|
| Larry wrote:
> Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
> best".
The converse is true too. Europe would have been much better off with a
transition to CDMA, and the carriers wanted to switch, but the
governments wouldn't allow it.
> Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
> schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.
Whatever the reason for our plethora of systems, and the differences,
the fact remains that Nokia is writing off a lot of potential business.
CDMA, in one form or another, is taking over, all over the globe. It'd
have been nice to settle on one system, but that didn't happen.
The reason that CDMA dominates in the U.S. has a practical basis. It's
much more bandwidth efficient, and there is more limited spectrum
available in the U.S.. It also has much greater range, which doesn't
matter in dense European cities, but matters a lot when you're trying to
cover the most possible area of a sparsely populated large country like
the U.S.. Look at GM's OnStar system, which is going from AMPS to CDMA,
due to their effort to keep as much coverage as possible.
|
|