Talk:GSM

Headquarters of CEPT and ETSI

I took out reference to CEPT being HQed in Munich and ETSI in Dresden because a) I think it's irrelevant [it could appear on their own pages if true] and b) I can't find evidence that this is where they were. I know ETSI is now in Sophia Antipolis, but I couldn't find reference to an earlier HQ. I think this should cite references if it's included. --Phil Holmes 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Health issues

Although this topic is extremely controversial, I think it would be very opportunate to dicuss this issue here. We know that if cell phones are harmful, GSM is potentially the most harmful of all technologies. There are several serious studies about this topic, relating GSM and health issues specifically, so I think it'd be great to add this discussion in the main article about GSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.19.38 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. At best, it would turn a factual article describing GSM into a flame fest on the possible health effects. And, in order to start the flame fest here, it would also be likely to put non-factual information in the article. Given that all the reputable studies of the health effects of wireless transmission have found no evidence of a mechanism or an effect, writing anything to the contrary would compromise the article.--Phil Holmes 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would be a very controversial point in the article, I never doubted that, but I totally disagree about the "reputable studies" part. To me it seems pretty obvious that it's something like cigarretes. If you smoke a single cigarrete a day, it is very unlikely that you'll have lung cancer or something like it. With cell phones, as users, with the unexplainably high prices practiced in the market today, we simply cannot talk in the cell phone all the day, like people who smoke a pack of cigarretes a day. It wasn't until very recently (5 years or so) that the frequencies (and the power) of electromagnetic waves got very very high (from near one to several GHz). There've been reported several cases, in the past few years, of cancer clusters around phone and power line masts, with several cases of cancer in the same street, most of them brain or pancreas cancer. That's not a irrefutable proof, I agree. But there are strong signals of the relationship out there. What can people say that it's a "reputable study" in a world that telecom companies became more powerful than old oil companies or maybe anything else? For decades all "reputable studies" showed that it was no relation between global warming (and its obvious effects) and the use of fossil fuels. The "reputable studies" attributed it to "natural cycles" or whatsoever. Scientists can be paid to say anyhing that's convenient. I'm not putting total distrust over science, but it happened not only once when rivers of money were involved. The fact (and that IS a fact) is that because of the way GSM works, it's electromagnetic waves power is 8 times higher than it'd be in other technologies. So IF there is some relationship, GSM is one of the most dangerous technologies out there, along with WiMax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.19.38 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GSM's power levels are not eight times anything. GSM is only transmitting about an eighth of the time, and during those bursts is generally using less power than analog and only slightly more as CDMA based systems for the same time period, meaning both end up radiating approximately 8x as much power. Part of GSM's ability to increase capacity over analog has to do with the fact it uses less power during the times its transmitting than analog, minimizing interference.

Qualcomm has a lot to answer for, I assume "GSM uses eight times as much power" comes from their little FUD machine as there seem to be an awful lot of their shills who get really surprised when they find GSM phones generally have better battery life than their CDMA rivals. Many even think power controls is an exclusively CDMA concept.

In any case, we're talking about power levels generally no higher than half a watt. If that scares you, stay out of the sun. --Squiggleslash 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Mobile phone radiation health issues are discussed at: Mobile phone radiation and health It doesn't need to be in this article. -GraL (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Frequencies

Is there any reason why this article doesn't mention where each frequency is used? I think that would be a useful addition to the article. Unfortunately, I can't remember the details, or I would add it myself... --Lardarse 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in the GSM frequency bands article, which is linked to from this article. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cell Phone Makes

Would it be useful to have a list of cell phones makes that can accept GSM SIM cards when travelling overseas? I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvensky (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This list would surely be into the hundreds long; certainly not appropriate for this article. Perhaps a separate list article. Oli Filth^(talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

bell mobilty sim card

needs to be replaced becuase bell mobilty operates on cdma interface and that card is only a romaing card I think it would be better to put one from a compnay that operates on the gsm standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speer320 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

GSM vs. CDMA

Surely someone can come up with a non-flamish comparison? I came to this article specifically for that reason and found nothing. It appears, having read many related pages, that CDMA has higher per-station utilization due to the multiplexing, and as a result a deployment is less expensive. If this is true, it should be mentioned in the article, which otherwise leaves the reader mystified why the GSM usage is 82%, and not 100%. Maury (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GSM and CDMA cannot be directly compared, it is like apples and oranges. CDMA is a wireless multiplexing technique called Code division multiple access. To compare with GSM we should disscuss the differences between TDMA (time division multiple access) and CDMA , which DO have utilization and performance issues to for comparison.

