|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > July 2006 > Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?
|
|
| Jeremy 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| "CCMiami" < ccpublic@modeldriven
.org> wrote in message
news:1149689522.283763.289910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I have considered changing back to Verizon for a better network, but I
> do like the international GSM service and phones.
> So the question is - is there any reason to expect better (or worse)
> service on a "true" Cingular phone?
>
I dropped Cingular/ATT TDMA service about 4 months ago and went with Sprint
PCS, which like Verizon uses the CDMA protocol, unlike Cingular's use of GSM
(which is an outgrowth of TDMA).
The difference in call quality was very gratifying. Crystal-clear calls,
virtually no more dropped calls, the absence of that annoying "hollow" sound
that was always on TDMA calls.
I found a web site that explains some of the technical factors that make the
CDMA protocol superior to GSM. From what I've gathered so far, the only
disadvantage of CDMA is its inability to use SIM cards, making it difficult
to switch phones as easily as one can do with a GSM phone. I don't travel
internationally, but I understand that Sprint offers dual-use handsets for
sale or rent that will work with GSM in Europe.
Here is the link to the site:
http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/cdmatdma.shtml
| |
|
| Jeremy wrote:
> "CCMiami" < ccpublic@modeldriven
.org> wrote in message
> news:1149689522.283763.289910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I dropped Cingular/ATT TDMA service about 4 months ago and went with Sprint
> PCS, which like Verizon uses the CDMA protocol, unlike Cingular's use of GSM
> (which is an outgrowth of TDMA).
>
> The difference in call quality was very gratifying. Crystal-clear calls,
> virtually no more dropped calls, the absence of that annoying "hollow" sound
> that was always on TDMA calls.
>
> I found a web site that explains some of the technical factors that make the
> CDMA protocol superior to GSM. From what I've gathered so far, the only
> disadvantage of CDMA is its inability to use SIM cards, making it difficult
> to switch phones as easily as one can do with a GSM phone. I don't travel
> internationally, but I understand that Sprint offers dual-use handsets for
> sale or rent that will work with GSM in Europe.
>
> Here is the link to the site:
>
> http://denbeste.nu/cdmafaq/cdmatdma.shtml
Supposedly Verizon offers the Samsung A790 which supports GSM 900 and
1800, and CDMA 800 and 1900.
Personally, I just bring along an unlocked GSM phone when I go to Europe
or Asia, and stick in a prepaid SIM card. I'd do the same even if I had
the A790 (if it is unlockable) because the cost of international roaming
is insanely high. It's a minor inconvenience to have the GSM phone,
certainly far less of an inconvenience than sacrificing coverage in the
U.S. where I spend most of my time.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:27:35 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in
<rnBhg.6871$9f2.4958@trnddc04>:
>"CCMiami" < ccpublic@modeldriven
.org> wrote in message
>news:1149689522.283763.289910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>I dropped Cingular/ATT TDMA service about 4 months ago and went with Sprint
>PCS, which like Verizon uses the CDMA protocol, unlike Cingular's use of GSM
>(which is an outgrowth of TDMA).
>
>The difference in call quality was very gratifying. Crystal-clear calls,
>virtually no more dropped calls, the absence of that annoying "hollow" sound
>that was always on TDMA calls.
That's as compared to D-AMPS ("TDMA"), not GSM
>I found a web site that explains some of the technical factors that make the
>CDMA protocol superior to GSM. From what I've gathered so far, the only
>disadvantage of CDMA is its inability to use SIM cards, making it difficult
>to switch phones as easily as one can do with a GSM phone. ...
1. CDMA isn't technically superior to GSM.
2. CDMA can use SIMs.
3. CDMA has the disadvantage of cell breathing, which can result in
degraded or even dropped calls as load increases.
The bottom line is that both GSM and CDMA are capable of excellent
performance, and arguing about which one is "better" is just plain
silly.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-07, 11:48 pm |
| Jeremy wrote:
> The difference in call quality was very gratifying. Crystal-clear calls,
> virtually no more dropped calls, the absence of that annoying "hollow" sound
> that was always on TDMA calls.
