Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

138 comments

49 + 20 = 09 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208781)

And that, as they say, is fp.

Cherish my balls in the name of the .test community.

Wow. (-1, Troll)

CommieLib (468883) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208782)

Slashdot posts a story I don't understand from a source I don't know on a technology I've never heard of...

Re:Wow. (1, Offtopic)

phraktyl (92649) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208889)

On top of that, so far, they've only posted the story once...

Re:Wow. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208908)

Is this your problem, or Slashdot's? What do you think?

Now, here are some essential bits for you. GSM is a second-generation, all-digital mobile-phone standard used all over the world except some major parts of North America. The multi-user access scheme is a (somewhat weird, IMHO) mix of frequency and time multiplexing; there's no CDMA involved. It has been design with lots of competing providers and networks in mind, therefore it has great roaming capabilities. Furthermore, since most billing mechanisms (outside of North America, that is) involve NO AIRTIME CHARGES, and actually provide for cheaper in-network connections than those of stationary phones, GSM captured the market overnight. Most GSM-covered countries (including ones far less wealthy than US and Canada) sport coverage and penetration rates that still sound like science fiction over here (US/CAN). GSM also comes with cheap cross-provider messaging (called SMS) which is as popular as actual phonecalls especially among the poor population.
There are pop-machines with phonenumbers attached to them, from which you can buy your daily dose of Canned Capitalism (COKE) by dialing the number -- the cost will be charged on your phonebill. This is just one example of things those "less developed" countries already have. Now, imagine what possibilites does a one-chip GSM phone open up in societies where almost everybody has a cellphone!

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208956)

ganderfuck - what the hell are you talking about. Virtually every other country charges by the minute - the US is virtually the only one with widespread packages of minutes. That is why all the dirty eurotrash do sms messages, because they are cheaper. They indeed have wider coverage for cells because they are geographically smaller - I could throw a rock across some of those half-ass eurospunk countries. Also, the US forced the entire country to be wired with copper when they let Ma Bell have her monopoly - so the US is far better covered by land lines. And the number of places that actually have those fancy coke machines is pretty damn small. I like the old machines so I can poor salt water in the slots and short them out.

Re:Wow. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209235)

Why is it that whenever someone mentions European GSM/GPRS coverage, someone else must try and convince everyone else that the US has better land-line coverage?

Here is a quick hint for you: The US telephone network is at best directly comparable to 90% of the European Union member countries land line networks. The GSM/GPRS coverage is in addition to a perfectly fine land line network.

Stop trying to delude yourself. The US lags behind on telecoms infastructure.

Re:Wow. (1)

protohiro1 (590732) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209405)

Its a troll, but he's right on one count. I can't speak for all GSM countries, but in France billing is VERY by the minute. 120 minutes == 50 (==$). That is why people use SMS.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209594)

Fuck you. I live in Paris. (sometimes Madrid) To receive a call is free. That was the point of the original post.

So, you go to hell, and you die....

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209570)

the entire US is also lagging behind in terms of not even TRYING to adopt the metric system that the REST OF THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD uses.

all americans know how to do is drive gus gazzling SUVs filled with cheap gas, of which the fuel economy, they insist on measuring in MILES per GALLON.

Re:Wow. (2)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209626)

Over here (UK) we pay by the minute, but SMS is rapidly becoming more popular than voice anyway (at 1p/message it's dirt cheap). The providers are busily trying to get everyone to buy colour phones with cameras so we can send pictures to each other - 'Be the first With a Nokia 7something' (Umm.. if I'm the first who am I supposed to send my pictures to?)

Re:Wow. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208912)

I agree with this post and with the fact that michael prefers mice in his ass to gerbils.

What is GSM? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208980)

Without any details we have to assume the worst: GSM means "Goat Sex Man" [goatse.cx] and we need to avoid the technology at all costs.

Try +1 funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209036)

Come on folks, what is the probability some acronym actually corresponds to "Goat Sex Man"? 1 in 26^3?

I just farted... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208787)

... and accidentally shat my pants.

Its warm and sticky.

First Toast [drtoast.com]

-DFW

first post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208795)

first post?

1p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208801)

1p

lick my balls asshats (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208803)

your filthy taco-gestapo can't stop us.

GSM? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208819)

did you mean jizim, like after you geeks call a 900 number late at night because the commercial makes you hot?

Ok this is great but....... (1)

rveno1 (470619) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208822)

When will be seeing some of this technologu translated into Cumputer HardWare. I am Sure That I am not the only person who would love to see an integrated cpu/memory/GPU/etc on one chip.

