of technologies including LTE, today announced that GSM-HSPA has
>>> captured 72% of the entire cellular market in the Western Hemisphere.
>> HSPA is actually a CDMA based technology. GSM is TDMA technology.
> Irrelevant. HSPA (UMTS) is totally different from CDMA2000, based on
> GMS infrastructure with a different air interface.

Talk about irrelevant!

UMTS and CDMA2000 are cousins. They are both CDMA technologies.

GSM is a TDMA technology. TDMA is dead.

>> Far from the "GSM defeats CDMA" nonsense that ignorant fanboys blather,
>> what actually happened was that the GSM community switched to CDMA in 3G.
>> HSPA is as much "3G CDMA" as EV-DO. The difference is that HSPA was
>> adopted by the old GSM community and EV-DO was adopted by the old CDMA
>> community.
>
> What's actually happening is the CDMA2000 is dying.
> Verizon is throwing in the towel and moving to LTE.

With equal validity, one can say:
What's actually happening is that GSM is dying.
AT&T etc. is trying in the towel and moving to LTE.

GSM/EDGE and CDMA2000 are both 2G with some bits of 3G. As such, they are
both dying.

The difference is that the GSM world was forced to switch their underlying
technology to CDMA in 3G; there is nothing in common between GSM/EDGE and
UMTS other than the same carrier operating both. The CDMA2000 world had a
much easier, and compatible, upgrade path with EV-DO.

With 4G everybody (except Sprint) is going to LTE, which is also a CDMA
technology.

I used UMTS overseas for years before it was available in North America.
The main problem that I have with UMTS in North America is when it falls
back to crappy GSM. That doesn't happen in Japan, where it's all CDMA
(either UMTS with NTT DoCoMo or CDMA2000 with KDDI). My phone works with
all of these.

Nobody but fanboys cares about the differences between EV-DO vs. UMTS.
Both are 3G CDMA technologies. What is important is CDMA, not the
specific form that CDMA takes.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin wrote:

> With equal validity, one can say:
> What's actually happening is that GSM is dying.
> AT&T etc. is trying in the towel and moving to LTE.

Actually they threw in the towel on GSM, but since LTE isn't here yet
they are moving first to CDMA. This is why they are moving their 3G CDMA
service to the more desirable 850 MHz spectrum and relegating the
remaining GSM customers to less desirable 1900 MHz spectrum with even
poorer coverage. You have to wonder if this will cause even more
dissatisfaction with their quality of service and have them fall even
below Sprint in terms of coverage quality.

Qualcomm certainly must be happy about AT&T's decision to push CDMA, at
least in the short term.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:17:44 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
<alpine.OSX.2.00.0910081348140.93829@hsinghsing.pa nda.com>:

>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:

>> HSPA (UMTS) is totally different from CDMA2000, based on
>> GMS infrastructure with a different air interface.

>Nobody but fanboys cares about the differences between EV-DO vs. UMTS.
>Both are 3G CDMA technologies. What is important is CDMA, not the
>specific form that CDMA takes.

Nope. No matter how many times you try to spin it.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:03:44 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ace6170$0$1602$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> With equal validity, one can say:
>> What's actually happening is that GSM is dying.
>> AT&T etc. is trying in the towel and moving to LTE.
>
>Actually they threw in the towel on GSM, but since LTE isn't here yet
>they are moving first to CDMA. This is why they are moving their 3G CDMA
>service to the more desirable 850 MHz spectrum and relegating the
>remaining GSM customers to less desirable 1900 MHz spectrum with even
>poorer coverage. You have to wonder if this will cause even more
>dissatisfaction with their quality of service and have them fall even
>below Sprint in terms of coverage quality.
>
>Qualcomm certainly must be happy about AT&T's decision to push CDMA, at
>least in the short term.

Roughly equivalent to arguing:
* The sun gives off light.
* Feathers are light.
* Therefore the sun gives off feathers.

GSM>UMTS>LTE won. cdmaOne>CDMA2000 lost.
Be man enough to admit it. (I won't hold my breath.)