Now in comparing GSM the 'system' to CDMA the 'System' we can then understand why GSM becomes the clear leader worldwide. 1)GSM is based on worldwide standards (ETSI) 2)GSM was built from existing standards building blocks, X25 for system communications within the network and between roaming operators, Global Call record accounting principles, already deployed for world wide calling cards. 3)GSM subscribers are assigned with country codes to allow global roaming

The CDMA lobby in the US always argued the call quality and utilization point, but lacked the foresight of global standards, an open market and lost ground in the US. This is why users in the US waited 10 years to get a choice of GSM systems Pukkadee (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple

Removed Apple as it is a handset maker whilst the other companies on the list are GSM equipment makers..ie the base stations and routing equipment. There are hundreds of handset manufactuers, we cant keep listing them all, and even if we did, Apple is a very, very small maker. 143.167.184.204 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with this but user Olli Filth has reverted your edits. Is there a standard way to reach consensus? Apple are a tiny player with a single product, whereas the rest all appear to be network equipment manufacturers. And while we're at it I've never heard of Interval and the link doesnt go to the right place (I'll remove the link in a moment). Beardybloke (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally reverted the change because it was made by an IP, and wasn't accompanied by an edit summary. However, I take the point made above. Given that there's no criteria for being a member of this list, and given that it's not particularly informative, how about we remove it altogether? Oli Filth^(talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me to remove the list - or if a list should exist at all to more strictly define it - I can think of oodles of companies who make things that could qualify them as a GSM manufacturer in the broadest sense, but that would just be silly to include them (ie chipset manufacturers, test kit manufacturers, and so on...) Beardybloke (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Pogo picture?

The original Pogo device was an early example

This is accompanied by text which says the pogo "is an early example" Can anyone clarify what its an early example of? And also why its slap bang in the middle of the Security section? Is it an early example of some security mechanism? As far as I can ascertain its an early example of a web-enabled phone and thats about it. Beardybloke (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed it - if anyone can clarify its purpose for being there then feel free to put it back... Beardybloke (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

SMS expense

It seems some clarification for this passage, in the second paragraph of the lead, is needed:

GSM also pioneered a low-cost alternative to voice calls, the Short message service (SMS, also called "text messaging")...

Someone removed "low-cost" commenting that text messages are not low cost. I reverted it since it appeared to me that the sentence is intended to mean that SMS impacts the GSM system to a minor extent—which stands to reason: sending 300 bytes for a text message seems insignificant to a voice connection. I was reverted with the comment SMS is hugely expensive. Can someone shed some light on this? —EncMstr (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I took low cost to mean "cheap" (the usual idiomatic understanding). I agree that to the carrier it's both cheap and uses little bandwidth. However, to the end user it is one of the most expensive ways of sending data there is. So with a little clarification I'm sure this edit can go back in. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I wasn't seeing your edit summary, so I apologise for the confusion. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things. Another wording to consider is something along the lines of "low system impact". —EncMstr (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Interference with Other Devices a.k.a. Speaker Buzz

I see no mention of GSM interference with speakers, shouldn't this be included, it's a pretty bit problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGothier (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of GSM interfering with other devices should definitely be included. In the United States, many GSM devices commonly cause interference (undesired operation) with other devices, which is a clear violation of FCC Rules Part 15. The interference issue technically makes operation of those GSM devices -- and perhaps the whole system -- unlawful in the U.S., so this is definitely significant and worthy of mention. -Johnlogic (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From FAQ: The 411 on radio frequency interference - CNET News

“ If this is such a common problem, why don't cell phone manufacturers or the Federal Communications Commission do something about it?

Well, the short answer is, it's not really their fault. Cell phones are designed to emit radio frequencies and to have two-way communications with nearby cell phone towers. Phones are constantly pinging cell towers to update them on their location. And the towers are pinging phones to make sure they're still in a particular cellular area. The phones themselves are operating within the range that the FCC has deemed safe. And the mobile operators, whose networks these phones operate on, are all transmitting signals from their cell towers only within the spectrum bands that they have been allotted from the government.

So who is to blame and how can this noise be stopped?