(granted Nvidia's Nforce technolgy is getting starting to some of these functions, I am seeking something on a grander scale)

Re:Ok this is great but....... (2)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208901)

I am Sure That I am not the only person who would love to see an integrated cpu/memory/GPU/etc on one chip

Why would you want a pc that you couldn't upgrade the memory or video on? Or end up paying to disable what you paid for originally? What you mention would be fine for your home pc drone or specialized use (PVR comes to mind), but as a chip for the cognoscenti, I can't see it flying.

Re:Ok this is great but....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209227)

Because if the whole computer costs $5, then who cares if it's upgradeable? Just toss it and buy a new one.

Re:Ok this is great but....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209628)

But it wouldn't cost $5. If you integrated that much stuff your yeilds would be so low that each chip would cost much more than the individual components would.

Re:Ok this is great but....... (1)

LBrothers (583483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208951)

That's a slightly (actually its a rather large) difference in scale and technologies you're talking about. And how would one upgrade the individual components? It might be useful for handhelds and thin webpads though - still its rather limiting in that regard which will likely cause any experiments in this direction to remove themselves from the marketplace.

Now integration of common features which don't require upgrading (Firewire, USB1/USB2, Ethernet, 6 channel sound) is interesting and worthwhile, which is why the new southbridges all do some or all of this.

Re:Ok this is great but. they have it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208967)

They have it already. National Semicondictor's Geode chipset is everything.. FPU,GPU all you need is some RAM..
http://www.national.com/appinfo/solutions/0,2062,3 96,00.html [national.com]

Re:Ok this is great but....... (1)

Camulus (578128) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208985)

IMHO, I wouldn't want to see that unless it was on the very low end of the computer market. I like my parts compartmentalized. If my video card goes out, I don't have to get a new cpu/gpu/ram at what is likely to be an increased cost. It is worth noting thought that you can currently purchase many motherboards that have a soundcard and video card (that leeches of your memory) built in. I have had bad experiances with such combined units (bad stability, performance). If it is done right, they could change my mind, but it would have to be a quallity piece of hardware that performs well and is either cheap enough to buy a new one when I want to upgrade, then I might consider it.

America doesn't need GSM phones. (-1, Troll)

typical geek (261980) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208834)

On the surface, GSM phones sound neat, global connectivity anywhere you go in the world, but is that really the best thing for America?


Right now, most Americans have no need to travel outside North America, yes, Canada and Mexico (both old and new) are plenty foreign for us. The few Americans that do travel outside North America usually do so on the corporate dollar, and can afford Iridium phones or satellite phones. Basically, there's little market for GSM phones among Americans.


Also, there's the security issue involved. Right now, American phones can only be cracked by the American goverment, we wouldn't have that security if we adopted foreign standards like GSM. In a world that's growing increasingly hostile to Americans and American ideals like truth, justice and Capitalism, putting American phones on the GSM band is lot like slitting our throats.


So, let's leave GSM phones for our Europeans pals across the pond who live in those little dinky countries that you can cross in an hour in a Citrouen, it works for them hurrah. But just like the bidet and full frontal pornography on broadcast TV, what works in Europe doesn't necessarily work here.

Truth? Justice? The American way? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208950)

I don't think so. Wake up and smell the foriegn news services.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208966)

Ok for one your just stupid.

For two heres why.

A TON of american phones are ALREADY gsm. In fact _MOST_ digital phones are.

"Right now, American phones can only be cracked by the American goverment"

Ok let me first just say hahahahhah.

and second the "american" protocols your're talkin about are the 1900 ones that at&t hooks up among others. If these are the ones you're talking about and not some micro-non-adopted tech they've all been broken.

Hell the encryption is crap and the keys are stored IN the transmission. If you catch the whole call from start to finnish you can EASILY decrypt the audio content. Its very very very simple.

Dont want to have to catch the whole thing. Nuke their signal with a jammer for 2-3 seconds drop their call and they'll 90% of the time just reconnect setting up an entirely new connection which is easily traced.

The same wardrivers who spy on the 2.4 ghz networks tune into digital cells on a regular basis. Hell most of the security sites out there even have lamer-nix tools for anyone to use.

So when you wanna bring gsm over here im more then happy to standardize on a single protocol because right now the competition in this industry is keeping prices high. (look at what a cell costs in europe for example)

As for your europe bashing im not a european (sp) but you need to get some serious help if you think a country cant be powerful because its strong.

