Contents
Comparison of mobile phone standards
This is a comparison of standards of wireless networking technologies for devices such as mobile phones. A new generation of cellular standards has appeared approximately every tenth year since 1G systems were introduced in 1979 and the early to mid-1980s.
Issues
Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM, around 80–85% market share) and IS-95 (around 10–15% market share) were the two most prevalent 2G mobile communication technologies in 2007. In 3G, the most prevalent technology was UMTS with CDMA-2000 in close contention. All radio access technologies have to solve the same problems: to divide the finite RF spectrum among multiple users as efficiently as possible. GSM uses TDMA and FDMA for user and cell separation. UMTS, IS-95 and CDMA-2000 use CDMA. WiMAX and LTE use OFDM. In theory, CDMA, TDMA and FDMA have exactly the same spectral efficiency but practically, each has its own challenges – power control in the case of CDMA, timing in the case of TDMA, and frequency generation/filtering in the case of FDMA. For a classic example for understanding the fundamental difference of TDMA and CDMA, imagine a cocktail party where couples are talking to each other in a single room. The room represents the available bandwidth:
Comparison
Strengths and weaknesses of IS-95 and GSM
Advantages of GSM
Disadvantages of GSM
Advantages of IS-95
Disadvantages of IS-95
Development of the market share of mobile standards
This graphic compares the market shares of the different mobile standards. In a fast-growing market, GSM/3GSM (red) grows faster than the market and is gaining market share, the CDMA family (blue) grows at about the same rate as the market, while other technologies (grey) are being phased out
Comparison of wireless Internet standards
As a reference, a comparison of mobile and non-mobile wireless Internet standards follows.
This article is derived from Wikipedia and licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. View the original article.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Bliptext is not
affiliated with or endorsed by Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation.