GSM vs CDMA: A Primer Before the BREW Conference
In light of the upcoming BREW conference in San Diego next week, I thought I would highlight the global debate brewing between the GSM and the Qualcomm CDMA world. Much of the attention is now focused on China, the Americas and, lately, postwar Iraq.

The Qualcomm camp claims that CDMA2000 networks offer superior spectrum utilization and overwhelming data efficiency. CDMA2000 networks are based on spectrally efficient spread-spectrum and the data networks are packet-based from the core, versus the abstracted layers that make up GPRS. GSM counters by saying that it's the indisputable global standard, the personal choice for travelers and the logical choice for networks that want the most cost-effective equipment. With over 787 million GSM users, or over 68% of global market share, GSM would seem to be the clear winner, hands down. But that's not the entire story.

First let's be clear on one issue. The European Union, a region of over 375 million people and soon to be 450 million once the candidate states are admitted in 2004, will never be anything but a pure GSM/GRPS and, ultimately, a WCDMA region. Of course the United States is heavily criticized by the Europeans as having an incompatible patchwork network of CDMA, GSM and TDMA. But there are other patchwork regions of the world, and they will never be pure GSM territories. Let's take Central and Latin America (CALA), a region of 528 million people and Asia with 3.34 billion people. In CALA there are over 26 million CDMA subscribers in over 15 countries. In the Asian region, SK Telecom in South Korea has over 17 million subscribers, while KDDI in Japan has nearly the same. China Unicom has nearly 9 million. Let's link these CDMA regions together with Verizon, with nearly 32 million subscribers. You get a global roaming region spanning North, Central and South America, Asia and even parts of Eastern Europe. With a very low mobile penetration in these developing regions, there is much roam for growth, and perhaps a tipping towards CDMA, if that camp plays their cards right. For instance there are a number of old TDMA carriers, many of them in Latin America that are undecided about which way to go.

What about incompatibility issues? Let's assume, perhaps correctly, that both GSM and CDMA remain for a long time to come. Won't this global incompatibility, almost like two separate internets, create a bottleneck of technical, marketing and political issues? Just take Vodafone, which just recently used to call itself the largest mobile network in the world--before that title went to China Mobile with over 120 million subscribers. Vodafone owns 55% of Verizon. There is something interesting about the dominant player in Europe owning controlling interest in the single largest carrier in the western world--Verizon, a CDMA player.

So what technologies are there to interoperate these networks? First, there are emerging concepts in wireless communication and in digital signal processors (DSPs). Software defined radio (SDR) has been one area of discussion. SDR-enabled mobile phones will be able to scan a wireless frequency range, tune into the correct frequency band, and sense the protocol being used. If the device needs the protocol driver, it will simply download from the network itself--a concept of a completely reconfigurable digital radio. Still SDR is years away, and an expensive technology. Also, the FCC, and worse yet the DOD, FBI and CIA, isn't in favor of a mass market device being able to scan every type of communication type in every frequency range. So safely assume that SDR won't be the immediate solution.

What next? Qualcomm?s GSM1x is a technology created to seamlessly bridge together GSM and CDMA networks. The concept is simple and elegant. Keep the entire GSM network investment intact, with all the same antennas and GSM services and billing architecture, including SMS and MMS. However, overlay the GSM network with a new CDMA2000 1x and/or CDMA2000 1xEV-DO radio network infrastructure. This is not terribly disruptive for the network operator, since they can grow the GSM1x network one metro region at a time. However, users will have to trade in their GSM handsets for inexpensive CDMA or more expensive dual-mode GSM/CDMA2000 handsets.

Qualcomm announced GSM1x at the 3GSM World Congress, of all places, in Cannes, France, though we can't see any European mobile operators going the route of CDMA2000, no matter what level of investment 3G trauma they are enduring. Ce n'est pas possible! So where do we see GSM1x being deployed? China Unicom has over 60 million GSM subscribers along with its already mentioned 9 million CDMA subscribers. There they can roll out CDMA2000 in the city of Suzhou in the Chinese province of Jiangsu, and then go out region by region, completely overlaying the GSM network inexpensively. Perhaps Latin America will also follow suit. Vodafone of course will never convert its GSM networks across Europe to GSM1x but it will offer a dual mode handset, either Samsung or Motorola, to its subscribers that want to roam on Verizon when they want to travel to the United States.

