More Thoughts on the GSM-CDMA War
RDT
ability to have all cells broadcasting on the same frequency at the same
time. When it first came out, CDMA's air interface was a huge advance.
Known as "N=1 reuse" because every cell is reusing every frequency at the
same time, CDMA achieves maximum spectral efficiency. This allows for
very high subscriber densities without building new towers.
If you imagine a city covered with a honeycomb of cell sites, each
cell is going to have some overlap with adjacent cells. In order to
prevent interference between adjacent cells, TDMA (GSM is a TDMA based air
interface currently) systems use different frequencies between bordering
(or adjacent) cells. It is much like cordless telephones. You and your
neighbor use different channels to avoid interference with each other's
signal. TDMA cells use different frequencies to avoid interference with
each other. This immediately lowers the number of cell frequencies
available to your cellular provider within each cell. This means more
call congestion and a greater likelihood of network busy signals unless
the operator decreases his cell radii and builds more cell sites. But
this is expensive and sometimes impractical.
CDMA uses spread spectrum technology which means that each individual
conversation is spread across the entire frequency band at lower power and
the receiver and the transmitter have a "code" which allows the received
signal to be separated from the other hundreds of signals out there
transmitting at the same time. It is a fascinating technology, but with
the exception of N=1 reuse, it has lots of flaws including shorter battery
life, extreme technological complexity and a tendency to degrade voice
quality in order to allow greater capacity.
TDMA gives each subscriber a short window of time in which to send
their packets of digital data on the same frequency (a much smaller piece
of frequency than CDMA and a selection of multiple channels). However, it
cannot use the same frequencies as nearby cells. Until now. A company
called AirCom developed a technology which allows cells to talk directly
to subscribers by focusing energy directionally at a subscriber.
Normally RF signals send a circle of energy around the antenna. AirCom
antenna arrays actually send energy to a specific subscriber in a specific
direction and this allows TDMA to reuse more of its allocated bandwidth
without worry of interference because RF energy is directed at the user
who actually needs it and not randomly placed around the tower. According
to a recent press release, GSM over an AirCom antenna array produced N=1
reuse which increases cell density by about 600% and decreases the
likelihood of dropped calls. This pretty much eliminates the only real
advantage for CDMA and reinvigorates the debate about which technology
will triumph especially given Qualcomm's steep licensing fees.
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.020603/230372322&ticker=ANCC
RDT
--
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail"
---President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
John S.
>advantage for CDMA and reinvigorates the debate about which technology
>will triumph especially given Qualcomm's steep licensing fees.
Not really. I wouldn't even begin to make the kind of prediction that you just
did.
Although AirCom has been talking about this for the past 3 or 4 years, they
just barely demonstrated it, and I am not sure that I believe it. 3 years ago
when they wanted to use a system I had, they never could produce.
So, I wouldn't jump on some "other" bandwagon just yet. Also, it is not FCC
Type Accepted just yet either.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at nationwide-online.net
Hopper
""RDT"" <ta...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b2769i$o5h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> The final blow to CDMA came this week. CDMA's only advantage is its
Good point. I heard Verizon's 31.5 million customers ditched their phones
for landline, so they could spend more time trolling on usenet. This should
improve the signal to noise ratio in the airwaves, but reduce the signal to
noise ratio on Usenet.
Giambi
> cannot use the same frequencies as nearby cells. Until now. A company
> called AirCom developed a technology which allows cells to talk directly
> to subscribers by focusing energy directionally at a subscriber.
> Normally RF signals send a circle of energy around the antenna. AirCom
> antenna arrays actually send energy to a specific subscriber in a specific
> direction and this allows TDMA to reuse more of its allocated bandwidth
> without worry of interference because RF energy is directed at the user
> who actually needs it and not randomly placed around the tower. According
> to a recent press release, GSM over an AirCom antenna array produced N=1
> reuse which increases cell density by about 600% and decreases the
> likelihood of dropped calls. This pretty much eliminates the only real
> advantage for CDMA and reinvigorates the debate about which technology
> will triumph especially given Qualcomm's steep licensing fees.
>
>
>
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.020603/230372322&ticke
r=ANCC
>
> RDT
> --
> "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail"
> ---President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
And we all know that the moment a press release appears:
1. Things that work in a laboratory are deemed viable for real world use.
2. The technology is automatically present in all previously installed
equipment.
2. All related business plans are proved both realistic and profitable.
You'll pardon my hesitation to take you off the windbag list for merely
this.. and instead wait a few years for it to actually _work_.
--
Jason G
2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too! ;)
Mike
pasting what you read and try posting some original thoughts.
""RDT"" <ta...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b2769i$o5h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Brandon Blackmoor
news:X0mdnb8_9uu...@comcast.com...
>
> Get a life and stop copying and pasting what you read and try
> posting some original thoughts.
I would say the same to you. Why did you copy & paste over fifty lines of
someone else's post just to add a one-sentence reply?
Don't answer that -- just don't do it again. Here, read this:
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
bblac...@blackgate.net
2003-02-10
gms238
over to TMobile and enjoy the advantages of GSM (and there are many!),
except for the simple fact that TMobile doesn't give me the coverage and I
have to be able to receive and talk. The point is GSM has many great
advantages over CDMA, but until that coverage is expanded here in the
Northwest area (I'm in Oregon) I can't switch.
Still, I could get TM for the majority of calls and have Verizon for the
areas that TM doesn't cover.... hmmmmmmmm......
Luck, all.
Michael
""RDT"" <ta...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b2769i$o5h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> The final blow to CDMA came this week. CDMA's only advantage is its
> ability to have all cells broadcasting on the same frequency at the same
> time. When it first came out, CDMA's air interface was a huge advance.
> Known as "N=1 reuse" because every cell is reusing every frequency at the
> same time, CDMA achieves maximum spectral efficiency. This allows for
> very high subscriber densities without building new towers.
>
<snip>
>
>
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.020603/230372322&ticke
Lawrence G. Mayka
> to a recent press release, GSM over an AirCom antenna array produced N=1
> reuse which increases cell density by about 600% and decreases the
> likelihood of dropped calls. This pretty much eliminates the only real
> advantage for CDMA and reinvigorates the debate about which technology
> will triumph especially given Qualcomm's steep licensing fees.
You missed the obvious: adaptive antenna arrays (AirCom's technology) can
increase the capacity of CDMA by almost the same factor:
http://www.cdg.org/news/events/Digevent/presentations/cdg_smartant_arraycomm.pdf
http://www.cdg.org/news/events/CDMASeminar/cdg_tech_forum_02/6_arraycomm_slides.
pdf
http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/feb_01/news_0299.shtml
"ArrayComm Inc., a closely held wireless technology firm, and Britain's Marconi
Plc said Monday they reached a $300 million deal to co-develop a device that
would let 3G [CDMA] wireless carriers provide better service to five times as
many customers."
http://www.marconi.com/html/news/marconileadswitharraycommtoboost3gmobileperform
ance.htm
Cary Realtor
"More than 10 potential customers and wireless experts from around the world
came to AirNet to participate in this landmark trial during December and
January."
I'm impressed, but only if "customers" refers to entire phone companies and
not individual subscribers. Hope the donuts and coffee held out for this
crowd. :)
RDT
Lawrence G. Mayka <lgm...@ieee.org> wrote:
>You missed the obvious: adaptive antenna arrays (AirCom's technology) can
>increase the capacity of CDMA by almost the same factor:
You'll notice that AirCom mentions that CDMA can be benefitted by
adaptive antenna arrays but there are no descriptions of upcoming trials.
Why? Because when it comes to using this technology for voice
communications, it makes little difference whether you're using CDMA or
GSM. Why? Because CDMA is already a very spectrally efficient
technology. Now, if CDMA (IS-95) was divided into smaller channels like
GSM or US TDMA and each channel was wide enough only carry only a single
voice conversation, then adaptive antenna arrays would make sense.
I guess you are aware that adaptive antenna arrays are like having a
pipe to each subscriber. The pipe width is huge in the current CDMA
technology, therefore with the exception of broadband data, there is no
large benefit to a CDMA network (as currently configured) to adaptive
antenna arrays.
You really need to read between the lines, sir. This is a big score
for GSM and it does eliminate the advantage that CDMA has for voice
communications. However, for broadband, it is a big win for CDMA, but if
you read back through my posts you'll see I said CDMA should be used for
broadband. Assuming OFDM doesn't get its kinks worked out first.
Score another point for the longevity of TDMA based GSM!
D. Icktop
> You really need to read between the lines, sir. This is a big
> score
> for GSM and it does eliminate the advantage that CDMA has for voice
> communications. However, for broadband, it is a big win for CDMA, but
Yeah, replace antennas with some new, unproven stuff at a HUGE cost.
(Plus the time for tuning them) Or replace radios at a large cost. Yup,
huge win there.
Traveler
P.S. Are you still advocating IBM Token Rink over Ethernet.?
""RDT"" <ta...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b2769i$o5h$1...@panix3.panix.com...
John S.
GSM is a version of TDMA.
So what is it that you are trying to say here?
Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall
Looking at that article It just reinforces my knowledge.
1.) It is always cheaper to be able to build less towers to cover a area.
2.) your call is not spread over the whole spectrum at once rather Handed
Off to different channels depended on the need to do so.
3.) TDMA and GSM are worse on battery than CDMA
4.) Degrade voice? We use Verizon Wireless here in the alt.cellular.verizon
Newsgroup. Do you know that Verizon Wireless is the best in this one. Use a
Tmobile, Cingular or a Cellular One or even a ATT phone and see about voice
quality. It has been proven time and time again that Verizon Wireless is the
best. Why wouldn't the best use the best . Well the answer to that is WE DO.
I can prove the falsities in this statement / Article It is littered with
them
This article was Obviously Written with a lot of favoritism and must be
written for a sales pitch rather than a document for technical information.
--
Joshua Csepegi
Freedom Wireless Inc.
Verizon Wireless Agents
Belden Village Mall
Canton Ohio
(330) 493-0170
Carl.
> prevent interference between adjacent cells, TDMA (GSM is a TDMA based air
> interface currently) systems use different frequencies between bordering
> (or adjacent) cells.
> CDMA uses spread spectrum technology which means that each individual
> conversation is spread across the entire frequency band at lower power and
> the receiver and the transmitter have a "code" which allows the received
> signal to be separated from the other hundreds of signals out there
> transmitting at the same time.
I thought the fancy code-thingy was only to seperate users within the same
cell, and cellular frequency-division was still used between cells.
MARK HENDERSON
Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>3.) TDMA and GSM are worse on battery than CDMA
This one isn't true in practice. IS95/CDMA phones tend to me more
power hungry than GSM.
>4.) Degrade voice? We use Verizon Wireless here in the alt.cellular.verizon
>Newsgroup. Do you know that Verizon Wireless is the best in this one. Use a
>Tmobile, Cingular or a Cellular One or even a ATT phone and see about voice
>quality. It has been proven time and time again that Verizon Wireless is the
>best. Why wouldn't the best use the best . Well the answer to that is WE DO.
I'll actually disagree with this one also. I personally find GSM voice
quality to be better. I have a Verizon phone, as well as an AT&T GSM
phone. To my ear, the GSM EFR codec sounds better than either the
13K or 8K EVRC IS-95/CDMA codecs.
--
Mark Henderson
"Heilir æsir. Heilar ásynjur. Heil sjá in fjölnýta fold." - Sigrdrífumál
OpenPGP/GnuPG keys available at http://www.squirrel.com/pgpkeys.asc
HTML-only email addressed to me is automatically and silently discarded.
