Evolution 2001: CDMA versus GSM

By Hector D. Calabia

IDG News Service, Buenos Aires Bureau

BUENOS AIRES –

 

To the uninitiated it sounds like a meaningless puzzle; an even those in the know are having a hard time making their choices. Latin America is now one of the global battlefields for the dominance of one of two standards for second generation mobile phones, leading to the much anticipated 3G (third generation). The eVolution 2001 conference held here last week devoted two panels to discussing the future of GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication, an European standard) and CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access, the American standard) as paths for the delivery of 3G services.

 

There are four main cellular companies in Argentina: Personal (a subsidiary of Telecom SA), Unifón (owned by Telefónica de Argentina SA), CTI Móvil and Movicom (Compañía de Radicomunicaciones Móviles SA). Up to now CDMA has been implemented by Movicom and CTI Móvil. Personal and Unifón use TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access), a precursor to GSM. This year, Personal announced that it will migrate to the GSM standard as a way to 3G. Previously, the whole Latin American market had been stirred by Brazil's decision to put the GSM frequency bands (1,800M Hz) up for auction, the panelists said.

 

In fact, both technologies are represented in most countries of the Americas, including the United States, where GSM has been deployed by American Personal Communications, a subsidiary of Sprint. According to the GSM MoU Association GSM has over 120 million users worldwide and is available in 120 countries. The question is which standard will prevail.

 

The sole full defender of the American CDMA standard at the conference was Guillermo Fornaresio, Qualcomm's Director of Business Development for Latin America. According to Fornaresio, CDMA allows a much smoother passage to future 3G services and protects the current investments both of the operators and the users. He explained that in order to deploy 3G services from current 2G technologies, the carriers will be forced to completely duplicate their networks, as the two standards are incompatible; and the users will also be forced to replace their cell phones or "terminals", in technical parlance.

 

For most of the panel members, having to duplicate their networks is not such a deterrent, because the modifications necessary to upgrade CDMA 2G networks to full 3G operation (CDMA 2000) will also be costly. And the need for replacing the terminals is not such an important consideration, as users usually exchange their handsets every 18 or 24 months for a newer model.

 

Besides, GSM has 70 percent of the 2G world market, including the very important European and Asian markets, said Amílcar Maffeo, Computing and Communication Networks Division Marketing Director for Siemens Argentina SA. This guarantees a level of portability and roaming that CDMA cannot match. "If you want to have just one cell phone number and just one handset and use it everywhere in the world, then you must have GSM", he said.

 

For Carlos Zárate, a Motorola executive director for the Southern Cone, it is important to remember that 3G "is not a frequency band, nor a technology, nor a standard". It is rather a public data transmission service, with no defined standard per se. This means that the standards are still to be adopted, at least in Latin America and other parts of the world. He remarked that haste would be bad for this business, and reminded the audience of the European experience where the mobile companies invested billions of euros in 3G frequency bands licenses and that very expense has now stalled development, as the companies are strapped for cash. He recommended caution, and "learning from the international experience and the mistakes made in other countries."

 

Qualcomm's Fornaresio explained at a later interview that his company supports both 3G standards: the European WCDMA or the American CDMA 2000. Both technologies allow data transmission speeds of up to 2M bps (bits per second) and they are technically similar, although incompatible. Qualcomm, he said, produces chips for them both. However, he expressed his company preference for 2G CDMA as a path for 3G services not only because of the easier transition path, but also because CDMA 2000 uses the frequency spectrum much more efficiently. "The third generation CDMA 2000 standard uses one-fourth as much spectrum for similar services as the European WCDMA version", he said.

 

There are many wireless operators  in Latin America that are tossing the coin over this tough choice. It will take at least a year more until the landscape clears, the panelists said.

 

This article was originally published by the IDG World Network of magazines and Web Sites
  IDG publishes more than 300 magazines and newspapers including Bio-IT World, CIO, CSO, Computerworld, GamePro, InfoWorld, Network World, and PC World. The company features the largest network of technology-specific Web sites with more than 400 around the world. IDG is also a leading producer of more than 170 computer-related events worldwide including LinuxWorld Conference & Expo(R), Macworld Conference & Expo(R), DEMO, and IDC Directions. IDC provides global market research and advice through offices in 50 countries.
Some stories have been distributed through CNN.com by special arrangement.

 

<< BACK