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
<alpine.OSX.2.00.0910080959110.93829@hsinghsing.pa nda.com>:

>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:

>> 3G Americas, a wireless industry trade association representing the GSM
>> family of technologies including LTE, today announced that GSM-HSPA has
>> captured 72% of the entire cellular market in the Western Hemisphere.
>
>HSPA is actually a CDMA based technology. GSM is TDMA technology.

HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS, itself an evolution of GSM.
LTE is likewise an evolution of UMTS, supporting both
Frequency Division Duplexing and Time Division Duplexing.
Time Division Duplexing is essentially TDMA on steroids.

And none of that has anything to do with cdmaOne or CDMA2000,
which are different technologies that are dying.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

Mark Crispin wrote:

> The difference is that the GSM world was forced to switch their
> underlying technology to CDMA in 3G.

They weren't forced to switch to CDMA, they had no choice but to switch
to CDMA. There was no 3G GSM technology available given the available
spectrum and the expected bandwidth requirements. Even W-CDMA has not
been able to keep up with the bandwidth that iPhone users are demanding.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:08:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ace8cc2$0$1634$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> The difference is that the GSM world was forced to switch their
>> underlying technology to CDMA in 3G.
>
>They weren't forced to switch to CDMA, they had no choice but to switch
>to CDMA. There was no 3G GSM technology available given the available
>spectrum and the expected bandwidth requirements. Even W-CDMA has not
>been able to keep up with the bandwidth that iPhone users are demanding.

Completely wrong.

HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS, itself an evolution of GSM.
LTE is likewise an evolution of UMTS, supporting both
Frequency Division Duplexing and Time Division Duplexing.
Time Division Duplexing is essentially TDMA on steroids.

None of that has anything to do with cdmaOne or CDMA2000,
which are different technologies that are dying.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
> Completely wrong.
> HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS, itself an evolution of GSM.

Yeah. Right. Which is why all my Japanese cell phones say
QUALCOMM
3G CDMA
on them.

UMTS "evolved" from GSM the way that mammals evolved from dinosaurs.

> None of that has anything to do with cdmaOne or CDMA2000,
> which are different technologies that are dying.

None of that has anything to do with GSM or EDGE, which are different
technologies that are dying.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On 2009-10-09, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS, itself an evolution of GSM.
> LTE is likewise an evolution of UMTS, supporting both
> Frequency Division Duplexing and Time Division Duplexing.
> Time Division Duplexing is essentially TDMA on steroids.

No it's not. Frequency Division Duplexing is when both ends of a
conversation transmit simultaneously on different frequencies,
Time Division Duplexing is when both ends take turns transmitting
on the same frequency. This has little to do with how different
conversations share the resources, which is what TDMA refers
to. In addition to the "normal" FDD UMTS has several TDD air
interfaces, even though multiple terminals still share
the spectrum via CDMA, though the only instance of deployment I
know of is China Mobile's TD-SCDMA.

2G GSM, however, strictly uses Frequency Division Duplex even
though its spectrum sharing among terminals is TDMA.

Dennis Ferguson

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:23:08 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
><alpine.OSX.2.00.0910080959110.93829@hsinghsing.p anda.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
>
>HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS

Correct.

> itself an evolution of GSM.

No. It's actually an evolution of CDMA and more like a revolution
from GSM.

UMTS, in its most common used form, uses W-CDMA as its underlying air
interface rather than TDMA as GSM does.

And W-CDMA has a lot more in common with CDMA than it does with GSM,
as if it wasn't obvious from their names alone.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:38:16 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in <9ivvc5hikg4pt1f4jb7rcahpe4dp3d4de7@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:23:08 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:18:57 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
>><alpine.OSX.2.00.0910080959110.93829@hsinghsing. panda.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, John Navas posted:
>>
>>HSPA is actually an evolution of UMTS
>
>Correct.
>
>> itself an evolution of GSM.
>
>No. It's actually an evolution of CDMA and more like a revolution
>from GSM.
>
>UMTS, in its most common used form, uses W-CDMA as its underlying air
>interface rather than TDMA as GSM does.
>
>And W-CDMA has a lot more in common with CDMA than it does with GSM,
>as if it wasn't obvious from their names alone.

Simply not true.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?