RDT
MARK HENDERSON <m...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
>In article <gXR1a.3817$4y4.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>3.) TDMA and GSM are worse on battery than CDMA
>This one isn't true in practice. IS95/CDMA phones tend to me more
>power hungry than GSM.
I tell the CDMA robots this fact every time. GSM has about an hour
to an hour and a half extra talk time per charge than CDMA -- all other
factors being equal. CDMA does have longer standby assuming you don't
make many calls.
>I'll actually disagree with this one also. I personally find GSM voice
>quality to be better. I have a Verizon phone, as well as an AT&T GSM
>phone. To my ear, the GSM EFR codec sounds better than either the
>13K or 8K EVRC IS-95/CDMA codecs.
A-men. The 8k EVRC sounds robotic and the 13k CDMA codec is almost
passable except for the strange things it does to the letter s (i.e.,
sounds like the user is spitting.)
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
> AirCom
>antenna arrays actually send energy to a specific subscriber in a specific
>direction and this allows TDMA to reuse more of its allocated bandwidth
>without worry of interference because RF energy is directed at the user
>who actually needs it and not randomly placed around the tower. According
>to a recent press release, GSM over an AirCom antenna array produced N=1
>reuse which increases cell density by about 600% and decreases the
>likelihood of dropped calls. This pretty much eliminates the only real
>advantage for CDMA and reinvigorates the debate about which technology
>will triumph especially given Qualcomm's steep licensing fees.
>
>
>http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.020603/230372322&ticker=ANCC
>
>RDT
They're called "smart antennas". If the CDMA carriers put smart
antennae on their towers the advantage returns to CDMA for the same
reason and then some, since CDMA takes advantage of multipath and TDMA
can't.
(Don't forget, the receive side on the towers has to also do the same
thing, estimate angle of arrival and configure the antennae to
configure the max sensitivity for the estimated angle of arrival.)
Andy M - Tampa Bay
> written for a sales pitch rather than a document for technical
information.""
Freedom Wireless is a Verizon Wireless dealer... what else do you expect
apart from pro-Verizon biased comments... Ha Ha Ha...
I'll freedom your ass, Joshua McBender.
"Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall" <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote in
message news:gXR1a.3817$4y4.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Diamond Dave
coverage and good calling plans - I'm sticking with Verizon. At least I
can use my phone WHERE and WHEN I want.
Dave
ta...@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<b2769i$o5h$1...@panix3.panix.com>:
> The final blow to CDMA came this week. CDMA's only advantage is its
> ability to have all cells broadcasting on the same frequency at the same
> time. When it first came out, CDMA's air interface was a huge advance.
> Known as "N=1 reuse" because every cell is reusing every frequency at the
> same time, CDMA achieves maximum spectral efficiency. This allows for
> very high subscriber densities without building new towers.
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
RDT
favoritism. Whereas, myself, who works for a company that repairs CDMA
cell phones would certainly be a cheerleader for GSM and show favoritism
to TDMA.
RDT
In article <gXR1a.3817$4y4.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>This article was Obviously Written with a lot of favoritism and must be
>written for a sales pitch rather than a document for technical information.
>Joshua Csepegi
>Freedom Wireless Inc.
>Verizon Wireless Agents
>Belden Village Mall
>Canton Ohio
>(330) 493-0170
>
>
--
Larry W4CSC
Mall" <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>I was under the impression that CDMA was the more efficient platform.
Efficient for the customer or for the company profits??
>
>Looking at that article It just reinforces my knowledge.
>
>1.) It is always cheaper to be able to build less towers to cover a area.
Great! My AMPS bagphone doesn't need many towers. I remember when we
only had TWO....(c;
>2.) your call is not spread over the whole spectrum at once rather Handed
>Off to different channels depended on the need to do so.
Is that what causes the gargling sound, because we're "handed off" to
a non-functional channel on a tower too far away? We'd all like to
fix the gurgling, gargling sound!
>3.) TDMA and GSM are worse on battery than CDMA
>4.) Degrade voice? We use Verizon Wireless here in the alt.cellular.verizon
>Newsgroup. Do you know that Verizon Wireless is the best in this one.
Verizon IS the "lesser of evils". That doesn't mean it's great like
they tell you in the company sales training. That means it's not as
bad as the rest of them. It's kinda subjective and depends on whether
you're a customer, who lost his client who was about to close on a
$20K widget and thinks you hung up on him, or a company suit trying to
put on the best face for the newbie who thinks it will work great all
over town.
Use a
>Tmobile, Cingular or a Cellular One or even a ATT phone and see about voice
>quality. It has been proven time and time again that Verizon Wireless is the
>best. Why wouldn't the best use the best . Well the answer to that is WE DO.
Er, ah, Verizon IS Cellular One in Charleston, SC. They bought
Cellular One's old system when they called themselves GTE Wireless.
Same old Motorola obsolete switch that can't deliver caller ID names
or email, properly.
>I can prove the falsities in this statement / Article It is littered with
>them
>This article was Obviously Written with a lot of favoritism and must be
>written for a sales pitch rather than a document for technical information.
>
We know. We're the customers out here on the street trying to figure
out why it won't make a call even though there's full scale on the
S-meters....(c;
"Can you hear me now?"
Larry W4CSC and other fine old calls since 1957...
RDT
<pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote:
>They're called "smart antennas". If the CDMA carriers put smart
>antennae on their towers the advantage returns to CDMA for the same
>reason and then some, since CDMA takes advantage of multipath and TDMA
>can't.
Again, if CDMA carriers were that interested in smart antennae, then
CDMA trials would already be in full force. The issue is that when you
create macro cells, it really doesn't matter that much whether you use
CDMA or TDMA -- voice data is just too low bandwidth to matter. Couple
with this the facts that CDMA sounds shitty, has shorter battery life, has
uglier handsets, less world acceptance, and on and on, you are beginning
to see why CDMA is the Betamax of cellular.
D. Icktop
> Couple with this the facts that CDMA sounds shitty, has shorter
Your personal opinion, which is worth nothing.
Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall
company doesn't just sell Verizon Wireless We also Sell Dobson cellular
One/ATT(TDMA/ GSM )In select markets Like DC, Philadelphia Pa, Erie Pa, New
York . We sell Verizon In the Cleveland Sandusky Akron Canton area also in
the Pittsburgh and surrounding areas. And without a doubt Hands Down WE are
praised in the Verizon area about our phones Clarity, Connectability and
Battery standby time.
I'm speaking on a sales point on what happens at company meetings words
exchanged and story's told.
Also on a technical standpoint about CDMA giving less busy and waiting to
connect tones. What is the so called benefit of the clearer calls when you
cant connect?
and what about ATT 's 30 City GSM network
I have no problem with Verizon CDMA Nor my 13k vocoder. Nor do my
customers. now you GSM/TDMA users can flame away giving your sarcastic
remarks I will pay them no mind nor will I respond against it. The bottom
line is this We will all believe what we want in the long run So why bother.
--
RDT
>line is this We will all believe what we want in the long run So why bother.
"as of September 2002, there were 100.7 million TDMA subscribers in the
Americas, 83.7 million CDMA subscribers, and 21 million GSM subscribers.
Another 27.8 million analog subscribers are represented, although this
number declined by over 30% in the last twelve months."
---http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2003/4706.htm
122 million Americans use a TDMA air interface
84 million Americans use a CDMA air interface
TDMA is a dead technology? A dinosaur?
Rumors of TDMA's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Chad
P8767) for my main business cell phone that my company provides so I don't
have a choice. I have the 13K vocoder turned on, but I have T-Mobile (Nokia
6310i) and AT&T GSM (Motorola T720) for my personal cell phones and can
honestly say that the GSM phones sound better and more natural than the CDMA
phone. When I am talking on the Verizon phone many people will tell me that
I sound like I am talking on a cell phone while when using either GSM phone
nobody can tell that it is a cell phone and sounds just like a land-line.
The same also holds true when people call me on a landline; CDMA users sound
more "like a cell phone" with more a raspy tone, while GSM users sound like
a landline with a more smooth overall tone. Also keep in mind that even
though you have the 13K vocoder turned on, the network can override it. In
my area Verizon lets the phone decide for outgoing calls, but all incoming
calls automatically default to EVRC no matter what the phone is set at. I
am not pushing the boat in either direction towards CDMA or GSM, just giving
my honest opinions from daily use of both technologies. You may disagree
with this, but again, this is what I have observed.
"MARK HENDERSON" <m...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3e47e0bd$1...@news.iglou.com...
RDT
Verizon although still not quite as good as GSM using the EFR codec.
RDT
In article <3rmcnZ9ACvD...@comcast.com>,
--
Steven Scharf
> The final blow to CDMA came this week. CDMA's only advantage is its
> ability to have all cells broadcasting on the same frequency at the same
> time.
That is hardly the only advantage of CDMA. There is also longer
battery life, lower radiation, far better coverage (at least by
the 800 Mhz CDMA carriers), and better indoor quality (at least
by the 800 Mhz CDMA carriers).
GSM has potential in the U.S., but so far it has been an abysmal
failure. I'll be first in line to sign up for GSM it it ever
provides as good coverage (geographically as well as indoor)
as CDMA. Note that I actually did have GSM service (if you can
call it that) for a year from Cingular.
THE FAILURE OF GSM IN THE UNITED STATES
---------------------------------------
Two major U.S. carriers are deploying GSM networks in the
U.S., AT&T Wireless, and Cingular. Cingular launched GSM
service several years ago in California and the service
was and is horrible. AT&T is now trying to migrate from
TDMA to GSM, with little success. AT&T probably has the
best cellular network in the U.S. based on its TDMA and
AMPS networks. It is now alienating its subscribers that
are trying out its "Next Generation" network. It's no
accident that their Digital One Rate plan is not available
on the "Next Generation" GSM Network!
AT&T Wireless was all set to move to CDMA (see:
"http://www.lucent.com/press/0895/950824.nsa.html"
until they were swayed by a 9.8 billion dollar investment
by Japan's NTT Docomo. Now AT&T Wireless is in a panic
trying to roll out W-CDMA in four cities by the end of
2004 (this agreement was renegotiated from a commitment
to roll out W-CDMA in thirteen cities by mid-2004), see:
"http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/1231attwirel.html".
T-Mobile is also a big player in GSM, and they have been
GSM from the start. But they are a very small carrier and
are hemmoraging cash and will not be independent in the
U.S. for long.
WHY IS GSM FAILING IN THE U.S.?
-------------------------------
There are many reasons for the failure of GSM in the U.S.
despite its success in Europe and Asia. GSM proponents
are fond of pointing out that most of Europe and much of
Asia have gone with GSM, that 70% of mobile users in the
world use GSM, etc.. This is all true, but completely
irrelevant. The U.S. is not Europe or Asia. Unlike the
U.S., Europe and Asia have much more spectrum available
for mobile telephones and thus spectral efficiency is not
an issue. Europe and Asia are much more densely populated
than the U.S. without the vast, sparsely populated, rural
areas. Finally, Europe went GSM before CDMA was
commercially available for mobile telephone use;
Europe went GSM rather than going TDMA, a wise choice at
the time.
Spectrum Availability
---------------------
In Europe, separate spectrum has been allocated for voice
and data on GSM; in the U.S., voice and data must share
the same limited spectrum. AT&T will have sufficient
spectrum for W-CDMA once they turn off their TDMA and
AMPS services, but Cingular cannot go beyond EDGE due to
lack of spectrum.