While this global mobile war rages on in the Americas, Asia and Europe, what about Africa and the Middle East? In Africa, a region with much investment from France Telecom and Vodafone, it's strictly GSM. Also, except for South Africa and Egypt the region is largely undeveloped. What about the Middle East? Except for the roughly 2 million subscribers from Israel?s Pelephone CDMA network, the region is strictly GSM. 

What about postwar Afghanistan and postwar Iraq? In Afghanistan, the new GSM service, the Afghan Wireless Communication Company (AWCC), has brought mobile connectivity both nationally and internationally to the people of Mazar for the first time and is anticipated to facilitate economic development with neighboring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan, and Russia. The network is starting to attract over 5000 new subscribers per month, with current capacity to over 100,000. 

With regards to Iraq, there has been much recent controversy with a recent proposal put forth by Congressman Darrell Issa to show favor towards CDMA. Interestingly, in the letter that Congressman Issa drafted to USAID on March 26, 2003, he incorrectly, or perhaps correctly for effect, defines GSM as Groupe Speciale Mobile, a moniker that hasn't been used since GSM was internationalized as Global System for Mobile Communication. Perhaps that's related to dumping GSM into Boston's harbor, along with all that French wine. He also calls GSM a "European wireless technology." However, GSM is a global technology and, while they're not the dominant players, American companies such as Motorola and Lucent are still important GSM equipment suppliers. Furthermore there's a bit more speculation about what the congressman is doing representing Qualcomm on this issue, especially since his campaign was funded by Qualcomm and his constituency is in San Diego. Qualcomm is keeping silent on this one.

More to the point, GSM technology in Iraq would create more social cost, and ultimately more US taxpayer cost, than would GSM technology. It's not because GSM technology is better, but cheaper and more available in the region. If the entire Middle East, except for a single carrier in Israel, uses GSM, then regional integration is more easily facilitated. However, the Issa camp points to the fact CDMA technology provides other benefits such as GPS services and prevents eavesdropping. Ironically, that would have prevented the Secretary of State from eavesdropping on Iraqi conversations before the war started.

All these global and regional political issues aside, Qualcomm's CDMA technology is a powerful proponent in the development of the world?s mobile ecosystem. Even in the European 3G world, it co-owns the patents for WCDMA and wholly owns the CDMA2000 patents, so it can't lose either way. Its BREW technology is a secure and reliable platform for mobile application development. Qualcomm Internet Services BREW Delivery Platform is the world's first end-to-end mobile application secure payment and distribution platform. 

Now figure out how this all works together with WiFi networks?


Posted by barkaloff at April 22, 2003 08:21 AM 

Comments
May 15th update--US company wins $45M contact for Iraq

From http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=newsat2direct&starting=4&pubdate=05/15/03


MCI has been awarded the contract to build a new wireless telephone network in war-torn Iraq, the company confirmed today.

The network, worth a reported $45 million, is slated to be in place by June, says an MCI spokeswoman. MCI declined to provide details of the network, referring questions to the U.S. Department of Defense. Defense officials couldn't be reached for comment before deadline.
The network reportedly would be GSM-based and provide U.S. officials, troops and international aid workers with communications to coordinate their reconstruction efforts in the country. 

The network has been a bone of contention among several U.S. vendors vying for it, with accusations arising from Congress that awarding the contract to a GSM-based service provider would be tantamount to giving support to foreign nations such as France, as GSM is heavily used in Europe. That battle, initiated by Rep. Darrell Issa, R.-Calif., has largely cooled. Qualcomm, a CDMA technology provider largely competing against GSM, is based in Issa's home district. 


Posted by: at May 15, 2003 11:32 PM 
Why do you place such importance with Verizon ? Residents of the EU can now roam with Cingular & A T & T Wireless on their GSM sytems. All they need are tri-band 900/1800/1900M phones while travelling in the U.S. Maybe CDMA users should get GSM/CDMA phones if they choose to roam in Europe or Asia. 

Posted by: Markus Reinhart at August 1, 2003 08:56 PM 
GSM is the best as it offers seamless roaming and 
better security CDMA is an underdeveloped military
invention not fit for civilian use

Posted by: Melville Brooks at August 8, 2003 04:04 PM