Am 26.07.21 um 00:50 schrieb AJL:
> sms wrote:
>
>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to the
>> same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can leave
>> anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>
> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for $699. A
> $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the discount over a 24
> month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave early I lose the remaining
> discount, thus making my phone a bit more expensive than planned...

Obviously neither Verizon nor you understand the meaning of economic
equivalence.

Remove the chip from the phone and pay the rest of the monthly
installments until the end of the contract. In addition cancel the
contract on the ealiest date possible. It is so easy.

Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
terminate the contract earlier.

There could be one caveat: The phone could be locked until the end of
the contract. In many countries this is illegal btw.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 26.07.21 um 11:20 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
> Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
> terminate the contract earlier.

Meaning to pay the remaining monthly installments now as a lump sum.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 26.07.21 um 00:50 schrieb AJL:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to
>>> the same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can
>>> leave anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>>
>> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for
>> $699. A $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the
>> discount over a 24 month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave
>> early I lose the remaining discount, thus making my phone a bit
>> more expensive than planned...
>
> Obviously neither Verizon nor you understand the meaning of economic
> equivalence.

Huh?

> Remove the chip from the phone

Huh?

> and pay the rest of the monthly installments until the end of the
> contract.

My basic Verizon phone contract was/is simple. I had/have 3 choices all
costing me the same. Pay the phone's total retail price up front. Pay
for the phone in 24 *interest free* installments. Quit anytime in
between and pay the balance with no penalty.

I'm doing the interest free 2 year loan since I planned to stay with
Verizon anyway.

> In addition cancel the contract on the ealiest date possible. It is
> so easy.

As an enticement to sell the phone and have me stay with Verizon they
gave me a $300 phone discount payable at $12.50/mo. (Verizon calls it a
discount, sms calls it a subsidy, but it's really just a tomato/tomaaato
thing.)

Since I liked the premium phone and my other local stores weren't
beating the Verizon discount I went with it.

> Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
> terminate the contract earlier.

Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
remaining discount/subsidy.

> There could be one caveat: The phone could be locked until the end of
> the contract. In many countries this is illegal btw.

I've never considered locking. When I got my first cell phone, Verizon
was the only game in town. In the many years since I've never had one
problem so why change? Sure, I suppose I could find a cheaper service
but mine's not that bad. I currently pay a basic $37.50/phone/mo for
unlimited US talk/text/roam and 2GB of data with rollover. Many couldn't
live on 2GB but I've never gone over so it's unlimited for me. As always
YMMV...

(All quotes in US$)

On 7/26/2021 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> remaining discount/subsidy.

It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay what
you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
another carrier before the contract term was up.

<snip>

> I've never considered locking. When I got my first cell phone, Verizon
> was the only game in town. In the many years since I've never had one
> problem so why change? Sure, I suppose I could find a cheaper service
> but mine's not that bad. I currently pay a basic $37.50/phone/mo for
> unlimited US talk/text/roam and 2GB of data with rollover. Many couldn't
> live on 2GB but I've never gone over so it's unlimited for me. As always

<snip>

Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off). It
used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days. If someone doesn't pay off
the balance when they leave then Verizon can blacklist the phone so it
cannot be used on other U.S. carriers. They could also send your account
to collections and report the non-payment to credit reporting agencies.

AT&T and T-Mobile lock phones purchased from them if not paid off, but
will unlock phones bought outright after 40 days (T-Mobile) or 60 days
(AT&T).

Once the phone is paid off, at that low level of usage, you might want
to consider something like Verizon service on RedPocket, $169/year
($14.08/month) for 3GB/month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058473014>,
$219/year ($18.25/month) for 8GB per month
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672>. When you want another
subsidized phone you can go back to Verizon proper.

sms wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:

>> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do
>> it online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose
>> the remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay
> what you owe on the device if you leave Verizon.

Call it what you like. By definition either a contract or an agreement
can be legally enforceable. And mine is.