Coverage
--------
800 Mhz TDMA, 800 Mhz CDMA, and 800 Mhz AMPS offer far
better coverage than 1900 Mhz GSM. To duplicate the
existing coverage of TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS will require
years of siting and constructing new cells. The
alternative, and one which is coming in a few years,
is the wide deployment of 800 Mhz GSM. When this rollout
occurs then GSM will at least be more usable in urban and
suburban areas.
Ironically, the AT&T GSM rollout has gone better in their
1900 Mhz TDMA areas because 1900 Mhz GSM needs the same
number of sites as 1900 Mhz TDMA to provide equivalent
coverage (both are PCS).
1900 Mhz PCS versus 800 Mhz Cellular
------------------------------------
So far all GSM service in the U.S. has been at 1900 Mhz
because the more desirable 800 Mhz spectrum is being used
for TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS. This will change as the carriers
deploy GSM in the 800 Mhz spectrum (when TDMA and AMPS are
deactivated), but ubiquitous 800 Mhz GSM is a long way off.
1900 Mhz PCS uses lower power cells which requires more cells,
and the higher frequency also means that more cells are
required. Even if Cingular and AT&T overlaid 1900 Mhz GSM
onto all of their 800 Mhz TDMA cells, the coverage would
still be much worse on GSM. T-Mobile has no 800 Mhz spectrum
and no plans to get any.
In-Building Penetration
-----------------------
This is a 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz issue. GSM in the U.S.
is presently at 1900 Mhz which means that in-building
penetration will be much worse than TDMA or CDMA at 800
Mhz.
AMPS (Analog) fallback
----------------------
The AMPS analog cellular system is still the only system
in many rural areas. Furthermore, AMPS cells cover a much
wider area than digital cells of any kind, so in areas
where no cells are permitted (i.e. National Parks) you
can often get AMPS coverage from surrounding areas. No
for-profit carrier is going to install CDMA or GSM cells
that will cover the areas that AMPS currently covers.
Perhaps the government needs to fund a program similar
to the Rural Electrification Authority to provide service
in areas that are not economically viable enough for a
for-profit carrier to cover. They could call it the
Rural Digitization Authority.
Most CDMA phones include AMPS capability. Few GSM phones
do. Cingular does offer one phone with AMPS, the Nokia
6340i, but AT&T GSM does not offer any. AT&T is taking
a huge gamble with its decision not to deploy GAIT.
Scalability
-----------
CDMA supports more subscribers in a fixed amount of
bandwidth. The voice quality will deteriorate when more
subscribers are added, but calls can be made and will not
be dropped. This is an issue that is of great importance
when you have a very limited amount of bandwidth as is the
case in the U.S.
Battery Life
------------
Power requirements of CDMA are lower than that of GSM or
TDMA resulting in longer battery life.
Radiation
---------
The radiation level of GSM is 10X that of CDMA
Data Rates
----------
GSM data rates are lower than that of CDMA.
GAIT
----
GAIT handsets and networks were supposed to ease the
transition from TDMA/AMPS to GSM. GAIT handsets support
TDMA, AMPS, and GSM, though not seamlessly. Cingular
offers GAIT service and handsets in some of their TDMA
markets. At this point in time (amazingly) AT&T is not
offering GAIT handsets or service. AT&T does offer one
handset that supports GSM and TDMA, but not AMPS. The
speculation is that AT&T is trying to see if they can get
away without embracing GAIT; if the subscriber losses
are small then they will write off the subscribers that
care about coverage outside the urban areas, as Sprint
and Nextel have done.
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT GSM?
----------------------
International Roaming
---------------------
With a tri-band GSM phone (900 Mhz, 1800 Mhz, 1900 Mhz) a
subscriber can roam internationally in most of Europe and
much of Asia (not Korea or Japan). However there is a way
to achieve the almost same result (but not as cleanly) at
a much lower cost. Buy a low cost unlocked GSM phone that
supports 900 Mhz and 1800 Mhz, and buy prepaid SIM cards
in the country you visit. Get a toll free number that you
can route to any phone number you desire.
Handsets
--------
There is a much better selection of GSM handsets than of
TDMA or CDMA handsets, and at lower costs. The market
for CDMA handsets is much smaller and hence commands
higher prices.
Repairs
-------
If your GSM phone breaks you simply move your SIM card to
another GSM phone. You can buy a spare GSM phone pretty
cheaply if your carrier does not provide loaners. If your
CDMA phone breaks you have to buy a replacement at a high
cost.
THE FUTURE OF GSM IN THE U.S.
-----------------------------
Ironically, the only hope for GSM in the U.S. is the fact
that GSM is moving to CDMA, albeit a different flavor of
CDMA than the present CDMA carriers are using. W-CDMA,
a.k.a. UMTS, will eventually be deployed by at least some
of the U.S. GSM carriers. Within another decade, W-CDMA
will likely become a viable alternative to CDMA2000 in
the U.S..
In the short to mid-term, subscribers are going to have to
decide whether or not they can live without coverage when
they go outside urban areas, i.e. camping, skiing, on road
trips through rural areas, etc.
THE FUTURE OF GSM IN THE WORLD
------------------------------
Read: A mobile failure waiting to happen.
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,435330,00.html"
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO YOU?
----------------------------------
Very simply it means that you should choose a TDMA or CDMA
carrier, with AMPS, that operates an 800 Mhz network in
the areas that you frequent the most. Avoid GSM for the
foreseeable future. If you choose TDMA then eventually you
will have to switch to something else because the TDMA
networks will be shut down, but this is at least five
years away. The downsides to TDMA are that there are not
as many cool handsets available and that there are no
data services. Be certain to get a handset that includes
AMPS capability (almost all CDMA and TDMA handsets have
AMPS capability).
As the author of the Oregon and Pacific Northwest Cell
Phone Information site ("http://cell.uoregon.edu/") wrote:
"I continue to read horror stories from folks who are
sorely disappointed with AT&T's GSM system in various
places around the country. If you choose AT&T, stick
with their TDMA/analog offerings which are infinitely
superior to their GSM plans at this time. Yes, AT&T's
GSM will eventually be the way to go (at least if you
choose AT&T) but it's really not "there" yet. You've
been warned :)"
WHO'S LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK OVER GSM?
------------------------------------------------
Verizon. Once a subscriber becomes fed up with GSM, but
wants to retain the advanced data services, they have
no where else to turn but Verizon or Sprint. Sprint has
coverage issues of their own due to their being PCS at
1900 Mhz. As one poster on Usenet wrote:
"I have witnessed the following cycle:
1) Happy TDMA/analog customer.
2) Move to GSM for cool phones and/or data (also this is
the future plan).
3) Become very unhappy GSM customers (don't want to go
"backwards")
4) Result- switch carriers. Typically to Verizon.
One might say it's easy to return to TDMA/analog, however,
if you're a saavy <sic> user you're aware of the fact that
AT&T is moving their energies the GSM direction and
switching back to TDMA is like going backwards."
Todd Allcock
> 122 million Americans use a TDMA air interface
> 84 million Americans use a CDMA air interface
>
> TDMA is a dead technology? A dinosaur?
>
> Rumors of TDMA's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> RDT
Strangely enough, I dug this up in the Google archives of
alt.transportation.carriages.horseless from February of 1913...
> 12 million Americans use horses
> 8 million Americans use automobiles
>
> Horses are a dead technology? A dinosaur?
>
> Rumors of the horse's demise are greatly exaggerated.
The number of VCRs currently in use probably outnumber DVD players,
too, but the writing is on the wall there as well.
TDMA might better be described a "dying" technology rather than a
"dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track tape
and the Betamax.
Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
market?
phone man
> "dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track tape
> and the Betamax.
>
> Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
> market?
Ok lets see, v60i, 6360, 8265. All 3 are top sellers for AT&T on
TDMA.
bones boy
wrote:
>TDMA is dead. It's old technology. Get over it.
>
>P.S. Are you still advocating IBM Token Rink over Ethernet.?
>
>
You guys leave Token Rink alone.
D. Icktop
news:i13i4vc3go6tfe56v...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:06:01 -0000, mk84...@hotmail.com (phone man)
> wrote:
>
>> Ok lets see, v60i, 6360, 8265. All 3 are top sellers for AT&T on
>>TDMA.
>
> Nokia 8265 is hardly a "new" design. It's basically a recycled 8260
> which has been out now for a couple of years.
Same with the 6360....
phone man
release last may!
"D. Icktop" <michae...@dell.com> wrote in article
<Xns931F67597B6E...@66.134.198.18>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
D. Icktop
@corp.supernews.com:
> sorry but the 6300 series is or was a new design at the time of its
> release last may!
What did it bring over the 6360 other than an internal antenna and a
software upgrade???
RDT
Todd Allcock <elecc...@aol.com> wrote:
>Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
>market?
There are dozens. http://www.nokia.com
Did you forget that GSM IS TDMA?
Steven M. Scharf
"bones boy" <st...@look-listen.com> wrote in message
news:bl8h4vgj0j65lifgg...@4ax.com...
I went skating at the Token Rink.
I'm advocating Arcnet. I worked at one of the first networking companies.
We first made Arcnet cards and servers for the Apple II and the Commodore
PET.
We sold 8 bit ISA Arcnet cards for the PC for $700 each, Apple II cards went
for
$1500 (special order with a minimum manufacturing run) what a business!. Now
I
see PCI Ethernet cards for $3.
Steven M. Scharf
"phone man" <mk84...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4h86p9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ok lets see, v60i, 6360, 8265. All 3 are top sellers for AT&T on
> TDMA.
TDMA may be on its way out, but it works just fine for now with excellent
coverage. Since few people in the U.S. are interested in using their phones
for anything other than talking, the phone selection is adequate. No point
in a color TDMA phone.
Even AT&T salespeople warn customers about the compromises they'll
have to make on the "Next Generation Network." I could sound like a
broken record and castigate AT&T for not embracing GAIT, but I won't
do that again.
Michael Yermian
> battery life, lower radiation, far better coverage (at least by
> the 800 Mhz CDMA carriers), and better indoor quality (at least
> by the 800 Mhz CDMA carriers).
Longer battery life!? Find me one CDMA phone that will let me talk 7
hours straight like my Sony Ericsson T68i !? Heck, find me one that will
let me talk 5 hours straight like my Nokia 3590!? How about one that
with normal usage requires a recharge every 4-5 days like my T68i ...
yup, I use my phone a lot and it lasted that long!
> GSM has potential in the U.S., but so far it has been an abysmal
> failure. I'll be first in line to sign up for GSM it it ever
> provides as good coverage (geographically as well as indoor)
> as CDMA. Note that I actually did have GSM service (if you can
> call it that) for a year from Cingular.
You probably signed up for Cingular in CA. Have you heard about the
'horror' stories there... that isn't a full representation of GSM.
> THE FAILURE OF GSM IN THE UNITED STATES
> ---------------------------------------
> Two major U.S. carriers are deploying GSM networks in the
> U.S., AT&T Wireless, and Cingular. Cingular launched GSM
> service several years ago in California and the service
> was and is horrible. AT&T is now trying to migrate from
> TDMA to GSM, with little success. AT&T probably has the
> best cellular network in the U.S. based on its TDMA and
> AMPS networks. It is now alienating its subscribers that
> are trying out its "Next Generation" network. It's no
> accident that their Digital One Rate plan is not available
> on the "Next Generation" GSM Network!
Any DOR customer who thinks moving to GSM/GPRS would be just as good for
them is an idiot themselves. All they have to do is look at the map and
see that they aren't covered like they were in the DOR. Does this mean
GSM/GPRS is bad? Nope. It works for many other people, like myself,
someone who doesn't travel often, but if I ever did it would probably be
a GSM zone like visiting my relatives in CA.