Having used Sprint several years and now Cingular for six months I found
no significant difference in the call quality. I've had Sprint and
Cingular calls that were so quiet, I had to ask if the person was still
on the other end...other times it was so distorted or noisy and had to
try the cal again.
> I found a web site that explains some of the technical factors that make the
> CDMA protocol superior to GSM.
> From what I've gathered so far, the only disadvantage of CDMA is its inability to use SIM cards
Keep gathering...you'll find:
Cell breathing - While typically described as the cell's radius coverage
increases and decreases on the number of phones in use, it can also
affect close in phones. As the loading increase, the weaker signal
phones get the call dropped - phones farther out from the tower have a
weaker signal, but it can also affect close in phones that say move form
an open parking lot to inside a building.
Pilot pollution - Phones that can see multiple towers have issues - like
when you drive over the top of a five level overpass (not a good idea to
be trying to dial a call while 80 feet above the street level) or in the
hills surrounding a town.
Shorter daily battery life - With a brand new battery, I would have to
charge it at least ever other night. With a used battery, every night.
SIM cards - How many people actually feel this is a compelling need?
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-06-08, 5:48 am |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:53:47 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>1. CDMA isn't technically superior to GSM.
Sure it is,
It's why >=3G are using the W-CDMA air interface as their underlying
standard. GSM can't cut the mustard for the future, except as merely
the infrastructure.
| |
| Scott 2006-06-09, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:itpd82t4u8tvvac
ph86strg9mgkm667cde@
4ax.com...
>
> 1. CDMA isn't technically superior to GSM.
Only in your delusional world.
> 2. CDMA can use SIMs.
And your point?
> 3. CDMA has the disadvantage of cell breathing, which can result in
> degraded or even dropped calls as load increases.
GSM has the disadvantage of a much smaller technology footprint, resulting
in far less coveraqge than CDMA.
>
> The bottom line is that both GSM and CDMA are capable of excellent
> performance, and arguing about which one is "better" is just plain
> silly.
>
But that describes you to a 'T'- plain silly.
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:53:47 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sure it is,
>
> It's why >=3G are using the W-CDMA air interface as their underlying
> standard. GSM can't cut the mustard for the future, except as merely
> the infrastructure.
The world is moving to CDMA, unfortunately part of world is moving to
W-CDMA, and part of the world is moving to CDMA2000.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-13, 2:48 am |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:00:41 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < qref82po9urtmkl0ttdh
mcnedgn866r8k7@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:53:47 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sure it is,
>
>It's why >=3G are using the W-CDMA air interface as their underlying
>standard. GSM can't cut the mustard for the future, except as merely
>the infrastructure.
W-CDMA (UMTS) is considerable different from what's commonly called
CDMA, uses GSM infrastructure, and is complementary to GSM.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-13, 2:48 am |
| On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:15:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 448a3956$0$97002$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>The world is moving to CDMA, unfortunately part of world is moving to
>W-CDMA, and part of the world is moving to CDMA2000.
Most of the world is actually moving to GSM and UMTS (W-CDMA), which is
considerably different from what's commonly called CDMA.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-13, 2:48 am |
| On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:01:10 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
< H5OdneUzgctzuhfZnZ2d
nUVZ_qadnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:itpd82t4u8tvvac
ph86strg9mgkm667cde@
4ax.com...
>
>GSM has the disadvantage of a much smaller technology footprint, resulting
>in far less coveraqge than CDMA.
GSM actually has range comparable to CDMA.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Joe Versaggi 2006-06-13, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> GSM actually has range comparable to CDMA.
>
Don't care what the rest of the world has, only the what I can do with
it. I hear nothing but complaints about GSM holes in populated suburban
areas (mother can't use her phone in her house), or near hills and
buildings. Never heard a complaint from a Verizon customer. My TDMA
coverage is perfectly good any where in the country I have been, except
for God's country across US2 west of Grand Forks to Spokane.
| |
| Scott 2006-06-13, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ncis821ahdtq8ku
il1e2kuuj1tvet0o20m@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:01:10 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> < H5OdneUzgctzuhfZnZ2d
nUVZ_qadnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>
>
>
> GSM actually has range comparable to CDMA.