> It's very different than the old contracts where you were hit with a
> big penalty for leaving for another carrier before the contract term
> was up.

Yes, quite different. But then contracts (and services) can and do
change over time.

> Once the phone is paid off, at that low level of usage, you might
> want to consider something like Verizon service on RedPocket,
> $169/year ($14.08/month) for 3GB/month
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058473014>, $219/year ($18.25/month) for
> 8GB per month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672>. When you want
> another subsidized phone you can go back to Verizon proper.

I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about the small stuff. I
like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.

In article <sdmt81$kma$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> > online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> > remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay what
> you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
> old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
> another carrier before the contract term was up.

it's still a contract, and if you leave early, you owe money.

> Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
> installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off).

it still has a fec lock until paid.

> It
> used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
> FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days.

that 'agreement' was actually a bribe, where verizon paid off ajit ¼ to
ignore that they were deliberately violating their agreement with the
fcc.

On 7/26/2021 12:04 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about the small stuff. I
> like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.

True, it's a minor expense. I just don't like giving Verizon, or any
carrier, any more money that necessary. It's also a little different
when I'm paying for four lines with unlimited data versus one line with
very little data.

sms wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 12:04 PM, AJL wrote:

>> I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about the small stuff. I
>> like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.
>
> True, it's a minor expense. I just don't like giving Verizon, or any
> carrier, any more money that necessary. It's also a little different
> when I'm paying for four lines with unlimited data versus one line with
> very little data.

I'm sure we're both damn glad that you're not me...

nospam wrote on 26.07.2021 21:09
> it's still a contract, and if you leave early, you owe money.

Being someone who left Verizon because they upped the contract when I had a
broken phone replaced by them, and having left AT&T because they wouldn't
put a data block on a smartphone, I have been on the contract free T-mobile.

I don't recall if I pay for the next (upcoming) month or for the prior
month, but if it's the next month, then if I call them to quit, then nobody
owes anyone anything.

If it's for the past month, then I own them a single month.
You can call that a contract (since they're obligated once I pay them).

But in the scheme of things, it's not the kind of contract that locks me
into anything egregious if I leave the company for another carrier.
--
Alan Baker, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name, et al.
are embarrassed & ashamed at how much is impossible to do with iOS.

On 2021-07-26 01:24, sms wrote:

> T-Mobile is in a good position by catering to price-sensitive
> subscribers for whom geographic coverage in non-urban areas is not a big
> concern.

T-Mobile had been left for dead when Deutsche Telekom put it up for
sale, and remained stagnant during the AT&T takeover since much of T-Mo
would be shut down. Coverage not only didn't imprve but got worse during
those years, and T-mo was stuck with 3G on 1700 which had very few phones.

When the AT&T merger was blocked, Deutsche Telekom was stuck with it, so
it hired Legere to bring it back to life. Agressive marketing combined
with network rebuild, AT&T spectrum, and AT&T no longer blocking iPhone
3G on 1700 got T_mobile were all jolts to rescussitate T-mobile.

But as T-mobile regains strength and gets a much mroe decent netork
(especially with Sprint), expect them to no longer sell at a discount
becaiuse they will feel their network can compere against AT&T and Verizon.

There is also the facte there is now less competition.

On 2021-07-26 01:30, sms wrote:

> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> CDMA2000.

Very important ]edantic distinction:

GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.

GSM manufactuers had to pay some royalties for use of the cdma concept,
but not for actual Qualcomm products or protocols. The implementation
was completely different and much of the GSM stack was presderved onto
the new ai interface that had more capacity.

> Not sure which will be completely shutdown in the U.S. first. AT&T
> already shut down GSM but T-Mobile still operates their GSM network.
> Verizon and U.S. Cellular haven't shut down CDMA yet.

what you call 5G is GSM. Am deep into carreier tariffs right now and
canadian carriers all define their networks interms of GSM, requirement
to be member of GSM association, GSM protocols, GSM SIM cards etc.