> AT&T Wireless was all set to move to CDMA (see:
> "http://www.lucent.com/press/0895/950824.nsa.html"
> until they were swayed by a 9.8 billion dollar investment
> by Japan's NTT Docomo. Now AT&T Wireless is in a panic
> trying to roll out W-CDMA in four cities by the end of
> 2004 (this agreement was renegotiated from a commitment
> to roll out W-CDMA in thirteen cities by mid-2004), see:
> "http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/1231attwirel.html".
Hahahahaha! ATTWS go to CDMA? Obviously you just glanced over the
article, saw the word "AT&T" and "CDMA" and made an assumption, from
what I READ of the article, all they did was have AT&T NETWORK SYSTEMS
(NOT WIRELESS) develop a CDMA encoder, or vocodor (as the article
states)... where the hell does it say "AT&T WIRELESS plans to use this
new technology" ?? NOWHERE! As far as the W-CDMA agreement with NTT
Docomo... that isn't anything new, they planned to roll out W-CDMA in 13
cities, but cut back due to expenditures to only 4 cities. Whoopdie
doo... Was there a point in referencing that?
> T-Mobile is also a big player in GSM, and they have been
> GSM from the start. But they are a very small carrier and
> are hemmoraging cash and will not be independent in the
> U.S. for long.
T-Mobile had the largest growth of all carriers for the year of 2002 in
Net Subscribers gained. I may work for ATTWS, but I know that T-Mobile
gained more customers NET (Gain - Loss).
> WHY IS GSM FAILING IN THE U.S.?
> -------------------------------
> There are many reasons for the failure of GSM in the U.S.
> despite its success in Europe and Asia. GSM proponents
> are fond of pointing out that most of Europe and much of
> Asia have gone with GSM, that 70% of mobile users in the
> world use GSM, etc.. This is all true, but completely
> irrelevant. The U.S. is not Europe or Asia. Unlike the
> U.S., Europe and Asia have much more spectrum available
> for mobile telephones and thus spectral efficiency is not
> an issue. Europe and Asia are much more densely populated
> than the U.S. without the vast, sparsely populated, rural
> areas. Finally, Europe went GSM before CDMA was
> commercially available for mobile telephone use;
> Europe went GSM rather than going TDMA, a wise choice at
> the time.
I never noticed GSM failing in the US... heck, all I've been hearing
about is the rave of GSM from people.
> Spectrum Availability
> ---------------------
> In Europe, separate spectrum has been allocated for voice
> and data on GSM; in the U.S., voice and data must share
> the same limited spectrum. AT&T will have sufficient
> spectrum for W-CDMA once they turn off their TDMA and
> AMPS services, but Cingular cannot go beyond EDGE due to
> lack of spectrum.
>
> Coverage
> --------
> 800 Mhz TDMA, 800 Mhz CDMA, and 800 Mhz AMPS offer far
> better coverage than 1900 Mhz GSM. To duplicate the
> existing coverage of TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS will require
> years of siting and constructing new cells. The
> alternative, and one which is coming in a few years,
> is the wide deployment of 800 Mhz GSM. When this rollout
> occurs then GSM will at least be more usable in urban and
> suburban areas.
Cingular is building out GSM 850 in a LOT of markets, ATTWS is also
going to have GSM 850. Oh, and I guess you missed out on a few more
articles... I don't have the link anymore but if you dig deep enough
into past posts you might find one that shows that Western Wireless is
upgrading to GSM also... Don't forget to take into account ATTWS
affiliates (Dobson, EDGE, SunCom, Cincinatti Bell, etc.) I'm sure
Cingular affiliates (do they have any?) will also build out GSM.
> Ironically, the AT&T GSM rollout has gone better in their
> 1900 Mhz TDMA areas because 1900 Mhz GSM needs the same
> number of sites as 1900 Mhz TDMA to provide equivalent
> coverage (both are PCS).
>
> 1900 Mhz PCS versus 800 Mhz Cellular
> ------------------------------------
> So far all GSM service in the U.S. has been at 1900 Mhz
> because the more desirable 800 Mhz spectrum is being used
> for TDMA, CDMA, and AMPS. This will change as the carriers
> deploy GSM in the 800 Mhz spectrum (when TDMA and AMPS are
> deactivated), but ubiquitous 800 Mhz GSM is a long way off.
> 1900 Mhz PCS uses lower power cells which requires more cells,
> and the higher frequency also means that more cells are
> required. Even if Cingular and AT&T overlaid 1900 Mhz GSM
> onto all of their 800 Mhz TDMA cells, the coverage would
> still be much worse on GSM. T-Mobile has no 800 Mhz spectrum
> and no plans to get any.
Yeah? So your saying that Sprint, Verizon, etc. use all 800? Or even
mostly 800? Hah, Sprint uses all 1900, Verizon uses mostly 1900 in
digital areas. The other players are regional players.
> In-Building Penetration
> -----------------------
> This is a 1900 Mhz versus 800 Mhz issue. GSM in the U.S.
> is presently at 1900 Mhz which means that in-building
> penetration will be much worse than TDMA or CDMA at 800
> Mhz.
What about CDMA at 1900? 1900 vs 1900? I'm not sure, but by the way
phones work here in Detroit, I'm guessing Verizon is 1900. They are a
good company, I will give them that... but my Nokia 3590 (GSM 850,
1900), heck, lets just say my Nokia 6310i (GSM 900,1800,1900) works
almost all over campus at my school, including INSIDE computer labs with
most of the time bouncing from half bars full to full bars, whilest my
older Nokia 3360 TDMA got at most half bars, my friends Sprint phone
goes ROAM, my teachers Moto Verizon phone gets 1 bar on ANALOG! Zero on
digital! Cingular phones, I've only seen one here (my friends V60i)
which did fairly well, 3-4 bars (about half to close to full) ... I
didn't bother asking people how their NexTel or T-Mobile did... I didn't
really care to... But there is your CDMA at work vs a GSM 1900 phone.
> AMPS (Analog) fallback
> ----------------------
> The AMPS analog cellular system is still the only system
> in many rural areas. Furthermore, AMPS cells cover a much
> wider area than digital cells of any kind, so in areas
> where no cells are permitted (i.e. National Parks) you
> can often get AMPS coverage from surrounding areas. No
> for-profit carrier is going to install CDMA or GSM cells
> that will cover the areas that AMPS currently covers.
Great! Those who want to travel across the US in rural areas should
stick with TDMA or CDMA. Me, I don't think I will be going to a national
park anytime soon consider I have school and work and a busy life... so
my GSM works PERFECT for me.
> Perhaps the government needs to fund a program similar
> to the Rural Electrification Authority to provide service
> in areas that are not economically viable enough for a
> for-profit carrier to cover. They could call it the
> Rural Digitization Authority.
>
> Most CDMA phones include AMPS capability. Few GSM phones
> do. Cingular does offer one phone with AMPS, the Nokia
> 6340i, but AT&T GSM does not offer any. AT&T is taking
> a huge gamble with its decision not to deploy GAIT.
>
>
> Scalability
> -----------
> CDMA supports more subscribers in a fixed amount of
> bandwidth. The voice quality will deteriorate when more
> subscribers are added, but calls can be made and will not
> be dropped. This is an issue that is of great importance
> when you have a very limited amount of bandwidth as is the
> case in the U.S.
Try telling that to my friends who use Sprint and have their calls drop
after 5-10 minutes of talking... my friend Brenda went nuts when the
Samsung A500 came out. My friend Doug went for a Sanyo 4900. Both of
them HATE Sprint with a passion that when we go out they always ask to
use MY phone instead of theirs.
> Battery Life
> ------------
> Power requirements of CDMA are lower than that of GSM or
> TDMA resulting in longer battery life.
Again, show me a CDMA phone that outdoes my 7 hours of talktime the T68i
gives me! (3 hours if I use a bluetooth earpiece).
> Radiation
> ---------
> The radiation level of GSM is 10X that of CDMA
Oh god, your not one of those "We're all gonna get brain cancer" freaks
are you!?
> Data Rates
> ----------
> GSM data rates are lower than that of CDMA.
I won't argue this one, my friends Sprint phone (when it works on
occasion) can get to wap sites a bit faster than my N6310i can scroll to
them. But it is a really close call... as far as pure data (PCMCI Cards
and such) I can't compare as I have never used em... to me, big deal. To
data needing people, perhaps it is better for them. I'm not sure how
Verizon is doing with data so far... I don't even see any maps for their
'3G' evolution, just a list of cities...
> GAIT
> ----
> GAIT handsets and networks were supposed to ease the
> transition from TDMA/AMPS to GSM. GAIT handsets support
> TDMA, AMPS, and GSM, though not seamlessly. Cingular
> offers GAIT service and handsets in some of their TDMA
> markets. At this point in time (amazingly) AT&T is not
> offering GAIT handsets or service. AT&T does offer one
> handset that supports GSM and TDMA, but not AMPS. The
> speculation is that AT&T is trying to see if they can get
> away without embracing GAIT; if the subscriber losses
> are small then they will write off the subscribers that
> care about coverage outside the urban areas, as Sprint
> and Nextel have done.
GAIT to me is useless.... all it does is allow you to use GSM on top of
TDMA qualities. The ONLY use of GAIT IMHO is if it offered GPRS for
data, BUT you really couldn't afford to lose coverage. That is the ONLY
case I will buy... why go GAIT otherwise... what is the large benefit if
you don't plan on using DATA!? Going pure GSM is understandable without
getting data... cooler phones, more choices, more features, SIM cards.
> WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT GSM?
> ----------------------
>
> International Roaming
> ---------------------
> With a tri-band GSM phone (900 Mhz, 1800 Mhz, 1900 Mhz) a
> subscriber can roam internationally in most of Europe and
> much of Asia (not Korea or Japan). However there is a way
> to achieve the almost same result (but not as cleanly) at
> a much lower cost. Buy a low cost unlocked GSM phone that
> supports 900 Mhz and 1800 Mhz, and buy prepaid SIM cards
> in the country you visit. Get a toll free number that you
> can route to any phone number you desire.
I do belive both Sprint and Verizon and almost all carriers allow you to
get a 'borrowed' international phone in which they tie your original
number to it. People use International Roaming on GSM so they don't have
to go through the hassle. So they can take THEIR phone with THEIR phone
book and etc. with them and not have to borrow anything or get anything
unlocked or whatnot. It just makes it easier on them to go there and use
it with the SAME number.
> Handsets
> --------
> There is a much better selection of GSM handsets than of
> TDMA or CDMA handsets, and at lower costs. The market
> for CDMA handsets is much smaller and hence commands
> higher prices.
CDMA and GSM offer great handsets. As far as they are concerned, I do
love the style of the Sanyo 5300 or Samsung A500 phones. However, I am a
big Nokia fan and they make such great GSM phones...
[CUT] Your posting got boring, so I just stopped...
P. Synthesis
wrote:
>
>Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
>market?
How about today? :)
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030211/1002000659_1.html
Don't forget South America also has a significant TDMA user base.
Yankee Group predicts that 46% of the handsets that will be sold there
in 2003 will be TDMA.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8272.shtml
When TDMA and CDMA came out, how many people said that AMPS would be
dead in 3 to 5 years? But it's still here!
John S.
Yup, that is the direction that all of the carriers are going. Eventually. I am
sure that it will be a few years but they will migrate to it.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at nationwide-online.net
RDT
Michael Yermian <myerm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I never noticed GSM failing in the US... heck, all I've been hearing
>about is the rave of GSM from people.