>
That's not what was posted- try again, Novice. The GSM footprint in the US
is a fraction of CDMA coverage.
Try reading before responding, dimwit.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-13, 11:48 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:04:35 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
< 3NKdnbUzYsYDzxLZnZ2d
nUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:ncis821ahdtq8ku
il1e2kuuj1tvet0o20m@
4ax.com...
>
>That's not what was posted- try again, Novice. The GSM footprint in the US
>is a fraction of CDMA coverage.
Also false.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-06-13, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:uqlu82hm5slrcvs
9f4n6r4ja89gu4beqc4@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:04:35 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> < 3NKdnbUzYsYDzxLZnZ2d
nUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>
>
> Also false.
>
According to who? You? That won't work, Novice- you have posted
inaccurate, misleading and blatently false information more often than not.
Provide authoratative proof to support your outlandish claim.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:ncis821ahdtq8ku
il1e2kuuj1tvet0o20m@
4ax.com...
>
> That's not what was posted- try again, Novice. The GSM footprint in the US
> is a fraction of CDMA coverage.
>
> Try reading before responding, dimwit.
It's true what you say regarding the different footprints of GSM versus
CDMA, but it's also important to point out that one of the reasons for
the larger CDMA footprint is the longer range of a CDMA cell.
The maximum range of a GSM cell is 35km. "The limitation of the GSM cell
range to 35km dates back to the origins of the system in Europe where
cell ranges over 35km were not considered necessary."
There are schemes to use dual time slots, and this has actually been
implemented in some areas, such as on the coast of China, but AFAIK, no
GSM carrier in the U.S. has tried to extend the range beyond 35km using
any of the available schemes.
With CDMA there are no hard limits. There are CDMA cells in Australia
with a range of 120km, though most rural CDMA cells are designed for not
more than a 60km range.
Some carriers like to talk about the number of people they cover, versus
the area, simply because the rural population numbers are lost in the
noise of the urban population. Sprint used to love to play this game,
back when AT&T was TDMA/AMPS, Verizon was (and still is) CDMA/AMPS, and
Cingular was TDMA/AMPS (only about 5 million TDMA/AMPS subscribers
remain, and the number is dwindling fast).
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-13, 11:48 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:13:02 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 448f6299$0$96930$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>It's true what you say regarding the different footprints of GSM versus
>CDMA, but it's also important to point out that one of the reasons for
>the larger CDMA footprint is the longer range of a CDMA cell.
"CDMA" and GSM both actually have comparable footprints and comparable
range.
>The maximum range of a GSM cell is 35km. "The limitation of the GSM cell
>range to 35km dates back to the origins of the system in Europe where
>cell ranges over 35km were not considered necessary."
No citation, and Google can't fine it, so you apparently just made that
quote up (as usual).
>There are schemes to use dual time slots, and this has actually been
>implemented in some areas, such as on the coast of China, but AFAIK, no
>GSM carrier in the U.S. has tried to extend the range beyond 35km using
>any of the available schemes.
Now you're trying to scramble, but you still don't have it straight.
Extended range GSM can actually go up to 120 km; e.g.,
<http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp...=2050-8217-8223>
<http://www.mobilecomms-technology.c...ts/gsm_morocco/>
>With CDMA there are no hard limits.
Line of sight (tower height) is in fact a hard limit.
>There are CDMA cells in Australia
>with a range of 120km, though most rural CDMA cells are designed for not
>more than a 60km range.
Actually much less than that, comparable to GSM.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Folsom 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:25:55 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:13:02 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>
>No citation, and Google can't fine it, so you apparently just made that
>quote up (as usual).
>
Please do a search on "gsm 35km". The limit of 35km is due to timing advance
limits in the protocol.
http://www.mrvfone.com.au/nok9/techtop/hr.htm
| |
|
| Folsom wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:25:55 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Please do a search on "gsm 35km". The limit of 35km is due to timing advance
> limits in the protocol.
>
> http://www.mrvfone.com.au/nok9/techtop/hr.htm
"Absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated
by the Timing Advance range being restricted to values between zero
and 63, with each step corresponding to 553.5 metres from the tower."