Culturally europe is FAR superior to north american life. The media is not bought and sold good music is demanded by the people and not the music labels telling them what is good and news is rarely biased.

I cant think of one major north american newspaper that doesnt put a TON of bias into their articals. Which are no doubt paid for by the people who own them (aol/msn).

You sir need to go out and SEE the real world before bashing it. Your ideas and your oppinions reflect that of a man who has been brainwashed by the propeganda of the american media.

Blame canada. Damn those mexicans stealing our jobs. oh and LETS START WW3 CUZ ITS GOOD FOR THE ENCONO_FUCKING_ME.

Go read some real news from real sources. Try a few co.uk sites your eyes will be opened.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209017)

THBT.

THL.

HAND.

SMBRBDLF.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208995)

I'm surprised nobody replied to this.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (1)

_escapefromLA_ (606798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209318)

I'm European and found his post rather amusing: good reply, though you seem to have an anti-North American thing going on! I just can't stand bloody Bush leading Blair into a Blood agreement on the Oil wars. You were wrong though in generalising about Europe: plenty of European countries have their media closely affiliated/controlled by political/economical forces. Check Italy, for one.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209433)

GSM would be enormously beneficial to the US. I have a GSM telephone which works practically anywhere in the world, except America. Why? Because the US thinks that the market should fight it out until one proprietary protocol wins over the others. Unfortunately this takes years and mass confusion, consumer uncertainty and overpricing reigns.


In the meantime, the rest of the world saw sense and adopted a single standard. The consequence is you can buy a phone in Thailand and use it in Ireland, you can fly from South Africa to India and still be in touch with head office.


The recalcitrance and obstinacy in the US to develop their own standard except through Gladiator-style death matches has left them isolated and way behind the rest of the world. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if the naysayers think CDMA or some variant was technically better than GSM because it still lost. Hopefully the US will learn better the next time around.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (1)

davidm25 (606820) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209780)

Yeah americans are just like linux users. Instead of using a technology like windows that the rest of the world is using, they have to go off and invent there own OS just to be recalcitrant and obstinant. Even it is technological superior wouldn't everyone be better off if we all used the same system? More seriously GSM and CDMA are basically washes technology wise. Both have advantages and disadvantages ( but you will notice the 3g(not gprs) version of GSM is very similiar the CDMA technology. ) . The big issue as always is who gets the money. The royalties for GSM and CDMA are about hte same for a 3rd party company but someone like Nokia does much better with GSM since they have half the patents. The big problem with the US wireless market is multiple carriers. Each carrier spends a ton of money in each big market duplicating each others effort. If they could have worked together (major handwaving) you could have 3x the capacity in the dense areas and in the low coverage area you could have covered 3 times the area for the same net expendure.

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209808)

I agree. North Americans providers didn't adopted a standard and it still hurts them. (but it made some company like Qualcomm rich).

There are GSM providers in North America. The only problem is that they don't use the same frequencies (the old 900MHz and the new 1800MHz) than in the rest of the world.

The US army was already using the 1800 frequency so they had to use an other one (1900). That's why your phone is incompatible. There are phones that can work under the 3 GSM frequencies (900/1800/1900)

GSM is in North America since at least 5 years. (Voicestream in US and Microcell/Fido in Canada ) GSM is progressing in North America, some providers are replacing their digital network with GSM. (i.e. AT&T in the US and Rogers in Canada)

Re:America doesn't need GSM phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209606)

Score: -1, Flaming Hog Anus.

So am I wrong in thinking that ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208841)

the "value" of a single chip GSM phone comes from size, cost and/or energy consumption savings? That other then those, nothing as such would be functionally different?

By the way, what are the "passives" shown in the first image? They are not mentioned in the article. The single chip has 25 passives? Do we want that? What does that mean?

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208902)

Passives are chips that are not active, versus the active chip which does the DSP work.

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (1)

synshyne (585540) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208932)

if you had 25 aggressives would you buy it then? mwahahaha...sorry couldnt pass that one up...i know i know....*walks off in shame and commits suicide for stupid pointless jokes*...there goes karma

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208936)

>By the way, what are the "passives" shown in the first image?

Passive components are things like resistors, capacitors, and inductors.

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (1)

lirkbald (119477) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208944)

A passive component is one that does not require power- something like a resistor or a capacitor. It is particularly difficult to make decent-size capacitors on a computer chip, thus almost any system will have at least a handful of external passive compontents. But that's okay, since they are usually quite small (a few millimeters square).