GSM provides the best overall experience from the user perspective.
Carl.
news:4f153f94.03021...@posting.google.com...
> failure.
More than 8 million T-Mobile customers would probably disagree with you.
Rich Brome
> "dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track tape
> and the Betamax.
No argument there - the writing is certainly on the wall. But TDMA will
die a slow, graceful death. It'll still be around three years from now.
They will have stopped selling the phones in most places, but just like
analog at the moment, the networks will still be alive and well.
> Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
> market?
Well, the Nokia 6360 is a nice new TDMA phone introduced not too long
ago; then there's the Motorola C331t. How about the upcoming
color-screen Nokia 3560, and the Nokia 2260, which was just announced
today?
TDMA may be *starting* to die, but there's still plenty of life left
there. Cingular and AT&T (not to mention numerous Latin American
carriers) have huge TDMA networks that are still great for users
interested primarily in voice. There's nothing wrong with those networks
- they're not about to just switch them off when there's still plenty of
good revenue that can be milked from them.
Jeff
"Michael Yermian" <myerm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4iaa1j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Longer battery life!? Find me one CDMA phone that will let me talk 7
> hours straight like my Sony Ericsson T68i !? Heck, find me one that will
> let me talk 5 hours straight like my Nokia 3590!? How about one that
> with normal usage requires a recharge every 4-5 days like my T68i ...
> yup, I use my phone a lot and it lasted that long!
My Sprint Digital Link phone lasted 7 hours of talk time, about a week of
use without recharge. It was sweeet, but no 3g, so i replaced it with a
treo.
Anyway, I believe CDMA's battery advantage is in standby, not talk, so heavy
users will get more juice out of TDMA.
Lawrence G. Mayka
> GSM provides the best overall experience from the user perspective.
Not unless it includes analog roaming, which apparently is true of only one
American GSM phone model, a true GAIT phone sold by Cingular. All other GSM
phones are apt to be utterly useless precisely when you need a phone the most:
when you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
RDT
Your point is taken. I should have said "in GSM service areas, GSM
provides the best overall..." In the boonies, I have a backup TDMA/AMPS
phone that I keep activated on Ecallplus.
Jim MacKenzie
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de37a2e0.03021...@posting.google.com...
> TDMA might better be described a "dying" technology rather than a
> "dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track tape
> and the Betamax.
This is an interesting analogy, since Beta died not because of technical
inferiority (it was a superior technology with a better picture than VHS
provides), but because of inferior marketing. VHS won despite its technical
disadvantages.
> Put it this way- what was the last hot new TDMA phone to hit the
> market?
Pick any hot new GSM phone. GSM phones use a TDMA interface. They are a
more developed and technically superior version of the TDMA you are thinking
of, but they are TDMA.
CDMA has a lot of technical disadvantages to TDMA interfaces, and a lot of
advantages. Which system is superior depends entirely on your perspective.
If you value the ability to place a call with bad voice quality over the
ability to have better sound quality, but higher likelihood of not placing
your call, you will prefer CDMA. (Lest it seem obvious that you'd rather
place a bad call than no call, one poster here a few weeks ago correctly
pointed out that the ability to badly place calls is a disincentive to
wireless providers to erect more towers. A GSM or TDMA provider would have
to put up another tower; a CDMA provider could leave it alone and let its
users live with the reduced quality.)
I'm not saying GSM is better than CDMA; I'm saying it's a viable technology
and the fact that it's the world standard, in effect, is pretty compelling.
Really, it doesn't matter which is better. Eventually, the market is going
to allow both to flourish, or one will die. If one dies, it is very
unlikely to be GSM by virtue of its deep market penetration.
For the record, I use GSM but I didn't consider the nature of the technology
when I made that decision. I chose it based on the cost of the service and
the coverage area provided. Since I'm in Canada, GSM is a better choice
than it is in the USA (the GSM network is in place coast-to-coast and the
850 MHz overlay is happening as I type, with full implementation expected by
fall 2004 and substantial implementation by fall 2003). I think most people
dwell far too much on which technology is better and far too little on how
much their service costs, the quality of their signal and coverage and the
quality of the customer service their provider gives. The reality is that
an AMPS phone still places and receives pretty decent quality phone calls,
and that's what wireless phone service is supposed to be about.
Jim
Dan W.
For me though, i'm kinda glad we have more than 1 technology operating
at the same time. It gives us all choices and allows us to choose the
best product to meet our individual needs.
Increased competition also makes for better opportunities for us as
customers.
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Providers: ATTWS/SPCS
Carl.
news:3e495df0$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca...
>
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:de37a2e0.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > TDMA might better be described a "dying" technology rather than a
> > "dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track tape
> > and the Betamax.
>
> This is an interesting analogy, since Beta died not because of technical
> inferiority (it was a superior technology with a better picture than VHS
> provides), but because of inferior marketing. VHS won despite its
technical
> disadvantages.
Like the disadvantage of capacity?
John S.
>inferiority (it was a superior technology with a better picture than VHS
>provides), but because of inferior marketing. VHS won despite its technical
>disadvantages.
You know, I have seen this claim of superior quality pictures since the
argument began way back "when".
"When" this all started, I worked for a company that distributed ALL the
network video to ALL the network affiliates in the state of Texas. In addition,
we provided ALL the "occasional video feeds" (that is to say the Cowboys games,
the Oilers, all the college games and the basketball games as well as all the
special news events) from the state of Texas back to the networks (in those
days there were basically ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS).
I, along with my technical crew, took video test equipment and compared the
"signal" on the two formats and could not find a difference in the two and how
the signal played on a video osciliscope. I also compared (along with the
entire Operations Center crew in Dallas) the video out when played on a Sony
Trinitron monitor. Again, we could see no difference.
So, over all these years, I have often wondered what superiority people thought
that they saw.
And yes, VHS won out because of marketing superiority and more minutes on a
smaller cartridge - no other reason.
RDT
Although with smart antennas, this becomes a moot point since your
array can put out a beam literally to every subscriber thereby increasing
frequency reuse and doing the same thing CDMA does with less or equal
complexity.
Carl.
> In article <9%d2a.1060$in1....@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> Carl. <Kronk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Jim MacKenzie" <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3e495df0$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca...
> >>
> >> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:de37a2e0.03021...@posting.google.com...
> >> > TDMA might better be described a "dying" technology rather than a
> >> > "dead" one, but it's certainly on it's way to joining the 8-track
tape
> >> > and the Betamax.
> >>
> >> This is an interesting analogy, since Beta died not because of
technical
> >> inferiority (it was a superior technology with a better picture than
VHS
> >> provides), but because of inferior marketing. VHS won despite its
> >technical
> >> disadvantages.
> >Like the disadvantage of capacity?
>
> Although with smart antennas, this becomes a moot point since your
> array can put out a beam literally to every subscriber thereby increasing
> frequency reuse and doing the same thing CDMA does with less or equal
> complexity.
Aw, forget it.
harpseal
The can analyze the technology pretty well from the information they
were surely provided from AirCom plus just watching the trials for
GSM. You assume that just because CDMA is already spectrally
efficient they never will want to be more efficient in certain areas
of the network and that would be an incorrect assumption.
Voice quality is subjective. Personally I have never heard a good GSM
based phone, even when one has been in an actual area that is covered
by GSM. Plus voice quality can be changed with vocoder changes and
advancements if required, personally I have no issues with my Verizon
voice quality at all so they could leave it alone, is much better
sounding than my AT&T phone.
My battery life is also better since I switched to Verizon, I know my
friend on Cingular with the semi-equivalent v60 gets better standby
time than I do, but when figuring in the battery size difference it
nulls out. And actually I get better call time length than he does
even though his battery is larger. Plus the fact that he ends up
without service so often his real-life battery life usually sucks
cause it can't find a network 25% of the time.
Handset appearance is also subjective...some people don't like some of
the weird crap that they have in Japan/Korea/Europe and just want
something middle of the road, probably for the same reason the Toyota
Camry is the best selling (and most absolutely boring looking) car in
the country.
As for world acceptance, who cares. 99% of the people aren't going to
use their phone on another continent. Even if it was compatable, no
one offers a very affordable international roaming rate so the cost
would be prohibative in the vast majority of the cases.
As for CDMA being the Betamax of cellular, Beta was and STILL IS the
best tape format for analog recording video. It is STILL used as the
industry standard for video production (BetaCam) but admitedly is
being replaced by new digital formats for production. Also maybe you
should realize that CDMA technology is the basis for 3GSM which will
be the 'current' ultimate end version of GSM technology (EDGE is a
stop-gap). TDMA IS DEAD, it's days are numbered, while CDMA in
essence will live on. You don't even have to read between the lines
for that one. Try checking out www.gsmworld.com
On 10 Feb 2003 14:50:01 -0500, ta...@panix.com ("RDT") wrote:
>In article <9jpf4vca7d1si58k2...@4ax.com>,
> <pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote:
>>They're called "smart antennas". If the CDMA carriers put smart
>>antennae on their towers the advantage returns to CDMA for the same
>>reason and then some, since CDMA takes advantage of multipath and TDMA
>>can't.
>
> Again, if CDMA carriers were that interested in smart antennae, then
>CDMA trials would already be in full force. The issue is that when you
>create macro cells, it really doesn't matter that much whether you use
>CDMA or TDMA -- voice data is just too low bandwidth to matter. Couple
>with this the facts that CDMA sounds shitty, has shorter battery life, has
>uglier handsets, less world acceptance, and on and on, you are beginning
>to see why CDMA is the Betamax of cellular.
>
>RDT
harpseal
wrote:
I hate bottom posting but will for consistency.
The length of record time capacity was about the only thing VHS
had/has going for it. Beta always had better video and sound quality
and a smaller more compact tape (hence the lower record time). For
every 'better' version of VHS Beta beat them. Super BetaMax was an
awesome picture quality and definitely beat SVH.
John S.
>we could see no difference.
>Are you talking *broadcast* equipment or consumer equipment?
Consumer equipment using broadcast test equipment and broadcast quality
monitors.
John Navas
In <4f153f94.03021...@posting.google.com> on 10 Feb 2003
16:34:15 -0800, sch...@hotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote:
>[SNIP much pro-CDMA/anti-GSM rubbish]
>... AT&T is taking
>a huge gamble with its decision not to deploy GAIT.
That remains to be seen. It's quite possible that ATTWS is taking a
conservative wait-and-see approach to GAIT, which has had its problems
at GAIT-pioneer Cingular. I'd call that prudent. YMMV. It's also
possible that Cingular has some period of GAIT product exclusivity.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Steven Scharf
> Longer battery life!? Find me one CDMA phone that will let me talk 7
> hours straight like my Sony Ericsson T68i !? Heck, find me one that will
> let me talk 5 hours straight like my Nokia 3590!? How about one that
> with normal usage requires a recharge every 4-5 days like my T68i ...
> yup, I use my phone a lot and it lasted that long!
I was comparing phones that are available in both CDMA
and GSM models. Compare the standby and talk time.
The talk time will be slightly more on GSM, the standby
time will be much longer on CDMA. You have to compare
apples to apples.
I.e. P270C 4.0 talk/225 SB CDMA
P280C 4.3 talk/135 SB GSM
T720 2.25/225 CDMA
T720 2.58/165 GSM
Very few people need to talk for 5 straight hours between
recharges.
The best I could find for a CDMA phone was 6.75 hours.
