Talk:Digital AMPS/Archive 1

Untitled
I deleted the phrase: "Unlike TDMA, all radios can be active all the time, because network capacity does not directly limit the number of active radios. Since larger numbers of phones can be served by smaller numbers of cell-sites, CDMA-based standards have a significant economic advantage over TDMA-based standards, or the oldest cellular standards that used frequency-division multiplexing."

I did this because it is only one argument about a debate that keeps going back and forth. There are supporters on both sides of the argument and both sides have very valid points and facts. I feel that this goes aginst the NPOV of wikipedia, so it is best to leave comments like this out. (I personally don't support eather side of the debate. However, if a wikipedia expert does not feel like it goes aginst the NPOV of Wikipedia, please reinsert it back in.

IS-2000 a successor to IS-56/IS-136? Since when?
Since when has IS-2000 (aka CDMA 1X) ever been considered a 'successor' to the TDMA technologies used in North America? If anything, GSM->host to these data transmission technologies->GPRS->EDGE->UMTS->HSDPA would be the natural evolution path, and appears to be so when you consider that TDMA providers in North America switched to GSM networks and GAIT phones were in existance for a while to allow GSM customers to roam on TDMA networks. I am really starting to think that there is a heavy CDMA bias in this article. I have removed the IS-2000 reference until an expert can update the article with information on both the GSM and IS-96-based technologies that succeeded TDMA. Snickerdo 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) In my experience all GSM launches I have performed consisted of IS-136 TDMA D-Amps to GSM (Global System for Mobile Telephony) and not CDMA or CDMA 2000. UMTS was the primary data service but has gone to LTE.

IS-95: the successor to IS-56/IS-136
Its IS-95, not IS-2000 which was the successor to IS-56/IS-136. That happened in 1994. I don't believe there's any neutrality issues in the article.So I'm removing that tag. I wrote most of this article with major reference form |privateline.com. Also refer to the reference link in the article, in case of further doubts.--Anoopkn 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets get facts straight...
Neither GSM/GPRS nor CDMA2000 were specifically designed to replace TDMA/IS-136. They were developed independently from TDMA technology. TDMA, or D-AMPS, is a dead-end technology with no clear evolution path. While most TDMA carriers upgraded to GSM/GRPS, there are some exceptions (such as US Cellular), who upgrded to CDMA2000. In fact, the old AT&T Wireless originally intended on upgrading their TDMA network to CDMA2000, until NTT Docomo bought shares in them, which required them to launch a W-CDMA/UMTS network. This was a driving force in the old AT&T Wireless choosing GSM/GPRS over CDMA2000.

Also, IS-95 (cdmaOne) is not really a successor technology to TDMA/IS-136, but was more of a competing technology. IS-95 had the advantage over IS-136 of having a clear evolution path, which CDMA2000 is the designated successor.

I hope this has been a bit of help. ANDROS1337  22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)