The GSM = 2G association is mostly a US phenomena because of marketing
when they evolved, especially carriers like Verizon and Sprint who
sidn,T want to admit they were joining a european assopciation because
that looks bad to their MAGA style customers.

CDMA/Qualcomm was adopted formally by US government as strategic move to
counter the European protocol, so it was hard for americans to accept
GSM so the second they could drop the "GSM" brand they did.

In article <h8ILI.18264$Ei1.10175@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> > CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.

that is not an 'important jedantic distinction'.

cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
nothing that matters. they are both cdma.

>
> what you call 5G is GSM.

nope.

gsm is 2g, however, it's often incorrectly used to mean 2g, 3g, 4g/lte
and now 5g.

On 7/26/2021 5:02 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 01:24, sms wrote:
>
>> T-Mobile is in a good position by catering to price-sensitive
>> subscribers for whom geographic coverage in non-urban areas is not a big
>> concern.
>
> T-Mobile had been left for dead when Deutsche Telekom put it up for
> sale, and remained stagnant during the AT&T takeover since much of T-Mo
> would be shut down. Coverage not only didn't imprve but got worse during
> those years, and T-mo was stuck with 3G on 1700 which had very few phones.
>
> When the AT&T merger was blocked, Deutsche Telekom was stuck with it, so
> it hired Legere to bring it back to life. Agressive marketing combined
> with network rebuild, AT&T spectrum, and AT&T no longer blocking iPhone
> 3G on 1700 got T_mobile were all jolts to rescussitate T-mobile.
>
> But as T-mobile regains strength and gets a much mroe decent netork
> (especially with Sprint), expect them to no longer sell at a discount
> becaiuse they will feel their network can compere against AT&T and Verizon.
>
> There is also the facte there is now less competition.

Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.

Catering to price-sensitive customers and not trying to go head-to-head
with AT&T and Verizon for corporate and government accounts, and not
spending a fortune on fixing coverage issues, has paid off. Expanding
rural coverage would not gain them many customers in those rural areas
and they’re content to write off the customers for whom geographic
coverage is a no-compromise requirement.

Twice I've had T-Mobile sales people trying to sell service to places I
worked. First was at an IOT company where we had a lot of devices with
GSM radios out in the field with AT&T SIM cards and AT&T was shutting
down GSM. But it was of no interest because the devices were often in
remote locations where there was nothing but AT&T service. Second time
they gave us some activated SIM cards to try out their network, but the
problem was that the coverage wasn't good enough in Silicon Valley once
you got out to the foothills. We would have saved about $3000 per month
by switching all the lines from Verizon to T-Mobile but it just was not
do-able.

Acquiring Sprint won't help T-Mobile's geographic footprint much, if at
all, since Sprint had such a tiny network and relied heavily on Verizon
for roaming. T-Mobile wanted Sprint for two reasons: 1) the 33 million
or so Sprint postpaid customers, and 2) the spectrum owned by Sprint.
So far, T-Mobile has been intent on adding 5G to their existing towers
but has not done much to expand their geographic coverage. All their
marketing is about touting 5G. I saw their commercial during the
Olympics and I had to laugh when I heard the weasel words that I guess
they were forced to include regarding data speeds.

Free Netflix, free Taco Bell tacos, and free Burger King Whoppers are
not going to impress commercial and government customers. Those
customers are willing to pay the extra cost for a better network.

The Rootmetrics report <
https://www.androidcentral.com/rootmetrics-reports-verizon-has-best-overall-network-first-half-2021>
is spot-on.

In article <sdnl28$9p9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Acquiring Sprint won't help T-Mobile's geographic footprint much, if at
> all, since Sprint had such a tiny network and relied heavily on Verizon
> for roaming.

nonsense. sprint's network is/was quite good and almost never roamed on
verizon except in very rural areas. i've used it. you obviously have
not.