Written by none other than John Navas himself. See
"http://tinyurl.com/zbld2".
As I explained earlier, there are schemes for extending the range of
GSM, and at least in China there is a carrier that has adopted the dual
time slot method in some areas.
I don't think it'll take off in the U.S. because you can't use extended
range GSM with data services, though I suppose you could create a dual
network, one with extended range that lacks data support, and one with
normal range that supported data.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:49:08 -0400, Folsom <cneuzil@bellsouth.net> wrote
in < 5b8092hk16dunjgs732l
j0v3e9n7sd533p@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:25:55 GMT, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Please do a search on "gsm 35km". The limit of 35km is due to timing advance
>limits in the protocol.
>
>http://www.mrvfone.com.au/nok9/techtop/hr.htm
1. I'm familiar with GSM technology and timing.
2. The "limit" is for standard range GSM.
3. Extended Range GSM uses different timing for much longer range (over
100 km).
4. My citation comment was in reference to his (apparently made up and
misleading) quote, not the GSM spec.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-14, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:46:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44902f32$0$96982$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Folsom wrote:
>
>"Absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated
>by the Timing Advance range being restricted to values between zero
>and 63, with each step corresponding to 553.5 metres from the tower."
>
>Written by none other than John Navas himself. See
>"http://tinyurl.com/zbld2".
The key word there is "standard".
>As I explained earlier, there are schemes for extending the range of
>GSM, and at least in China there is a carrier that has adopted the dual
>time slot method in some areas.
Actually more than "dual slot" -- maximum range can be over 100 km,
comparable to long range CDMA.
Before you picked this up from me, you were denying the existence of
such long range for GSM. ;)
>I don't think it'll take off in the U.S. because you can't use extended
>range GSM with data services, though I suppose you could create a dual
>network, one with extended range that lacks data support, and one with
>normal range that supported data.
I have it on good authority that Extended Range GSM *is* being used in
the USA.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-06-17, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:12:51 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:00:41 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < qref82po9urtmkl0ttdh
mcnedgn866r8k7@4ax.com>:
>
>
>W-CDMA (UMTS) is considerable different from what's commonly called
>CDMA, uses GSM infrastructure, and is complementary to GSM.
W-CDMA, just like CDMA, mixes all the calls/data together into a
single channel, with each call encoded with a special key. GSM, using
TDMA, segregates calls via time-slots.
W-CDMA is more similar to *CDMA* than GSM.
The TDMA air interface that GSM uses is not used in W-CDMA because it
is technologically a dead end.
As you wrote, we both wrote, W-CDMA merely uses the infrastructure
(relatively unimportant), but the air-interface (relatively more
important) is basically CDMA only with wider channels.
<http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1773507,00.asp>
[...]
UMTS is an entirely new setup based on CDMA
[...]
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-21, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:13:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < uk9892992clk8g2kt194
r1uebbve304m9s@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:12:51 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>W-CDMA, just like CDMA, mixes all the calls/data together into a
>single channel, with each call encoded with a special key. GSM, using
>TDMA, segregates calls via time-slots.
CDMA2000 doesn't mix "all" calls and data on a "single channel" -- it
mixes some calls and some data on a given channel, and others on other
channels. Each channel is 1.25 MHz, or about 1/10 of the spectrum
available to the service provider.
GSM (based on TDMA) likewise mixes calls into a given channel, albeit
narrower channels (0.2 MHz), and with a different form of channel
multiplexing.
CDMA2000 and GSM both use:
* frequency multiplexing (of channels/carriers)
* channel multiplexing, based on either:
* CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access
* TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access
W-CDMA (UMTS) likewise uses both frequency multiplexing, with channels
4x as wide as CDMA2000, and channel multiplexing, based on basic CDMA
technology, albeit quite different from CDMA2000 in terms of both
definition and infrastructure..
>W-CDMA is more similar to *CDMA* than GSM.
That's a matter of personal opinion, and one that's not terribly
meaningful. In most ways W-CDMA (UMTS) is quite different from
CDMA2000. Even the air interface for W-CDMA, even though based on CDMA
technology, is different from CDMA2000. In addition, unlike CDMA2000,
W-CDMA is designed to coexist with and complement GSM.