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (1)

meatpuppy (183170) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208945)

Passives are the extra components external to the chips like capacitors and resistors.

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (3, Funny)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208947)

Price is the big winner for manufacturers. Having a single chip solution would quickly drive the price of the phones (and other techno toys) down and facilitate the widespread move to GSM.

I assume that by "interesting possibilities" he is referring to possibly being able to imbed the chip into other types of devices cheaply (I'm thinking of having a chip in each piece of furniture that you have to assemble so it'll phone home to let the manufacturer know how big of a klutz you are and how many screws are left over).

"functionally different"? (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209136)

I didn't ask about "interesting possibilities". I just asked whether it would be "functionally different". It didn't seem like it would.

As for having my furniture rat me out for not putting it together strictly following their cryptic instructions, I'm not ready to volunteer for that as of yet. And just imagine the airwaves pollution if all these new devices were phoning willy-nilly.

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209353)

There is never such a thing as single chip phone. Does it has the LCD and LCD drivers, keypad, SIM chip, RF passive built-in ? ;)

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (2)

mellifluous (249700) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209396)

The "passives" refer to components that do not have to draw current - capacitors, resistors, filters, duplexers, etc. In particular, there are a variety of passives required to condition the RF transmit and receive paths.

Keep in mind that though lower energy consumption in itself is not functionally different, it paves the way for integrating other components (bigger screen, camera, GPS, Bluetooth, etc...).

Re:So am I wrong in thinking that ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209885)

A single chip phone?

Won't it be really hard to use? You'd need a microscope and stylus to dial the tiny keypad, and how do you listen and talk at the same time?

Uhh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208857)

What is GSM? Why is it important? What type of interesting possibilities?

Re:Uhh? (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208928)

I have no clue either. The article doesn't even bother to define its new Acronymn. Everyone needs a TLA nowadays. Three Letter Acronymn.

GSM : Global System for Mobile Telecommunications (2, Informative)

LBrothers (583483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208994)

You can always Google for the history of GSM, as well as tons of resources on the spectrum and technologies behind GSM.

Re:GSM : Global System for Mobile Telecommunicatio (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209865)

Thanks for the tip. I find it funny though that your comment was modded up, when it did not even bother to define what the acronym actually stands for. How would I know I encountered the "real GSM" that is being referred to in the article?

this is all EU propaganda (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208873)

gsm is just more crap the euros are trying to pull to undermine the US. You pinko bastards can use whatever crap standards you want - Echelon can still crack it.

Re:this is all EU propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209654)

yea yea, just like the metric system that the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD is using. i don't see the US even *TRYING* to make an effort to adopt any sort of standard unless its for the benefit of its FUCKING ECONOMY.

all americans know how to do is drive gus gazzling SUVs filled with cheap gas, of which the fuel economy, they insist on measuring in MILES per GALLON.

what bands? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208881)

This could be great, or a non-issue. In the US, GSM operates on different frequencies than the rest of the world. their are a few high (56K) providers in the US, but the footprint is less than optimal. As a pratical matter for us globe wondering types, the only part of a GSM phone that can be used from the us to europe is the User ID / phone book chip. Even then, you have to arrange it with your carrier & rates are exorbitant.

Now if you could put this with a faster processor aka the old cyrex chip you could get a great handheld ;)

Re:what bands? (1)

wd123 (209211) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210408)

I have a SonyEricsson T68 (not a t68i, but it would be if I got the firmware upgrade). My phone is tri-band GSM, which means it will work no matter what country I'm in so long as they have a GSM phone network.

However, the t68 (which is probably the nicest phone I've seen to date) is not exactly cheap.

Now whether *this* chop is tri-band is another question, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't.

important new technology (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208894)

allowing me to more clearly hear taco's mom simulate anallingus on her 900 number. Shove it in your cakeholes you ballbangers.

blech. (0, Flamebait)

nbvb (32836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208911)

Who wants GSM?

It's so weakly encrypted, anyone with a cheap pentium can crack it real-time.

Companies in England & France have problems with industrial espionage -- people sit on each side of the channel with parabolic dishes and listen in on other companies' cell calls.

Who needs that?

At least CDMA requires military-grade equipment to crack in nearly-real-time.

You can keep your GSM crap-ola.

--NBVB

p.s. We can put twice the amount of calls in the same spectrum using CDMA vs. GSM. Also a Good Thing.

Re:blech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4208939)

Versus and expensive pentium?

