 patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Qualcomm being Qualcomm Just like with CDMA 15 years ago, Qualcomm's business model is based on vendor lock-in with its proprietary standards. I hope DVB-H wins. Nothing like having a country with 3 (formerly 4) different cellphone standards, CDMA, GSM, IDEN. Each with vastly different coverage, and many counties are either GSM (Texas areas) or CDMA (Virginia), since in alot of places its ATT+indie GSM, or Alltel+Verizon, and Alltel happens to not have GSM in the area (Alltel only runs GSM where the aquired company had it/GSM plant is grandfathered). Lets not start with IDEN.
What happened to the national security and public saftey flags that politicians wave? In Europe, if your current provider has no coverage, you can dial 911/112 and get coverage from someone else, and you know your chances are much higher since all other providers use the same technology, rather than having to carry a GSM and a CDMA in the USA to get the same 911 coverage.
Regarding DVB-H, Qualcomm must be upset it wasn't able to get its patents into it like they did with UTMS/HSDPA and thats why they are protesting. | |
|  | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm Agreed, the American model is nothing more than vendor lock in that has hindered competition and done nothing more than cost consumers more.
DVB is the standard in Europe and I think if Qualcomm does not adopt what Europeans see as a proven standard, they may just find their service ignored. | |
| | 
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| The world does not live and breathe just one standard, if it did then something as "having a choice" wouldn't exist.
There is plenty of enough coverage saturating America with CDMA/GSM that I seriously doubt you will have a problem calling 911 from either handset because each technology has at least two alternative nationwide carriers that it can rely on to give 911 access to customers.
For the whole carriers being located in, you can blame Qualcomm for that one. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm said by HEDP  :There is plenty of enough coverage saturating America with CDMA/GSM that I seriously doubt you will have a problem calling 911 from either handset because each technology has at least two alternative nationwide carriers that it can rely on to give 911 access to customers. Sprint and T-Mobile? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA | |
| | | |
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL | Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm ....
See this is why this website is starting to piss me the hell off. | |
| | | | | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm Actually having read your original comment twice, what the hell were you trying to say?
Standard != Coverage != access to 911 services.
"For the whole carriers being located in, you can blame Qualcomm for that one." WTH? This makes no sense at all. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm T-Mobile and Sprint don't cover alot of suburban or rural areas. Notice their national maps look like a map of the interstate highway system. Roaming is a essential part of their service.
If you have a T-Mobile phone, and there is no ATT and no T-Mobile, but there is Verizon or Alltel, and you need to dial 911, what do you do? If the FCC mandated 1 standard, there would never be such a situation. If any carrier has reception, you know you can call 911, regardless of your carrier's reception. | |
| | | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
|
What the hell does 911 have to do with 2 standards actually 3 if you include iDEN and choice?
Everyone being on GSM would of given everyone choice of carrier and phone without any barriers to move to different companies. That is why GSM is a standard on nearly a global scale. Not to mention GSM was a product of choice and collaboration to produce a standard that has worked very well. CDMA is a patented vendor walled garden owned by Qualcomm who appears to have ripped off patents from GSM chipmakers.
Telephone = Standard that worked. It was deployed virtually to 99% of America and the world.
We have 7 different blends of gasoline in this country. Imagine if none of the refineries had to retool for each specific blend and just product 93 octane for all locations. It would be a lot cheaper.
The CDMA/GSM problem is what prevents Apple from making twice the money because they backed theirselves with GSM and the world suffered. Apple continued to deploy with GSM operators worldwide and refused to even consider any other CDMA player outside of the USA on fears that the phones would make it back to the states. There will be a CDMA iPhone, but only when Apple and AT&T say so. | |
| | | |
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
| Re: Qualcomm being Qualcomm "What the hell does 911 have to do with 2 standards actually 3 if you include iDEN and choice?"
I am asking myself the same question about the OP.
"Everyone being on GSM would of given everyone choice of carrier and phone without any barriers to move to different companies. That is why GSM is a standard on nearly a global scale. Not to mention GSM was a product of choice and collaboration to produce a standard that has worked very well. CDMA is a patented vendor walled garden owned by Qualcomm who appears to have ripped off patents from GSM chipmakers."
I can rewrite those entire three sentences and plug in CDMA right in. The decision to port your phone over to another network is based on the carrier. CDMA is more restricted in this area and even then CDMA is a standard that will eventually be replaced with the overhyped WiMAX eventually as the technology improves.
You think that being restricted to one choice is a good thing, well if that where the case then the 52 million CDMA subscribers that are on Sprint's network or the other 72 million users on Verizon's network are doing the wrong thing. It seems that walled garden provides better quality at a price of handset restriction.
There is a reason why GSM isn't the only standard and that's because some people believe that having a entire infrastructure based on one standard will simply leave to less innovative products and in the end create a monopolized market where nothing can flourish.
Apple is simply a phone maker, not a network operator. The real reason is because Apple had contracts before in the past with Cingular which influenced them to only release the product on a GSM based network.
There are news reports that the first person Apple has gone to was actually Verizon Wireless a CDMA based carrier. The reason for that was the restriction that the chipsets themselves have raising the price of the iPhone through the roof. To keep costs low in the end the iPhone was released with slow data speeds a huge bottleneck to what the true purpose of the iPhone could of been.
Also diesel gets better mileage and some blends are easier to refine than others. Gas costs more to refine and is a more complex blend, there is a reason why diesel is used in some applications compared to gas.
Also glad that you mentioned gas, guess what we all run gas, because it's the standard right? Well guess what? Now we are getting our asses handed to us paying up the nose for it because an alternative was never brought into this industry.
Just now alternatives such as electronic engines in passenger vehicles are starting to come to market, because your BS standard of fuel has everyone running with their head cut off.
I don't care if there are 20 standards out there, which ever standard is superior and provides the most flexibility is the standard that's going to win, and there would always be another standard out there to replace it. | |
| | Bane75
join:2002-09-20
Poway, CA | Except that 15 years ago, CDMA was the better technology. Sprint and Verizon chose it based on it being the better technology. CDMA may not be the better technology today, but it was 15 years ago. | |
| | | |
|
|
Qualcomm Grabs UK Spectrum for Mobile TV