The real culprits are the speaker, car stereo, PC and other consumer electronics manufacturers for not designing their products to fend off this interference. With proper metal enclosures for motherboards and for wires that connect into these electronic components, the device can be shielded from picking up and amplifying stray radio frequency. The problem, of course, is that many of the components and the products themselves are manufactured on the cheap overseas in places such as China and South Korea. And over the past couple of decades consumers have grown accustomed to getting PCs and other consumer electronic devices for bargain basement prices.

”

Cacophony (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cacophony, thank you for the great posting. I've been looking for some public acknowledgment of the problem; it seems to be getting buried.

Unfortunately, CNET seems to only get it half-right.

From the FCC's Equipment Authorization FAQs:

“ Labeling requirement in 47 CFR 15.19 indicate that a Part 15 device must not cause harmful interference and must accept interference.

“ This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. ”

”

So yes, under part 15 (2), makers of car stereos, TVs, boom boxes, hearing aids*, etc. must design enough robustness into their products to satisfy the consumers even if barraged by radio frequency interference. But it's a two-way street, as specified by part 15 (1): makers of GSM equipment "may not cause harmful interference". The major difference is that under part 15 (2), the device maker must answer only to the market (individual consumers), but under part 15 (1), the FCC is charged with preventing the sale of interfering devices, though it has been lax to do so under G.W. Bush. (While I'm at it, I may as well blame Bush's FCC for destroying TV, though analog TV broadcasting won't end until just after his successor takes office.)

(*) To be fair to Bush, I should point out a 1996 (Clinton administration) correspondence with mayor of San Diego Susan Golding, evaluating the impact of implementing GSM, etc. at Hearing Aids- Wireless Phone Interference:

“ The FCC was made aware of concerns that wireless technologies may cause interference to hearing aids and other medical devices last year [1995]... ”

I don't know how to headline this, but...

If you go to the page Nokia 3500 Classic and looks at it's network specs, you'll notice it's got GSM 900, GSM 1800 and GSM 1900... I don't know what they mean, but I reckon if someone knows it should be included in the article. I came across this article while trying to find out if my Nokia 3500 classic is 3G-compatible...and to be honest, I still don't know! Cybersteel8 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The 900, 1800, and 1900 refer to the frequency bands (in MHz) that are supported by your phone. Different GSM carriers around the world own different frequencies that they use to run their networks; in order for your phone to connect to their network, it must support the corresponding frequency. (By the way, this is an orthogonal issue to whether your phone supports 3G or not.) Elch Yenn (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the technical details section talks about frequency ranges and there is a link there which goes to a separate article that dives into loads of details about what they all mean. However I notice that it hasn't been updated to include the new 3G spectrum in europe which is effectively around the 2100 range. Note that you can have 3G at any frequency in theory (and in practice something called spectrum refarming will allow it providing the commercial/political issues can be resolved) but it is more common at 2100 at least in europe. So my guess is that your phone doesnt support 3G. ChrisUK (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

History section

There was an edit by user 121.52.145.50 that I've noticed, and I'm not sure it's a good edit. First line of the History section. Unfortunately the citation attached with it is now invalid (I followed the link to the website the info apparently came from but the website said the page doesn't exist anymore). I suggest that someone searches around to clarify the information and cite it appropriately. Seems like a good slice of information! Cybersteel8 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The only change I noticed was changing the fully enumerated name of the CEPT to efctAdministrations as one word. I changed it back. The new link was an empty link while the old one goes where I expect. If there really is/was a name change I'd expect the link to go to the right place and also some reference at that destination page to the name change - along with a reliable source being referenced. beardybloke (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And the reference? Does any one else notice that it's invalid? It links to Footnote 6, which is a link to http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history.shtml but that website says that the page doesn't exist anymore. Can we find another source for the information? Cybersteel8 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah! I see. For some reason I had assumed you were talking about a cite note added by the IP Address user. Thats why I was puzzled. The cite is still at that site (if you'll excuse the expression), just at a different URL. It wasnt that difficult to find to be honest. beardybloke (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for that. I bet it was easy, I'm just a really lazy wikipedian who identifies mistakes but doesn't do anything about them....and LOL AT THE VANDALISM!!! HAAHAHAHHAHAH Cybersteel8 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Patents

What about listing some of the patents behind GSM?--Kozuch (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"most popular standard for mobile phones in the world"

I find the first sentence a bit ambiguous. GSM isn't a standard for mobile phones only (GSM can be used on laptops). GSM doesn't specify phone physical size or shape. GSM isn't only a protocol, so we can't call it that. Perhaps "most popular cellular network standard"? Just a thought.

fogus (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)