> You probably signed up for Cingular in CA. Have you heard about the
> 'horror' stories there... that isn't a full representation of GSM.
You are correct. But until a few months ago it was the ONLY
GSM available out here. Now that AT&T has launched there
is another option. T-Mobile is just reselling service on
Cingular's network.
> Hahahahaha! ATTWS go to CDMA?
AT&T is indeed moving to CDMA, W-CDMA. But the
article in question was from before ATTWS was spun
off from AT&T.
> As far as the W-CDMA agreement with NTT
> Docomo... that isn't anything new, they planned
> to roll out W-CDMA in 13
So first you ha-ha over AT&T moving to CDMA, then you
admit that they are rolling out W-CDMA.
"http://www.att.com/news/0295/950201.nsb.html"
>
> > T-Mobile is also a big player in GSM, and they have been
> > GSM from the start. But they are a very small carrier and
> > are hemmoraging cash and will not be independent in the
> > U.S. for long.
>
> T-Mobile had the largest growth of all carriers for the year of 2002 in
> Net Subscribers gained.
The entered new markets during 2002 which was responsible
for the increase. This will level off. They are spending like
crazy to acquire these customers. It can't go on like that.
> I may work for ATTWS.
Ah!
> I never noticed GSM failing in the US... heck, all I've been
> hearing about is the rave of GSM from people.
You are not objective because you work for ATTWS.
> Great! Those who want to travel across the US in rural
> areas should stick with TDMA or CDMA. Me, I don't think
> I will be going to a national park anytime soon consider I
> have school and work and a busy life... so my GSM works
> PERFECT for me.
As often stated, if you stay in urban areas then GSM may be
acceptable. Not in California, but in other areas. I have a very
busy life too, but I still get away from the urban area a few
times a year. It's very useful to have coverage, even AMPS,
when you're driving in the middle of nowhere.
> Try telling that to my friends who use Sprint and have their calls drop
> after 5-10 minutes of talking... my friend Brenda went nuts when the
> Samsung A500 came out. My friend Doug went for a Sanyo 4900. Both of
> them HATE Sprint with a passion that when we go out they always ask to
> use MY phone instead of theirs.
As stated earlier, there is a big difference between cellular
CDMA and PCS CDMA (just as cellular GSM will be much
better than PCS GSM). Sprint does indeed give CDMA a
bad name in some localities.
> > Battery Life
> > ------------
> > Power requirements of CDMA are lower than that of GSM or
> > TDMA resulting in longer battery life.
>
> Again, show me a CDMA phone that outdoes my 7 hours of talktime the T68i
> gives me! (3 hours if I use a bluetooth earpiece).
Again, you need to compare apples to apples, comparing
the same phone with the same battery. You are correct
that there are no CDMA phones that have 7 hours of talk
time. There is a much better selection of GSM phones.
BTW, here's a good article regarding smaller regional
carriers that went from TDMA to CDMA.
"http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=CA216790"
And a rather amusing paper presented by ATTWS at:
"http://cryptome.unicast.org/cryptome022401/digipcs.htm"
A good article in the Economist at
"http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1353050"
And an excellent article at:
"http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/10/GSM3G.shtml"
John Navas
In <v4lvqi1...@corp.supernews.com> on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:13:38
-0000, self-appointed sfbacell...@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf)
ranted:
>myerm...@hotmail.com (Michael Yermian) wrote in article
>
>> Longer battery life!? Find me one CDMA phone that will let me talk 7
>> hours straight like my Sony Ericsson T68i !? Heck, find me one that will
>> let me talk 5 hours straight like my Nokia 3590!? How about one that
>> with normal usage requires a recharge every 4-5 days like my T68i ...
>> yup, I use my phone a lot and it lasted that long!
>
>I was comparing phones that are available in both CDMA
>and GSM models. Compare the standby and talk time.
>The talk time will be slightly more on GSM, the standby
>time will be much longer on CDMA. You have to compare
>apples to apples.
>
>I.e. P270C 4.0 talk/225 SB CDMA
> P280C 4.3 talk/135 SB GSM
>
> T720 2.25/225 CDMA
> T720 2.58/165 GSM
Hmmm... I wonder why didn't you compare the Nokia 3570 to the Nokia
3590 that Michael cited? Perhaps because GSM trounces CDMA on both
talktime and standby (using the same BLC-2 battery)?
Technology Talktime Standby
3590 GSM 6.5 hrs 12.5 days
3570 CDMA 3.75 hrs 9 days
Likewise for the 8290 and 8270.
So how hard did you have to look to find phones that would support your
anti-GSM agenda?
>Very few people need to talk for 5 straight hours between
>recharges.
On the contrary -- many business users are on the phone constantly.
>... T-Mobile is just reselling service on
>Cingular's network [in California].
Cingular and T-Mobile actually have a joint venture on infrastructure;
i.e., it's *not* "just reselling service on Cingular's network."
>AT&T is indeed moving to CDMA, W-CDMA. ...
W-CDMA has very little in common with CDMA, terminology notwithstanding.
Much of W-CDMA is actually based on GSM technology.
>> T-Mobile had the largest growth of all carriers for the year of 2002 in
>> Net Subscribers gained.
>
>The entered new markets during 2002 which was responsible
>for the increase.
Looks to me like it has more to do with aggressive marketing -- it's
actually quite hard to gain share in "new" markets that have established
competitors.
>This will level off. They are spending like
>crazy to acquire these customers. It can't go on like that.
So you say. Time will tell.
>You are not objective ...
Pot ... kettle ... black. ;-)
>As often stated, if you stay in urban areas then GSM may be
>acceptable. Not in California,
Actually yes in California.
>As stated earlier, there is a big difference between cellular
>CDMA and PCS CDMA (just as cellular GSM will be much
>better than PCS GSM). ...
Not really.
>Again, you need to compare apples to apples, comparing
>the same phone with the same battery. ...
See above.
Mike Nassour
> The final blow to CDMA came this week.
Yea, T-Mobile finally got a phone to work in 10% of the area that my Verizon
phone works in.
Plonk.
Steven Scharf
>
> RDT
ROTFLMAO.
Read: _Dead Zones, Bogus Fees and Dropped Calls
How Cingular Wireless celebrates its Year of the
Customer_
"http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/12/news-pignataro.php"
Maybe in Europe it offers the best experience!
Carl.
"harpseal" <not@on_your_life.com> wrote in message
news:e5ck4v0e2q47c7bgf...@4ax.com...
I know. I was just being sarcastic because I am sick of VHS/Beta and car
analogies, and yet this one was more correct than Jim may have thought.
Steven M. Scharf
> But everyone isn't stuck out in the middle of "nowhere." If you
> anticipate that you'll commonly be stuck out in the middle of nowhere
> you get a phone that will work there... an analog phone.
It's not a question of "commonly" it's a question of "occasionally."
"Commonly" you're in urban areas with reasonable coverage
on any system (except perhaps Cingular in California). But
occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
important as their is no pay phone to run to.
Fortunately, the technology to provide AMPS analog, plus GSM &
TDMA capability in a single handset is available.
John Navas
In <fAG2a.14554$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13
Feb 2003 06:04:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net>
wrote:
>... But
>occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
>area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
>minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
>area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
>important as their is no pay phone to run to.
Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone to be
ringing. As always, YMMV.
Marke D.B. Johnston
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:fAG2a.14554
> "Commonly" you're in urban areas with reasonable coverage
> on any system (except perhaps Cingular in California). But
> occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
> area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
> minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
> area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
> important as their is no pay phone to run to.
by rural, are you referring to Scotts Valley/Felton/Boulder Creek,
or do you mean Davenport/Boony Doon?
(I went to SLVHS so I'm curious)
Steven M. Scharf
Mateo and
Santa Cruz Coast. Scotts Valley probably has GSM coverage. I actually was
suprised
to have any signal at all deep into Castle Rock State Park. I guess I should
have brought
my GSM phone just to check how it did, but I'm sure it would not have had a
signal
unless things have changed drastically in the last nine months. I think that
most of 17 is
pretty well covered by all technologies, though I did drop a call on Verizon
there a few
weeks ago.
"Marke D.B. Johnston" <changetoal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b2g2jj$lp6$2...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Steven M. Scharf
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:joH2a.66001$Ik.27...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <fAG2a.14554$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13
> Feb 2003 06:04:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >... But
> >occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
> >area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
> >minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
> >area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
> >important as their is no pay phone to run to.
>
> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone to be
> ringing. As always, YMMV.
Pretty weak argument in favor of poor coverage.
I don't want it ringing either. But in an emergency, either mine or someone
elses, I want to be able to make a call. That's the whole point of having
a cell phone when traveling in areas like that.
I was staying in a cabin up in Arnold near Bear Valley. There was a drunken
brawl taking place in the driveway of the cabin. I wanted to call the
police.
I couldn't because I had a Cingular GSM phone. I tried my relatives AT&T
phone
on AMPS and I had a signal but it kept asking for a credit card number and I
put it in but it did not work. I later found out that I could only use a
CDMA
phone since the carrier only had a roaming agreement with CDMA carriers. 911
should have worked from an AMPS phone but didn't.
I don't see this whole thing as some sort of war. Despite the technical
advantages of CDMA, if GSM could provide equivalent service then
it would be a success. Eventually this will be the case. 800 Mhz GSM will
be deployed which will make a huge difference. GAIT phones or even
just GSM/Analog phones will be available (remember the Nokia AMPS
sleeve?).
John Navas
In <NCO2a.15192$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13
Feb 2003 15:13:49 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net>
wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:joH2a.66001$Ik.27...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <fAG2a.14554$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13
>> Feb 2003 06:04:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >... But
>> >occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
>> >area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
>> >minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
>> >area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
>> >important as their is no pay phone to run to.
>>
>> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone to be
>> ringing. As always, YMMV.
>
>Pretty weak argument in favor of poor coverage.
Not really. I don't expect or need cell service coverage in remote
rural areas. I don't expect or need TV service there either.
>... But in an emergency, either mine or someone
>elses, I want to be able to make a call. That's the whole point of having
>a cell phone when traveling in areas like that.
I disagree -- cellular isn't designed for that.
John Navas
In <BuO2a.15186$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on Thu, 13
Feb 2003 15:05:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net>
wrote:
>I mean like up on 35 from 9 north to 92, in Castle Rock, and along the San
>Mateo and
>Santa Cruz Coast. Scotts Valley probably has GSM coverage. I actually was
>suprised
>to have any signal at all deep into Castle Rock State Park. I guess I should
>have brought
>my GSM phone just to check how it did, but I'm sure it would not have had a
>signal
>unless things have changed drastically in the last nine months. ...
Indeed you should, since you presume to criticize. I've seen good
Cingular GSM coverage along the entire coast from San Francisco to
Monterey (including San Mateo and Santa Cruz areas).
Jerry Schonewille
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <fAG2a.14554$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> on
> Thu, 13 Feb 2003 06:04:59 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
> <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>>... But
>>occasionally you drive to a place, even the fringes of your home
>>area, where the AMPS is very useful. I can (and do) drive 15
>>minutes from my house in a very urban area up into a very rural
>>area Santa Cruz mountains. It's those places where coverage is
>>important as their is no pay phone to run to.
>
> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone
> to be ringing. As always, YMMV.
>
Cingular GSM is a good choice for you then. No danger of the phone
ringing in remote areas :)
--
John Navas
In <Xns93214E5D8...@207.115.63.150> on Thu, 13 Feb 2003
15:42:20 GMT, Jerry Schonewille <nos...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:joH2a.66001$Ik.27...@typhoon.sonic.net:
>> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone
>> to be ringing. As always, YMMV.