>The TDMA air interface that GSM uses is not used in W-CDMA because it
>is technologically a dead end.
Hardly -- GSM is still being rapidly deployed, and will coexist with
W-CDMA (UMTS) for the foreseeable future.
>As you wrote, we both wrote, W-CDMA merely uses the infrastructure
>(relatively unimportant), but the air-interface (relatively more
>important) is basically CDMA only with wider channels.
Infrastructure is actually quite important, and the air interface for
W-CDMA is different from CDMA2000. Thus UMTS is the better term.
Proponents of CDMA2000 have an unfortunate tendency to play word games
with the "CDMA" acronym, which actually means quite different things in
different contexts. To avoid that kind of confusion, "CDMA" should only
be used to refer to the basic technology. Similar confusion comes from
using "TDMA" to refer to D-AMPS. Thus "UMTS/W-CDMA" and "CDMA2000" (and
"GSM") should be used when referring to the specific dissimilar
standards.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-06-23, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I have it on good authority that Extended Range GSM *is* being used in
> the USA.
>
Then cite it.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Then cite it.
Now see Thomas, you don't understand. When Navas says he got his
information from a professional or describes his personal experiences,
its perfectly acceptable as the gospel truth.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| CDMA is far superior to TDMA. As I have stated in another forum, the CDMA
and GSM debate reminds me of the Beta versus VHS debates that occurred in
the 70s. The Beta Tape Standard was far superior to the VHS Standard, yet
the VHS Standard was chosen and adopted. GSM provides less capacity and
lower data rates, yet it is the world standard simply because it was
accepted first and was an easy upgrade path from TDMA. Unfortunately, the
world is now stuck with a sick and crippled dinosaur. A little forethought
could have prevented this problem. :-(
| |
| Scott 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:uqlu82hm5slrcvs
9f4n6r4ja89gu4beqc4@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:04:35 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> < 3NKdnbUzYsYDzxLZnZ2d
nUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>
>
> Also false.
>
No- you are wrong and can post no evidence to the contrary. CDMA now covers
most of rural america- GSM does not come close. But a nice try by the
uneducated to skirt the facts.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> No- you are wrong and can post no evidence to the contrary. CDMA now covers
> most of rural america- GSM does not come close. But a nice try by the
> uneducated to skirt the facts.
The GSM footprint is smaller than the CDMA footprint, but the real
difference is in CDMA+AMPS versus GSM. GSM carriers will often cite the
population that they cover since the rural footprint covers so few
people that it's lost in the noise.
Unfortunately, GSM customers _do_ suffer from this lack of coverage when
they travel to, or through, these areas. I've seen this first hand when
I was vacationing in an area with no GSM coverage. GSM and iDEN users
were SOL, while CDMA, TDMA, and AMPS users were able to make calls. The
situation in that particular area has improved somewhat for GSM users,
as coverage has been added in the metro areas, but they still have far
less coverage in the rural areas.
GSM shills will also often incorrectly state that AMPS will be turned
off in 2008. In fact, the carriers are _permitted_ to turn off AMPS, not
required to turn it off. In areas with no digital coverage, which is
actually the majority of the land area in the U.S., AMPS will remain in
place.
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> CDMA is far superior to TDMA. As I have stated in another forum, the CDMA
> and GSM debate reminds me of the Beta versus VHS debates that occurred in
> the 70s. The Beta Tape Standard was far superior to the VHS Standard, yet
> the VHS Standard was chosen and adopted. GSM provides less capacity and
> lower data rates, yet it is the world standard simply because it was
> accepted first and was an easy upgrade path from TDMA. Unfortunately, the
> world is now stuck with a sick and crippled dinosaur.
Forever is a long time. Whether it's W-CDMA or CDMA2000, the world is
moving to CDMA eventually. Voice will follow data.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> The GSM footprint is smaller than the CDMA footprint, but the real
> difference is in CDMA+AMPS versus GSM. GSM carriers will often cite the
> population that they cover since the rural footprint covers so few
> people that it's lost in the noise.