Re:blech. (5, Informative)

karmawarrior (311177) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209005)

I do. cdmaOne doesn't provide basic functionality such as personal mobility (the ability to seperate your account information from the hardware you're using at the moment), a global number space, ISDN connectivity, and system-implemented network features, and the security is tough enough for my purposes - a casual snooper is going to have problems locating and fixing on a single conversation, a more highly placed snooper is likely to have access to the underlying network anyway.

UTMS, the next generation of GSM, includes all of the above features and provides a variety of air-interface technologies including CDMA, so the capacity issue isn't going to last very long. As far as I see, cdma2000 still lacks the above basic features, which I find absolutely increadible especially as GSM networks have been around now for much longer than IS-95 based stuff.

I was very relieved when AT&T started providing GSM in my area, after living here four years with only IS136 (D-AMPS/TDMA), cdmaOne, and NexTel networks available. Having used both IS136 and cdmaOne networks, I felt I was giving up a huge amount to use them, and coming back to GSM has been a joy. Just being able to have a PDA phone again (not really a great idea on a non-GSM network - if you can't leave your PDA at home without losing your connectivity, who wants such a thing?) has been fantastic.

Re:blech. (2, Informative)

Magnus Pym (237274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209442)

Lack of personal mobility is a deployment issue, not something intrinsic to CDMA. The network operators don't want you to have the same number when you switch carriers... basically to increase the hassle of switching.

In the US, the cost of the phone is subsidized by the carrier. On the day you sign up for service with Verizon (for e.g.), Verizon spends about 100-300 dollars on you. The Motorola phone that costs 29.95 at Radio Shack probably costs $300.00 if you buy it yourself. That is why the cell-phone business model involves the lock-in period. You can blame the business model if you wish, but the fact remains that cell phones would be far less popular in this country if the user was expected to buy the phone.

As for the upgrade schedule of GSM... the next step is Wideband CDMA, which works over 5 MHz spectrum. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to arrive... the equipment is at least 2-4 years away from general availablility.

Meantime, the US version of CDMA (CDMA2000) is marching ahead. The voice part is well-entrenched. The 3G version (which works over 1.25 MHz, enabling carriers to use their existing spectrum as opposed to having to aqcquire new, continuous chunks of 5Mhz spectrum) is available today, you can buy service from Sprint and Verizon. Nortel, Lucent, Motorola and Samsung have mature Base Station implementations.

The data part of CDMA2000, 1xEVDO, will be available early next year in commercial versions. Nortel, Lucent and Samsung are trialing their implementations with different carriers as you read this. 1xEVDO provides a 2.4Mbps shared pipe over 1.25Mhz spectrum and kicks the ass of UMTS and Wideband CDMA. UMTS offers only a few hundred kilobits per second, and Wideband CDMA offers a max of 2Mbps over a 5 Mhz spectrum.

The rest of the World has already made up its mind as to what it prefers. Most carriers in North America and Asia (in particular, Korea) have decided to go with CDMA2000 as opposed to Wideband CDMA.

In short, Europe is not going to be ahead in wireless for much longer.

Magnus.

Re:blech. (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209742)

Lack of personal mobility is a deployment issue, not something intrinsic to CDMA. The network operators don't want you to have the same number when you switch carriers... basically to increase the hassle of switching
Nope, that's not true. cdmaOne cannot allow a user to switch their account from hardware to hardware without the direct intervention from the operator. Period. It's a limitation of the technology.

A GSM user can use the same account with as many phones as they wish, switching from one to another in the time it takes to remove the SIM from one phone and slot it in another. That's why most smartphones are GSM - because, frankly, anyone using a smartphone on a cdmaOne network (or, god forbid, a D-AMPS one) will find they're stuck with having to use that phone for all their usage associated with that number. Not many people in their right minds would do such things, and hence not many cdmaOne users have smartphones.

As for the rest of your comments, UMTS is a multiple air-interface system, one of whose technologies is WCDMA. If Qualcomm doesn't actively push WCDMA, and currently it's trying to diss it, it'll find it's without patent revenue from the vast majority of operators worldwide, because UTMS operators will simply use EDGE or other interfaces. cdma2000, in the meantime, badly needs basic additional functionality, such as personal mobility, if equipment providers and network operators are to recoup anything substantially above what they get from existing voice networks. Data networks are no-go without personal mobility. It's time Qualcomm woke up and realised that.