> T-Mobile wanted Sprint for two reasons: 1) the 33 million
> or so Sprint postpaid customers, and 2) the spectrum owned by Sprint.

more accurately, sprint had financial difficulties and needed to be
purchased or go poof. i know someone who designs their hardware and he
has many stories to tell.

On 7/26/2021 5:08 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 01:30, sms wrote:
>
>> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
>> CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
>
> GSM manufactuers had to pay some royalties for use of the cdma concept,
> but not for actual Qualcomm products or protocols. The implementation
> was completely different and much of the GSM stack was presderved onto
> the new ai interface that had more capacity.

All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
i.e.
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>

On 2021-07-26 20:17, nospam wrote:

> cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
> 3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
> nothing that matters. they are both cdma.

cdma is a concept, like tdma. CDMA, CDMA2000, HSPA/UMTS are all
different implementations of the CONCEPT.

There are not minor differences.

cdma is akin to using front wehel vs rear wheel drive (tdma). But once
you select that, you still have very different drive trains, very
different transmissions.

UMTS/HSPA has implememntation of cdma phisolophy that is totally
different from what Qualcomm implemented. The channel widths,
compression, encoding"modulation are all different (which is why HSPA
managed up to 42mbps while CDMA2000 was stuck at 3mbps).

The two are totally imcompatible even though both are "front wheel
drive"concepts.

GSM had to pay royalties to Qualcomm for use of the cdma _concept_ (on
which Qualcomm had patents), they did not pay Qualcomm for use of actual
CDMA IA95 or CDAM2000 code/protocols/designs.

On 2021-07-26 20:47, sms wrote:

> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.

T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
by discounting its inferior network.

But as it gets stronger, its network is improving and as it the need to
discount its services to get customers will diminish as it can start to
compete more ehead to head against AT&T and Verizon.

We had similar here in Canada with almost all the 2007 batch of new
entrants dying, and Wind having to really discount its prices due to bad
network (and lack of money to build it). Once sold to Shaw, Shaw
deployed LTE, obtained spectrum and really improves their coverage in
the cities they serve and they stated their goal was to eventually match
other incumbet,s ARPU (akaL raise prices to same as incumbents).

(Shaw is slated to disapear if the Shw/Rogesr merger is approved and
will become an MVNO of Rogers).

BTW Acquiring Sprint will help T-Mobile due to additional spectrum givin
it plenty of capacity and llikely rights to deploy antennas in greater
territory.

On 2021-07-26 21:00, sms wrote:

> All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
> i.e.
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>

No. W-CDMA is GSM protocol. But because it makes use of the cdma
concept, a patent help by Qualcomm, any building of wireless tech that
implemnets GSM 3G had to pay roalties to Qualcomm for use of vdma concept.

Qualcomm did not develop W-CDMA itself.

In article <VvOLI.28295$Nq7.21646@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> cdma is a concept, like tdma.

one that's much better, which is why gsm/2g ditched tdma and switched
to cdma for 3g, which was later improved upon for 4g/lte and 5g.

tdma is garbage.

In article <1BOLI.46738$qk6.41095@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.

no it didn't. you're as bad as sms with the made up bullshit.

On 7/27/2021 12:29 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 20:47, sms wrote:
>
>> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
>> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
>
> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.
>
> But as it gets stronger, its network is improving and as it the need to
> discount its services to get customers will diminish as it can start to
> compete more ehead to head against AT&T and Verizon.

Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasn’t
happened in my area yet; the maps on their web sites confirm this fact.
You can be sure that they would show any new coverage that they added on
their coverage maps.

One area we frequently go to is the southern San Mateo County coast and
the northern Santa Cruz County cost. You can see the vast coverage
differences at <https://imgur.com/CpMuMmC>.

Another place we go to frequently is to the part of Yosemite near Fish
Camp in the southwest part of Yosemite. You can see the vast coverage
differences at <https://imgur.com/lEgVxMt>.

The best tool I’ve found for easy comparison of coverage is at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>, scroll down to
“Comparing Cell Phone Coverage Maps.”