Carriers, at least AT&T does, uses the number of minutes used instead of
population/subscriber numbers to reflect what they want to present. I
posted the acronym used last year, can't remember what it was. It was in
an AT&T article describing the roll-out of GSM and how large the
coverage would be.
| |
| Joe Versaggi 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| > Scott wrote:
>
> GSM shills will also often incorrectly state that AMPS will be turned
> off in 2008. In fact, the carriers are _permitted_ to turn off AMPS, not
> required to turn it off. In areas with no digital coverage, which is
> actually the majority of the land area in the U.S., AMPS will remain in
> place.
What does On-Star use ?
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| It uses AMPS
"Joe Versaggi" <JOEMVCNJ@att.net> wrote in message
news:Wbgng.56878$mF2.42319@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> What does On-Star use ?
>
| |
| Joe Versaggi 2006-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| So AMPS can't go away, or OnStar is out of business on Feb 17, 2008
Mij Adyaw wrote:[color=darkred
]
> It uses AMPS
>
> "Joe Versaggi" <JOEMVCNJ@att.net> wrote in message
> news:Wbgng.56878$mF2.42319@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
| |
|
| Joe Versaggi wrote:
> So AMPS can't go away, or OnStar is out of business on Feb 17, 2008
Only the older OnStar vehicles. GM now uses CDMA/AMPS on newer vehicles.
However the usability of OnStar will be reduced if AMPS goes away.
| |
|
| The older phones/cars use AMPS, but the new plans/car/phone are digital,
usually CDMA.
My wife caller her parenst car through on-star and it's billed as mobile to
mobile.
AL
"Joe Versaggi" <JOEMVCNJ@att.net> wrote in message
news:Wbgng.56878$mF2.42319@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> What does On-Star use ?
>
| |
|
| In-Reply-To: <e7mn2f0j8s@news4.newsguy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <pYFng.3214$uo.687@trnddc07>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:34:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.240.38.95
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc07 1151282069 71.240.38.95 (Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:34:29 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:34:29 EDT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:67897
AL wrote:
> The older phones/cars use AMPS, but the new plans/car/phone are digital,
> usually CDMA.
> My wife caller her parenst car through on-star and it's billed as mobile to
> mobile.
>
Which carrier does she use?
| |
|
| Verizon, sorry thought I put that information in the message.
Sprint CDMA, not in my area or my lifetime.
AL
"Dave" <daves1955@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pYFng.3214$uo.687@trnddc07...
> AL wrote:
>
> Which carrier does she use?
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:41:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 449d6b2f$0$97008$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>The GSM footprint is smaller than the CDMA footprint, ...
Not true.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:20:11 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
< KLudnd1SJtsWdwbZnZ2d
nUVZ_oKdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Then cite it.
Check my back posts for actual GSM coverage outside of standard range.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:42:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 449d6b7a$0$97008$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>Forever is a long time. Whether it's W-CDMA or CDMA2000, the world is
>moving to CDMA eventually. Voice will follow data.
W-CDMA and CDMA2000 are vastly different.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Check my back posts for actual GSM coverage outside of standard range.
>
Then cite some realities where there are known extended GSM deployments that
everyday GSM phones [like you and I can buy] will work. I have read some of
your posts indicating tests that have extended the range, but I have not read
any evidence of its deployment.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:42:26 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
< HumdndKJSba_sDnZnZ2d
nUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Then cite some realities where there are known extended GSM deployments that
>everyday GSM phones [like you and I can buy] will work. I have read some of
>your posts indicating tests that have extended the range, but I have not read
>any evidence of its deployment.
Sub-thread starting with
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....95120a
5a>
or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Sub-thread starting with
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt....95120a
5a>
> or <http://tinyurl.com/odzqo>
>
That's not a citation! That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
35 miles out to see. Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
strength to overcome noise? Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
of your posting about your own experience out to sea. Do you have that?
China and South Africa aside .... I am curious about US deployments, but China
and South Africa are a start.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> That's not a citation! That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
> In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
> 35 miles out to see. Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
> little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
> strength to overcome noise? Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
> of your posting about your own experience out to sea. Do you have that?