>
>Cingular GSM is a good choice for you then. No danger of the phone
>ringing in remote areas :)
It has been a good choice -- generally good coverage in the areas where
I want and expect it, including areas well outside of major metro areas.
My only real annoyance is the coverage in my new townhouse, which is
pretty much limited to my 2nd floor office. But I generally use
landline when home in any event.
Jim MacKenzie
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:joH2a.66001$Ik.27...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone to be
> ringing. As always, YMMV.
Better to be able to use it, and turn it off, than to not be able to use it,
don't you think?
Jim
Michael Yermian
state they are going WCDMA those are DIFFERENT. Yes, WCDMA is a TYPE of
CDMA, but what I was implying was they were not going CDMA [2000] (The
current standard used right now that is) ... anyways....
I am not objective because I work for ATTWS, but because I have used
other services (Verizon, Sprint, Cingular) and my friends have the other
services to compare to as well (T-Mobile, NexTel) I can state from MY
FINDINGS that personally, as a 'customer' standpoint, I found ATTWS the
best choice, which is why i picked them up, THEN started to work for
them 4 months later out of the blue (referrel). Right now my ATTWS phone
kicks my friends' phones butt. The ones I am comparing to are my
friends' Sprint (A500, A460), Cingular (V60, 8260), NexTel (i95c) and
T-Mobile (Some samsung R225? Something like that) ... anyways, I can't
speak for the other carriers AT THIS TIME, but in the past I have tried
them all and for my needs, ATTWS worked out for me.
Whether or not CDMA is the ultimate technology over GSM doesn't really
matter to that point, because it boils down to... which fits your needs?
Which sounds better TO YOU? Which do YOU like more?
--
Michael Y.
sfbacell...@SPAMhotmail.com (Steven Scharf) wrote in article
<v4lvqi1...@corp.supernews.com>:
Steven Scharf
> the phone ringing in remote areas :)
Or in a lot of urban and suburban areas as well!
That was one of the weakest rationalizations of
why to get Cingular GSM that I've seen in a long
time!
OTOH, not all GSM service is like Cingular. But OTOH,
even the other GSM services still have the issue of
remote area coverage due to the lack of AMPS.
Giambi
news:b2g2jj$lp6$2...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
I don't suspect Cingular is sinking a lot (or any!) of money into new
infrastructure in SV or SLV, so I'll assume my Cingular experience there
from about 1.5 yrs ago is still 90+% correct. Current locals (that means SV
or SLV) can feel to chime in if Cing has improved. Suffice to say, my GSM
phone is now a paperweight - having analog is a very valuable backup in the
more rural parts of CA, even if I'm not there as much any more.
Scotts Valley has decent coverage, with the usual nooks and crannies clause
once you get too far from Mt. Hermon Rd or Scotts Valley Dr. Mt. Hermon Rd
to Felton is OK, Lockwood Lane is OK but can drop (good RF on the phone'll
probably save you), and Graham Hill is horrible past Juvenile Hall 'til
Roaring Camp (but all the carriers drop at some point in that particular
hole). Felton is fine downtown, dies about 2 miles up E Zayante and if
memory serves correct - goes south just past the Quail Hollow bridge, coming
back weakly in Ben Lomond. I'm not sure how far down Hwy 9 you can go, I'd
guess you're hit or miss past Redwood Estates. Parts of Quail Hollow are
useable, the higher up the hill, the better.
In general, SC County is best served by VZW or ATT, equal in towns and
varying in the smaller areas depending on which happens to have a tower
closest to where you are the most. Some people have indicated that SPCS's
coverage is surprisingly good too, but I don't have any direct experience
with them in that area. BTW, I'm an SLV alumni (class of '95) myself. What
year were you? :)
--
Jason G
2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too! ;)
Steven Scharf
> In general, SC County is best served by VZW or ATT, equal in towns and
> varying in the smaller areas depending on which happens to have a tower
> closest to where you are the most.
AT&T does not yet serve Santa Cruz, but this will soon change.
"http://www.irconnect.com/dcel/pages/news_releases.shtml?d=33055"
Steve
sfbacell.com
Giambi
news:4f153f94.03021...@posting.google.com...
I suppose I did over-simplify a little bit. ATT is there, but indirectly, as
the current Dobson (Cellular One) TDMA coverage is an active ATTWS affiliate
market. Which is, as Steve pointed out, in the process of a license swap
that will make it an actual ATTWS-owned market.
Cingular
> state they are going WCDMA those are DIFFERENT. Yes, WCDMA is a TYPE of
> CDMA, but what I was implying was they were not going CDMA [2000] (The
> current standard used right now that is) ... anyways....
It would almost be like saying the both Cingular and AT&T are overlaying
their markets right now with TDMA. GSM and PDC(Personal Digital Cellular )
uses a TDMA air interface. GSM just doen't have TDMA in its name. So I
agree with you CDMA should not be used generically to refer to
cdmaONE(IS-95A and IS-95B), CDMA2000 1X, CDMA2000 1xEV-DO, WCDMA, TD-SCDMA.
They are all different. When someone says CDMA, I think of cdmaONE or CDMA
2000 not WCDMA. When someone says TDMA, I think of N. & S. American based
TDMA networks, IS-136.
"Michael Yermian" <myerm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4odr94...@corp.supernews.com...
Mr. Devious
minutia, it's hilarious. My girlfriend is sitting here rolling her eyes.
We're going to doink now, keep up the good work! LOL.
NorthrnBornRebel
<subsonic...@prodigy.net> writes:
please send pics of girlfriend <grin>
William G. Yoder
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
<<SNIP>>
> >>
> >> Whereas that's a place where I personally don't want my cell phone to be
> >> ringing. As always, YMMV.
> >
> >Pretty weak argument in favor of poor coverage.
>
> Not really. I don't expect or need cell service coverage in remote
> rural areas. <SNIP>
YOU don't expect it, but someone with a flat tire just might.
> >... But in an emergency, either mine or someone
> >elses, I want to be able to make a call. That's the whole point of having
> >a cell phone when traveling in areas like that.
>
> I disagree -- cellular isn't designed for that.
Again, you don't think that is its intent, but sales people all over
the country are pitching cellular service using that argument.
Ok, you didn't buy it for that purpose, but do you think that every
single decision maker for every single cellular service company has
explicitly said that the intent of cellular service is NOT for
emergency service? Or is it possible that NOT one single CEO for any
cell company has thought of the value of cellular telephones for
emergency situations?
Could you please explain the point of E911, them? Or why old cell
phones are recycled and given to battered wives with restraining
orders against abusers in case of an emergency? Should we tell them
that they can use the phone, but not to be upset if they can't get a
signal?
John Navas
In <d82de6b8.03030...@posting.google.com> on 3 Mar 2003
07:45:59 -0800, spa...@wiggy.com (William G. Yoder) wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<YPO2a.66035$Ik.27...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>> Not really. I don't expect or need cell service coverage in remote
>> rural areas. <SNIP>
>
>YOU don't expect it, but someone with a flat tire just might.
There will always be remote areas without cell service, so it doesn't
make sense to depend on it in those areas. If I get a flat, I'll use my
spare in any event.
>> I disagree -- cellular isn't designed for that.
>
>Again, you don't think that is its intent, but sales people all over
>the country are pitching cellular service using that argument.
In remote rural areas? They are pitching it in covered areas, but not
as a universal lifeline.
>Ok, you didn't buy it for that purpose, but do you think that every
>single decision maker for every single cellular service company has
>explicitly said that the intent of cellular service is NOT for
>emergency service?
I didn't say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's obviously
good for emergency service >> in covered areas <<. Being way out in the
boonies is a different matter.
noemail
"William G. Yoder" <spa...@wiggy.com> wrote in message
news:d82de6b8.03030...@posting.google.com...
Chris C
technical "mumbo-jumbo". I got to say and give you credit for, that I
am pretty impressed with your knowledge...which I admit I may not be as
well versed in all this, but I do know that my phone and service with
Verizon (on CDMA) works just fine for me. I never or very, very rarely
get a dropped call, never a "no service available" message on my phone,
the "static" and the "s-spitting" sound you complain about never
experience...most people say I sound like I'm talking on a land-line.
Get signals inside buildings, elevators, etc. I travel quite a bit and
get excellent coverage over a wide area...so what's the issue? If it
works well, and serves a person's needs, isn't that what it's all about?
I know people who have plans on the other cell services, and they are
always complaining about no service, dropped calls...not being able to
travel outside a large metro area, lousy customer service,etc. Also
read an article in Consumer Reports that rated Verizon consistantly
higher in customer satisfaction (service and customer service) over any
other carrier in most of the cities across the country...that should say
something for CDMA! This doesn't mean I'm turning my back on GSM. If
it improves here in the States, then it may be something I would look
into. But what good is all this so-called "better" technological stuff
that you guys say GSM has, if a good percentage of the time, the phone
doesn't work for you? Then all that stuff is "for not"!
--
Chris C.
SF/EB, CA.
ta...@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<b28o61$q9b$1...@panix1.panix.com>:
> In article <3e47e0bd$1...@news.iglou.com>,
> MARK HENDERSON <m...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
> >In article <gXR1a.3817$4y4.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >Freedom WIreless Belden Village Mall <fw0...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >>3.) TDMA and GSM are worse on battery than CDMA
> >This one isn't true in practice. IS95/CDMA phones tend to me more
> >power hungry than GSM.
>
> I tell the CDMA robots this fact every time. GSM has about an hour
> to an hour and a half extra talk time per charge than CDMA -- all other
> factors being equal. CDMA does have longer standby assuming you don't
> make many calls.
>
> >I'll actually disagree with this one also. I personally find GSM voice
> >quality to be better. I have a Verizon phone, as well as an AT&T GSM
> >phone. To my ear, the GSM EFR codec sounds better than either the
> >13K or 8K EVRC IS-95/CDMA codecs.
>
> A-men. The 8k EVRC sounds robotic and the 13k CDMA codec is almost
> passable except for the strange things it does to the letter s (i.e.,
> sounds like the user is spitting.)
>
> RDT
> --
> "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail"
> ---President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
noemail
"Chris C" <SnFr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:v68pkl3...@corp.supernews.com...
RDT
Chris C <SnFr...@aol.com> wrote:
>If it
>works well, and serves a person's needs, isn't that what it's all about?
I guess the issue is that GSM works better.
Chris C
>
> RDT
true. That is why I use Verizon(CDMA). I find it to work better here.
But it has been awhile since I tried GSM, so when my contract is up in a
few months, I may give GSM a try again. Don't know if I will go with
T-Mobile or AT&T GSM, but would be willing to try them. But if I start
getting dropped calls or "no service available" like before, you bet
your bottom-dollar, I'll go back to Verizon again in a heartbeat.
--
Chris C.
SF/EB, CA.
ta...@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in article
<b42msa$hov$1...@panix1.panix.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
David Dellanave
GSM/CDMA issue irritates me.
First let me clear up the fact that I realize GSM is not to CDMA as TDMA
is to CDMA, but for all practical purposes, the debate is GSM vs CDMA.
I've grown up spending time in Europe every summer, but living and
growing up in the US. I've seen cell tech develop in both countries.
Maybe some of you have experienced using cell in Europe, but it seems
that many have not.
1) There are no "plans" in Europe. You buy a SIM, add minutes as
needed. You don't pay to receive calls, only to send. No going over,
no going under and wasting money and minutes.