For users that never leave urban areas, or that don't care about not
having coverage in rural areas, T-Mobile is a very good option since
their postpaid prices are lower than AT&T or Verizon postpaid prices.

sms wrote on 27.07.2021 20:23
> Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasn�t
> happened in my area yet;

This screenshot, taken moments ago, proves Steve is a bullshitter.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

Steve is only a few miles from me (we shop at the same pool store for
example), where I live smack dab in the middle of the Santa Cruz mountains.

Here we don't have _any_ public utilities other than electricity & phone
(i.e., we have no water, no sewage, no lpg). We don't even have cable on the
power poles so our Internet has to come from the sky from miles away.

Forget DSL as were many tens of thousands of feet from the nearest station.
The nearest cell towers are miles away (but closer as the crow flies).

We even have 100 feet zoning where we can't build ANYTHING (not even a shed)
within 100 feet of the road, and we have 40 acre zoning (so if you have 79
acres, you can only put ONE house on the lot!). They do not want anyone to
build out here which is why the rules are so Draconian on infrastructure.

And yet... while Steve incessantly claims we have slow T-Mobile speeds...
There it is... 5G at 255Mbps <https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>

Of course, speeds aren't signal strength so I turned off my Wi-Fi just now
to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
<https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?

In other words, what Steve claims about coverage & signal is bullshit.
--
For whatever reason, Steve shills for Verizon even as he doesn't use them.

paul wrote on 28.07.2021 01:18
> Of course, speeds aren't signal strength so I turned off my Wi-Fi just now
> to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
>
> The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
> tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
> <https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?

BTW, that is *stuff we do every day on Android which is _impossible_ on iOS.*
--
There isn't any functionality on iOS not already on Android, and yet there
is tons of functionality on Android impossible on iOS. Why? Because Apple
limits what the apps can do while Google can't. The market provides the
functionality for Android (in or out of the Play Store) while the market
can't provide the functionality for iOS if Apple doesn't want them to.

On 7/27/2021 12:32 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 21:00, sms wrote:
>
>> All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
>> i.e.
>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>
>
>
> No. W-CDMA is GSM protocol. But because it makes use of the cdma
> concept, a patent help by Qualcomm, any building of wireless tech that
> implemnets GSM 3G had to pay roalties to Qualcomm for use of vdma concept.
>
> Qualcomm did not develop W-CDMA itself.

True, but W-CDMA shares many of the patented items in CDMA2000. At least
that's why Qualcomm demanded, and received, patent royalties for W-CDMA.

On 2021-07-27 20:58, sms wrote:

> True, but W-CDMA shares many of the patented items in CDMA2000. At least
> that's why Qualcomm demanded, and received, patent royalties for W-CDMA.

the cdma approach defines a way to send and receive multiple streams in
the same channel/frequency block. Like allowing many in a crowd to speak
at same time and still be able to pick out individual voices.

Consider that tdma vs cdma akin to the difference between AM and FM.
Except i this case, Qualcomm is akin to having patented the concept of
modulating the frequency around a carrier signal (FM) instead of
changing the strength of signal at a specific frequency (amplitude
modulation).

What GSM is paying Qualcomm for is just the use of the patented concept
(cdma), not any particular implementation.
So they get the genaral logic for encoding a signal and decoding it,
need for time synchronisation etc, but in building W-CDMA with wider
channels, all the math is created differently. Furthermore, that is
just for air interface. You then have the digital interface for sending
bits (decoding the analogue frequency stuff from antenna into 1s and 0s)
and the hgher layers of application (voice, data, session,
authentication). None of those are compatible with Qualcom's product
suite with IOS95 or CDMA2000.

There is also the voice codecs (how analogue voice is converted to
digital which define the data rate needed, how "space" between words is
handled/filtered out to reduce load on network etc). GSM and CDMA and
GSM are totally different (and each support a number of codecs, but as
the GSM channesl are wider, GSM tends to have better voice quality codecs).