Thomas...you know very well John has come out from under his rock to
make a few drive by posts and will disappear...hoping his nonsense will
be forgotten. He has a habit of not answering hard questions with any
resoanable answer.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:36 pm |
| On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:32:13 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
< Ua6dnZdiCMFQpTnZnZ2d
nUVZ_oKdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>That's not a citation!
I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>That is your own post indicating "I am pretty sure".
>In fact, the evidence you mention in that post is that you picked up a signal
>35 miles out to see.
Actually about 21 NM to the nearest land, or about 24 statute miles.
>Just out of curiousity ... do you really think your tiny
>little pulsating 1W signal made it 35 miles back to the tower with enough
>strength to overcome noise?
Obviously.
>Even so, I asked for a citation and not a quote
>of your posting about your own experience out to sea.
You actually asked for "evidence" ("cite some realities").
>Do you have that?
What I have is evidence, and good evidence at that.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:jtt7a2h6gdrjrkt
rp6nq6cpmuvr4c72d5c@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:41:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 449d6b2f$0$97008$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Not true.
And yet you posted NOTHING to refute it. Why? Because nothing can refute
it. You have been caught once again showing your lack of a clue.
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:4af8a2198nt9qg2
7jg0m1b12edqecklj2l@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:32:13 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> < Ua6dnZdiCMFQpTnZnZ2d
nUVZ_oKdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>
That proves it- you are indeed a clueless moron. Nothing more to be said
about it.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-02, 3:37 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I never said it was. I was simply giving you "evidence" you asked for.
>
It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
plausible).
>
> Actually about 21 NM to the nearest land, or about 24 statute miles.
>
>
> Obviously.
>
>
> You actually asked for "evidence" ("cite some realities").
Posting a link to one of your own posts is not evidence. It is just evidence
that you made a post in the past and not evidence of a real deployment. It
should be pretty clear why citing yourself is not very plausible.
>
>
> What I have is evidence, and good evidence at that.
>
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary? ;)
>
I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-02, 3:37 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:54:55 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<GaadnaU-r__y- DjZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@
giganews.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
>plausible).
We'll just have to disagree on that.
>
>I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
I didn't think so.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> It isn't evidence (you can't quote yourself as "evidence" ... it isn't
> plausible).
Clearly you have not been reading this group for very long!
>
> I didn't ask for evidence to the contrary ... that is all over the place.
>
Always the last resort of someone who's been caught lying! "Well it must
be true, you can't prove otherwise!"
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:sfqaa2pdomot7jv
fc19qanfdvoinnj1u42@
4ax.com...
>
> We'll just have to disagree on that.
Translation- John Navas got caught showing his lack of knowledge again.
>
>
> I didn't think so.
>
Don't you mean, "I didn't think"? That would be much more appropriate, you
clueless troll.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-05, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> We'll just have to disagree on that.
>
You can not give that evidence because it does not exist ... just as I
thought.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-05, 12:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Always the last resort of someone who's been caught lying! "Well it must
> be true, you can't prove otherwise!"
I am not sure who you are referring too, but I assume you are referring to
John. I was asking for evidence of extended GSM deployment and in particular,
I want evidence for its deployment in the US. It seems to me the only
evidence posted by Mr. Navas is that he was once on a boat at some distance
into the gulf of mexico and he picked up a signal ... so it must have been
extended GSM. Since he cites himself, I will make a post to the contrary that
I was with him that day and I will indicate that he was actually using a
Verizon Wireless phone. Further, I will post that post as evidence to support
my opinion.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not sure who you are referring too, but I assume you are referring to
> John.
Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear.
I was asking for evidence of extended GSM deployment and in particular,
> I want evidence for its deployment in the US. It seems to me the only
> evidence posted by Mr. Navas is that he was once on a boat at some distance
> into the gulf of mexico and he picked up a signal ... so it must have been
> extended GSM.
In the words of the late Johnny Carson, "funny stuff."
> Since he cites himself, I will make a post to the contrary that
> I was with him that day and I will indicate that he was actually using a
> Verizon Wireless phone. Further, I will post that post as evidence to support
> my opinion.
I thought I saw you on the boat!
|
|
|
|
|