Re:blech. (1)

Durrik (80651) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210059)


A GSM user can use the same account with as many phones as they wish, switching from one to another in the time it takes to remove the SIM from one phone and slot it in another. That's why most smartphones are GSM - because, frankly, anyone using a smartphone on a cdmaOne network (or, god forbid, a D-AMPS one) will find they're stuck with having to use that phone for all their usage associated with that number.


Actually CDMAOne does have the capability. Its just not used in North America. But it is manditory for all CDMAOne phones in China to have the account information stored on the R-UIM card. The R-UIM card is almost exactly the same as the GSM SIM card. The only difference is the name and the CDMA specific file structure. I have R-UIM cards with both the GSM and CDMA file structure on them, so they can be used in GSM and CDMA phones.

This is mainly a provider issue and not a lacking of the CDMAOne or IS-2000 standard. If you want look at http://www.3gpp2.com/Public_html/specs/CS0023-0.pd f
For the relivant standards on the R-UIM card, you'll see that for the most part it points at the GSM standards for how to use the card.

www.3gpp2.com is a good site to look at the standards for IS-2000 and what features are there. I don't know of any of the features you've listed that aren't already in the standards, its just that the providers aren't using them.

Re:blech. (3, Informative)

Syre (234917) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209523)

um... UMTS (not UTMS) is more like CDMA because it IS CDMA.

GSM is a TDMA (time division multiplex) protocol and UMTS is a CDMA (code division multiple access) protocol.

More information on cdma and UMTS [cellular.co.za] and on GSM and TDMA [networkmagazine.com] .

Re:blech. (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209787)

I suggest you reread what you responded to.

UMTS is the next generation GSM standard. It offers a choice between multiple air interface technologies. UMTS is NOT the cdmaOne standard. It includes a CDMA based air interface standard, but this is as related to cdmaOne as an airplane is related to a balloon. Standards and protocols matter.

GSM offers one air interface technology, TDMA. It is not, however, the IS-136/D-AMPS standard, the so-called "TDMA" standard of the USA. GSM is about as related to IS-136/D-AMPS/"TDMA" as an airplane is to a balloon. Standards and protocols matter.

UMTS, and GSM, offer personal mobility, a global number space, ISDN connectivity, and system level network features. cdmaOne, the so-called "CDMA" standard, or IS-95, does not. Period. It sucks. Neither, from what I recall, does cdma2000.

Any questions?

Re:blech. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209237)

CDMA (IS-95) is NOT encrytped in the US or in any equipment exported from the US (government regulation). My company makes equipment that listens on CMDA calls every single day.

GSM is encrypted just about everywhere with varying levels of security. GSM encryption was purposly weakened by the EU so that various government entities could listen in.

Stop spreading your CMDA vs GSM FUD.

The only relevant measure of CDMA vs GSM success is subscribers 650 million (GSM) versus 125 million (IS-95).

Re:blech. (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209464)

Travelling for business GSM is a big advantage. It is available in practically every county in the world and with a tri-band phone the world is my Oyster. To see the sort of coverage GSM has, pop over to GSM World [gsmworld.com] .

GSM is an evoloving standard which incorporates all sort of sorts of technologies. Encryption could be added, but like any standard involving multiple parties, it will take time. There will always be pluses and minuses, though I like what GSM has to offer.

Re:blech. (2, Informative)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209748)

According to this [gsmworld.com] GSM World article, security is not much of a problem any more. "A new security algorithm, known as A5/3, will provide users of GSM mobile phones with an even higher level of protection against eavesdropping than they have already. It will ensure that even if a prospective attacker manages to pull a GSM phone call out of the radio waves, he will be completely unable to make sense of it, even if he throws massive computing resources at the task.

Re:blech. (1)

tengwar (600847) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210034)

Who wants GSM? It's so weakly encrypted, anyone with a cheap pentium can crack it real-time.
While GSM isn't state of the art (it's 20 years old), I've not come across a way of breaking it in real time, and I've only come across a theoretical attack with recorded information which would be quite difficult to perform in practice. Can you provide a reference?

I suspect you are thinking of cracking the SIMs (the smartcard used to give a mobile its phone number) - if you have physical possession of the SIM you can clone it quite quickly - but only for those GSM companies daft enough to use an implementation of the A3/A8 algorithms which was only intended for demonstration use. (A3 and A8 are placeholders - it's up to the operator to select which algorithms will be used to implement them).

Companies in England & France have problems with industrial espionage -- people sit on each side of the channel with parabolic dishes and listen in on other companies' cell calls.
Again, can you substantiate that? I find it very difficult to believe, partly on technical grounds, and because even if the signals were in the clear, this would be very unproductive as compared with hacking the wetware.

