Apple went to Verizon first. They said no. Verizon loses.

Steve, thanks for the comment. I had not read that anywhere. I would say that Verizon probably said no because they want more control over the phone than Jobs wanted them to have.

Apple has a winner, and I’m sure people will deal with the noise. It would have been nice to see the best phone, available on the best network. [I know, at least in Ca. I have sold, used, and heard enough complaints, and tried to solve probelms about all of them]

It proves you can’t have everything, even in the age of the iPhone! [g]

CDMA superior to GSM? Hardly. Citing the single issue of RFI as proof of GSM’s inferiority is uninformed at best.

Where CDMA does excel is in delivering brain cancer to the user of the CDMA device. You see, CDMA devices when operating employ RF power output at a constant 1 watt, even if the user is standing next to the cell tower. Contrast that with GSM’s maximum power output of .125 (1/8) watt. If the GSM user is standing next to the cell tower, the GSM handset can ratchet the power output down to 1/100 of that, or .00125 watt. That’s one of the big reasons Nextel/Sprint handsets are bricks and AT&T’s are svelte little demi-devices. The Nextel/Sprint phone needs the huge battery because of the drain, the GSM phone doesn’t. Consider that amount of radio frequency radiation streaming through your brain while chatting endlessly. CDMA even pumps out more juice than the brain-cancer poster-child standard cell phone of yesteryear which ran .6 watts.

Then there’s the security of CDMA. Let me rephrase that. Then there’s the lack of security of CDMA. The “Code” part of the Code Division Multiple Access was broken even before it was deployed for public use. Contrast that with GSM with no practical decrypting possible. Oh sure, you could capture an entire data stream and brute-force decrypt it, and a couple of weeks later when the computer is finished decrypting the data stream I’m sure the talkers have moved on to bigger and better things. That’s why law enforcement is provided a special device by AT&T for eavesdropping on GSM calls. It just isn’t practical otherwise.

Then there’s the fundamental network architecture differences: CDMA features “smart phones, dumb cell towers.” GSM features “dumb phones, smart cell towers.” It’s the cell tower that tells the GSM handset how much power it needs for a clean signal. Who cares, right? Somebody that has to pay for expensive “smart” handsets that provide no practical advantage.

Lastly, there’s the oh-so open standard of CDMA. Wait. No there isn’t. CDMA is proprietary, invented specifically to be different from established, well-functioning technology all in an effort to make money for Qualcomm. Seems kind of selfish, to invent an inferior product just to make money. Oh well, it’s a free country and as PT Barnum said: “there’s a sucker born every minute.”

Randy, as someone who has sold and used both, for a number of years, I disagree with every point you make except for the point that CDMA is proprietary. In that, you’re right.

CDMA has never been proven to be any more harmful than any other system, nor has anyone conclusively proven that cell phone usage promotes anything other than communication.

One watt? No phone that is hand held puts out one watt, other than the oldest Motorola bricks, long since gone, and they were analog.

As for where the intelligence is located, who cares? What I am talking about is the ability of CDMA to handle 20-30% more calls as a system. I’m also talking about the fact that GSM phones will frequently be garbled, yet the ‘intelligence’ of the system does nothing about it. CDMA phones do not do this.

Another problem is not really a problem with the coding schema but the fact that GSM operates [in this country that is] in the part of the spectrum where the signal doesn’t penetrate walls and other parts of a structure well. CDMA [this would be Verizon, Alltel, etc….the non-PCS suppliers, so where Verizon is at PCS frequencies this does not apply] in the 800MHz band is much better at this…compare any competing phones in areas of similar signal strength.

I’m not sure why you are concerned with decryption, but I don’t think that this is a concern either way, for the average citizen.

If you are going to challenge opinion great, but back it with facts, please.
Since I am positive you are wrong about cell phone output [do the math,look at the standards, consider the manufacturer’s documents], I can only conclude you are wrong about the decryption process, and as above, who really cares about that.

I frequently do audio recordings at home, remastering old audio tapes and burning CDs, and occasionally there is a noise in the new recording . It’s at about 220 Hz (A below middle C on the piano) in a rhythmical pattern and I haven’t been able to verify it yet but I’m guessing it is cell phone RFI. Any information about possible sources and how to abate this nuisance would be appreciated.

Tom, the GSM noise is typically not continuous, but a semi-continous ticking noise, low in the audio band - could be around 220Hz, but not continuous like a typical tone burst would be.

Thanks for the comment. BTW, I would look at Google for GSM, and check problems - the exact frequencies should be given.