2) You can buy different SIM cards for different times of day, holidays,
whatever. People are crazy about it, some carry 3-4 SIMs. Most
importantly, different SIM cards for various countries. Same phone.
3) All your info is on a SIM card. I don't know about other carriers,
but we SprintPCS users know how fun it is to transfer phone books every
time we get a new phone because Sprint can't do it.
4) The phone market is unbelievable. There are vast numbers of choices
for phones. From economy models that "get the job done" to the latest
and greatest. They are generally priced better, and the used/trading
market is much larger because it's as simple as popping your SIM in. It
is not uncommon for people to have several phones for various occasions,
uses etc.
5) The accessory market likewise, is huge. You can get a faceplate for
a Nokia with any design on it. Literally, anything.
6) SMS. Text messaging is HUGE in Europe. Sprint users don't have it.
Need I really say more?
7) Coverage is unbelievably good. It's true that the US is a different
land to cover than densely populated Europe. However, wouldn't it be
better if all the cell companies could just share towers? Rather than
having one tower with 3-4 different carriers, there could be 3-4 towers
or antenna arrays. Very few "roaming" areas.
8) Never once dropped a call in Europe, not once. Can you hear me now?
9) Ringers, pictures, images and other fun stuff that comes along with
SMS.
I've tried to read as much as I possibly can about
CDMA/TDMA/W-CDMA/CDMA2000 the technology, spectral efficiency, etc etc.
And in the end, I find myself wondering why we don't have GSM. You can
argue all day which is "better" or which "sounds better" (because of
crappy implementations here), but doesn't GSM just provide more bang for
the buck?
I think so.
Lawrence G. Mayka
news:v6a5624...@corp.supernews.com...
> And in the end, I find myself wondering why we don't have GSM. You can
> argue all day which is "better" or which "sounds better" (because of
> crappy implementations here), but doesn't GSM just provide more bang for
> the buck?
Your arguments are good but have nothing to do, inherently, with GSM vs. CDMA
(air interfaces, call models, etc.). What you really want are:
1) Phones that can connect to any carrier's network, for either voice or data
2) Seamless handoff between networks when necessary (to avoid call drops)
3) A required standard set of voice and data features, obviously including SMS
(additional features are fine but not at the expense of the required standard
set)
4) identity chips that are pluggable into any phone
5) Easy-to-understand billing plans
I agree with all of these. None of them require giving up the technological
advantages of CDMA2000. What they do require is a willingness and desire--on
the part of subscribers, stockholders, and the FCC--to consolidate and mature
the wireless market in the USA.
noemail
cheapest and most reliable. GSM offers mobile customers that in Europe.
Nothing offers that in the US, and hence debates about nonsense.
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmay...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ex99a.6505$3g.7...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
RDT
David Dellanave <david...@dellanave.com> wrote:
>I've tried to read as much as I possibly can about
>CDMA/TDMA/W-CDMA/CDMA2000 the technology, spectral efficiency, etc etc.
>And in the end, I find myself wondering why we don't have GSM. You can
>argue all day which is "better" or which "sounds better" (because of
>crappy implementations here), but doesn't GSM just provide more bang for
>the buck?
>
>I think so.
I think you're right. And with the adaptive antenna arrays, the
capacity advantage of CDMA becomes largely a moot point. I think CDMA has
its niche: data services, but for voice I think GSM works better. I
think a hybrid GSM/CDMA system is actually the best alternative right now.
Although Flash Orthogonal Frequency Divison Multiplexing may be even
better than GSM (using a TDMA airlink) or CDMA.
Giambi
Yes, if only the US had followed Europe's lead.. we could have TDMA
enshrined _in law_ as the only digital protocol allowed. Oh, our woe.. our
blunder.. our missed window of opportunity. </sarcasm off>
eMeL
> growing up in the US. I've seen cell tech develop in both countries.
> Maybe some of you have experienced using cell in Europe, but it seems
> that many have not.
I - on the other hand - live both and Europe and the US so...I'll make a
comment, even though most of what you've said is either not true or can be
put in the "sun rises to the east" category.
>
> 1) There are no "plans" in Europe. You buy a SIM, add minutes as
> needed.
Really? Post-paid, minute-limited accounts are rather common on the old
continent... (Got my understatement...? Pre-paids are popular, but the way
to go for most people in most of Europe is a post-paid plan...)
>You don't pay to receive calls,
True. Instead you pay through the nose and both ears to call a cellular
number in Europe. Moreover, when calling from a cellular phone, your cost
varies depending whether you are calling a mobile on the same network, a
mobile on a different network (same country) or a stationary phone...Thanx
but no thanx...
> no going under and wasting money and minutes.
Debatable. See above about plans.
>
> 2) You can buy different SIM cards for different times of day, holidays,
> whatever. People are crazy about it, some carry 3-4 SIMs.
Mostly teenagers and young people who need (?) these to perform their mating
rituals. Once you mate, the need for this kind of behavior greatly
diminishes and one SIM per country is enough :-))
> Most importantly, different SIM cards for various countries. Same phone.
Yeah...So..? I have a GSM service in the US and use SIMs from all over the
world (and at least 2 in the US...) in my unlocked phones. So...What else
is new?
>
> 3) All your info is on a SIM card. I don't know about other carriers,
> but we SprintPCS users know how fun it is to transfer phone books every
> time we get a new phone because Sprint can't do it.
Chuck Sprint if you need a SIM card...
>
> 4) The phone market is unbelievable. There are vast numbers of choices
> for phones. From economy models that "get the job done" to the latest
> and greatest. They are generally priced better, and the used/trading
> market is much larger because it's as simple as popping your SIM in. It
> is not uncommon for people to have several phones for various occasions,
> uses etc.
Hardly. Most people I know in Europe have just one phone and try not to
make too many calls (but are always eager to receive...) Almost
universally I'm asked about my stationary phone number when I try to give
out my cellular (or - God forbid! - my US) number... The callers in Europe
seem to be counting every penny for outgoing calls. Only in Europe one can
hear that annoying "minute minder" beep...Never heard of anyone using it in
the US.
>
> 5) The accessory market likewise, is huge. You can get a faceplate for
> a Nokia with any design on it. Literally, anything.
>
Yeah...Also blinking antennae, colored backlight diodes,phone cover shaped
like penises and other "tasteful" accessories. Nein, danke!
> 6) SMS. Text messaging is HUGE in Europe. Sprint users don't have it.
> Need I really say more?
>
Chuck Sprint. T-Mobile, Cingular, AT&T and even Verizon have it in the US.
> 7) Coverage is unbelievably good. It's true that the US is a different
> land to cover than densely populated Europe. However, wouldn't it be
> better if all the cell companies could just share towers? Rather than
> having one tower with 3-4 different carriers, there could be 3-4 towers
> or antenna arrays. Very few "roaming" areas.
Inter-carrier intra-country roaming is not practiced in Europe. Say, a Voda
customer in the UK is NOT able to roam on T-Mo UK...OTOH inter-carrier
roaming is common in the US...
So...What's your next question..?
>
> 8) Never once dropped a call in Europe, not once. Can you hear me now?
C'mon...In many places in Europe (and on many carriers) the
coverage/capacity sucks rocks...Ever tried to make a call in Madrid at 5-6
PM..?
>
> 9) Ringers, pictures, images and other fun stuff that comes along with
> SMS.
Yeah...<blink><blink>Let's have a date tonight<blink><blink>...
Can do without the <blink> part, thank you...
>
> I've tried to read as much as I possibly can about
> CDMA/TDMA/W-CDMA/CDMA2000 the technology, spectral efficiency, etc etc.
> And in the end, I find myself wondering why we don't have GSM. You can
> argue all day which is "better" or which "sounds better" (because of
> crappy implementations here), but doesn't GSM just provide more bang for
> the buck?
"We" (in the US) are not the only "deprived" ones... Japan, Korea...large
expanses of South America...We are in a good company.
And if you want GSM - chuck Sprint and switch to T-Mo USA :-)
Michael
William G. Yoder
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
<<SNIP>>
> >
> >Again, you don't think that is its intent, but sales people all over
> >the country are pitching cellular service using that argument.
>
> In remote rural areas? They are pitching it in covered areas, but not
> as a universal lifeline.
Sit in and listen to a sales pitch sometime. I'm not sure about other
areas of the country, but here in the northeast, Verizon has a
marketing plan where in the commercials the pitchman using Verizon
service keeps asking "Can you hear me know? Goooood." And yes, they
show him out in the boonies.
> >Ok, you didn't buy it for that purpose, but do you think that every
> >single decision maker for every single cellular service company has
> >explicitly said that the intent of cellular service is NOT for
> >emergency service?
>
> I didn't say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's obviously
> good for emergency service >> in covered areas <<. Being way out in the
> boonies is a different matter.
I don't believe I was putting words in your mouth. I asked if that is
what you thought. What one person considers as "boonies" is another
person's way home from work every night.
xyzzy
> Consumers don't care about "technological advantage". They want the
> cheapest and most reliable. GSM offers mobile customers that in Europe.
> Nothing offers that in the US, and hence debates about nonsense.
>
Bingo!!! Finally a sensible conclusion to this.
Most of the advantages that Europe gets from GSM aren't inherent to GSM,
they're inherent to the fact that Europe standardized on one standard
early on.
The SIM card is, IMO, the only inherent advantage GSM has over CDMA. I
think it's a great design, but it's crippled by SIM-locking US GSM
carriers so the point is moot here in USA at least.
MARK HENDERSON
>The SIM card is, IMO, the only inherent advantage GSM has over CDMA. I
>think it's a great design, but it's crippled by SIM-locking US GSM
>carriers so the point is moot here in USA at least.
It is far from moot. Think of the last time you had to call a TDMA or
CDMA carrier to do an ESN swap even though both phones might well have
been locked to the same carrier.
Phones can also be unlocked. Getting my AT&T Nokia 6590 unlocked cost
me a grand total of 5 euros (I gave someone the IMEI and he emailed
back the code within a few hours). T-mobile unlocks phones it sells
for free for its customers.
--
Mark Henderson
"Heilir æsir. Heilar ásynjur. Heil sjá in fjölnýta fold." - Sigrdrífumál
OpenPGP/GnuPG keys available at http://www.squirrel.com/pgpkeys.asc
HTML-only email addressed to me is automatically and silently discarded.
David Dellanave
> Yes, if only the US had followed Europe's lead.. we could have TDMA
> enshrined _in law_ as the only digital protocol allowed. Oh, our woe.. our
> blunder.. our missed window of opportunity. </sarcasm off>
Scribbling TDMA into the tablets of law probably wasn't such a good idea
in Europe, this is for sure. Having a single (maybe not the best, maybe
not the worst, as long as its not IDEN) technology would be really
nice right now. Let the carriers compete on service, not on air interfaces.
MD
> >Verizon has a marketing plan where in the commercials the pitchman
> >using Verizon service keeps asking "Can you hear me know?
> >Goooood." And yes, they show him out in the boonies.
>
> they don't show that on the adverts? :) It's a silly advert just as
> all the other mobile adverts are silly
And what's worse... I've read in a wireless and advertising rags praising
the Verizon ads for their "freshness, effectiveness, and success". The
wireless-rag-editorial going as far as recommending that Verizon continue
running the ads clear through 2003...
---
MD
N W
eventually lead into W-CDMA aka UMTS....what is all the fuss about!
"David Dellanave" <da...@dellanave.com> wrote in article
<pan.2003.03.06....@dellanave.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
N W
years...not sure on CDMA
xyzzy <inv...@addr.com> wrote in article <3e661...@news1.prserv.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]