From EETimes (CommsDesign) (2, Informative)

LBrothers (583483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208917)

Re:From EETimes (CommsDesign) (2)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209099)

EETimes has a sorter article [eetimes.com] , and Comms design has a more in-depth article [commsdesign.com] covering some of the problems TI may face.

Most people use a 4 chip solution - with each chip's process suited for its use:

- power management (high current)
- baseband/applications processing (good routing)
- memory (high density)
- RF/IF plus power amp (high speed, high voltage)

How expensive/feasable is it going to be to put a high-density ferroelectric EPROM memory along with SDRAM and a 6-volt RF power amp?

background info question (1)

yoha (249396) | more than 11 years ago | (#4208973)

how many chips are now in phones? is a single chip a cost and power advantage?

Re:background info question (1)

RedWolves2 (84305) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209022)

There was a diagram in the link that was provided in the story.

You obviously did not read the memo! ;-)

Short Answer: 4

Re:background info question (2, Interesting)

jetmarc (592741) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209033)

You can take a peek into the insides of GSM phones here:

http://www.inside-gsm.com/inside-gsm_home.html

A fairly new model is the Ericsson T68 (comes with color LCD):

http://www.inside-gsm.com/Ericsson/T68/Inside_T6 8/ inside_t68.html

jetmarc

LAG HIM! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209032)

every one please lag this fucker out of the net.
here is his web site address, that he is running off his cable modeom
http://www.scoopser.net:81

GSM When? (1)

FreshMeat-BWG (541411) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209075)

I, too, was excited about GSM. I even went so far as too attempt to purchase a GSM Phone/PDA. Then I realized exactly how slowly and sparsely this was being rolled out across my service area. Looks like I will be stuck with TDMA for a while.

The same problems seem to exist with cell phone technologies and broadband distribution. Yes GSM exists. Yes broadband exists. But when can EVERYONE get it EVERYWHERE? I am beginning to think NEVER!

Re:GSM When? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209205)

There isn't anyt problem with technology, it's problem with corporations and goverment unwilling to do anything about it.

EVERYONE can get GSM EVERYWHERE in Europe, Far East, Australia, etc...

GSM covered whole Europe about five years ago.

Re:GSM When? (1)

EatHam (597465) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209239)

...I even went so far as too [sic (nice callback, eh?)] purchase a GSM Phone/PDA

I went so far as to actually purchase one. Damn thing sucked. Of course, YMMV, but I had a Handspring Visor with that Springboard phone on it with Voicestream service. It looked like it'd be really neat to have all the functionality of a PDA with the functionality of a phone.

Had the following problems with it...
  • Damn near impossible to dial, and no voice dial support. Trying to call someone while driving is a recipe for disaster.
  • Battery had a shorter lifetime than the average MTV band
  • Screen didn't light up on an incoming call making answering phone calls in the dark while driving a worse experience than most /.ers trying to perform a drunken no-look, one-handed bra removal
The new ones look neat though.

Re:GSM When? (1)

vpreHoose (587524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209574)

Many GSM manufacturers and US operators are lobying teh FCC for more spectrum as we speak. Unfortunatly, guess who is using the spectrum? "I can't tell you who is using that band, National Security"

all reality aside... (1)

budalite (454527) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209084)

If they can keep making them phone chips smaller and smaller, maybe someday someday we get 'em put into earrings & all look like Bajorans! (Bejorans?) (Bojorans?)

Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209105)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209211)

Keep trying brother troll! One day you will get it right, and then you can proudly claim "First Corpse!"

From the article (1)

RicochetRita (581914) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209114)

The wireless and embedded giant said the company has already managed to combine many of the digital and analog functions used by Bluetooth onto a single chip, the BRF6100, which it is sampling now.

Yeah, but what do those big sleepy lugs know?
Maybe they should've included a few elves and dwarves in their focus groups, and prehaps the odd orc or two...

-R

Out of date already. (0, Troll)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209119)

GPRS anyone?

GSM is analog switched technology... GPRS is packet based. Lets see... which one do we want? Since GSM never really took off in the US, why not work on getting GPRS standard accepted in the US (and north america for that matter)... why pus for GSM, which, as many others have pointed out is not as secure, has poor bandwidth usage, considering CDMA as a competitor, and suffers from insane 'big brother' cell tower syndrom (or whatever you wanna call it when the phone is constantly telling the tower where it is, and what it's doing).

Re:Out of date already. (1, Informative)

spakka (606417) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209162)

Since GSM never really took off in the US, why not work on getting GPRS standard accepted in the US

Because GPRS is part of GSM.

Re:Out of date already. (1)

vpreHoose (587524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209557)

But you can squese a GPRS only (no voice) network into the very small frequency bands available in the USA. Can't do GSM voice as teh inter cell interference is too high, but you can just about manage it with Coding Scheme 1 in GPRS. Your throughput will only be around 9kbps, but if you want faster write to the FCC and ask for more spectrum.

Re:Out of date already. (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209181)

GSM is not analog. GPRS is the high-speed data extension to GSM; for voice you still need GSM. And I'd imagine that by 2004 every GSM chipset will include GPRS.

Re:Out of date already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209219)

GPRS is an addition for GSM. You would still use GSM for transferring speech, but GPRS is much better for data.

Re:Out of date already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209277)

GSM is analog switched technology...

GSM is digital frame based technology. GPRS is an extension to GSM that allows you to embed a packet data inside of GSM.

UTMS is the next gen (3G) technology which is purely packet based.

Re:Out of date already. (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210013)

GPRS is for data such as WAP. You still need something like GSM for voice.

Re:Out of date already. (1)

tengwar (600847) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210138)

GSM is analog switched technology... GPRS is packet based. Lets see... which one do we want? Since GSM never really took off in the US, why not work on getting GPRS standard accepted in the US
GPRS is a packet-based extension to GSM, using spare timeslots (well, you can have dedicated timeslots, but you get the idea). You can't have GPRS without GSM. It's good for data access, but it's not intended for voice.

In theory you could use VoIP, but it would be an expensive way of doing the job worse than GSM (e.g. you'd lose echo cancellation). Also most networks don't yet allocate dedicated bandwidth to it, so while I've used it for streaming video, I've had to put up with the odd jerky patch.

BTW, someone else seemed to think GPRS was high-speed circuit-switched - that's HSCSD, basically GSM with some of the error correction turned down, and with potentially more than one time slot allocated.

and suffers from insane 'big brother' cell tower syndrom (or whatever you wanna call it when the phone is constantly telling the tower where it is, and what it's doing).
GSM doesn't do that. Simplifying a bit: a handset only communicated with the network when it's switched on, or when it moves between large areas (containing hundreds of base stations), or after a timeout of a few hours. The network needs to know roughly where it is to start incoming calls, but then it broadcasts a "wake-up" call from all of the base stations in the area. When that happens, the phone contacts a base station to pick up the call, and at that point the network knows exactly where it is.

Minimum chip count for GSM = 2 (2)

javatips (66293) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209124)

Actually, the total number of chips on on GSM phone that would be usable is two... one chip for the phone functionality and the other chip is the SIM card.

USA != The World (3, Informative)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209230)

Aargh ... Why are you being so difficult? Most western countries have agreed to adapt GPRS as a temporary standard before a UMTS-net is up and running. You are moving towards isolation regarding mobile technology, that isn't good. Not for you and not for the other 95.5% of the world population. (world PopClock [census.gov] and cia factbook [odci.gov] )

Exactly: GSM coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209313)

Following site has maps of GSM coverage in various countries [gsmcoverage.co.uk]

There have maps for some countries to compare:
USA [freeserve.co.uk]
Tunisia [gsmworld.com]
China [gsmworld.com]
Vietnam [mobifone.com.vn]

Re:USA != The World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4209343)

Are any countries on the axis of evil using GSM?

Actually... (2)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209710)

Now that I think of it, yes, all of them.

I like being behind the times... (1)

SphynxSR (584774) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209282)

At least we know what doesn't work, and go with that.

Advantages (2)

ehiris (214677) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209287)

Now you can blame all the stupidity on a single chip.

Disposable phones? (2)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209529)

With this chip, how long before a disposable phone? Seems to me that this is what that industry has been begging for.

Re:Disposable phones? (1)

vpreHoose (587524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4209543)

The FCC have already approved a disposable CDMA phone.

Re:Disposable phones? (0)

batemanm (534197) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210021)

Well the BBC seem to think that the disposible [bbc.co.uk] phone will turn up with the next month or so. Hop-on [hop-on.com] 's web site has more info and they seem to imply that disposible mobiles are already available. Of course slashdot has gone down this route many times. This links to a few of them. [slashdot.org]

Single Chip? (1)

nekdut (74793) | more than 11 years ago | (#4210160)

Wow, that must make for a REALLY small phone. How the hell are we supposed to dial?! :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...