|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > January 2006 > Re: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4
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: Verizon is best carrier for third year. In SF Bay Area, it's 1-Verizon, 2-T-Mobile, 3-Sprint, 4
|
|
| John Navas 2006-01-31, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 43a03dea$0$95975$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:44:54
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>This is going to be how the vast rural areas end up, CDMA digital, some
>AMPS if the carriers keep it on, but little GSM.
>
>Look at the technical reasons for this:
Let's.
>GSM 800 Mhz has a maximum distance between towers of about 25 miles
Actually 23 miles (35 km). Likewise GSM 1900. Standard GSM. Extended Range
GSM has double that range.
>(flat terrain without obstructions).
Actually line of sight.
>Practically speaking, the sites are
>closer than that, 6-8 miles apart (unless more are needed for additional
>capacity).
Sometimes, and sometimes they are farther apart than that.
>CDMA 800 Mhz has has a maximum distance between towers of about 39 miles
>(flat terrain without obstructions).
In fact it has no such distance limitation.
<http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corpo...287_Boomer.html>
Designed to improve the economics of rural digital cellular service,
the Nortel Networks CDMA Rural Cell can provide a coverage radius up
to 180 kilometers under suitable conditions, more than 10 times the
range of a typical CDMA base station.
Nicknamed "Boomer" Cell, this pioneering technology was first
demonstrated in March at Nortel Networks' Wireless Solutions lab in
Ottawa, Ontario. Recent field trials with Telstra in Australia have
achieved coverage in excess of 120 kilometers on land and 130
kilometers for marine service under typical conditions, using
standard CDMA handsets and car kits.
>Again, practically speaking, the
>sites are closer than that, 12-14 miles (unless more are needed for
>additional capacity).
More or less, just like GSM.
>AMPS 800 Mhz has no distance limitation imposed by timing issues,
Likewise CDMA.
>but
>practically speaking you're looking at around 70 miles (flat terrain
>without obstructions).
Not with small low-power handsets -- only with much higher power (e.g., bag
phones), and even then range is usually much less than that.
>1900 Mhz requires 4x to 5x the number of base stations as 800 Mhz.
Unsupported and untrue.
>1900
>Mhz is also lower power than 800 Mhz, but the fact that you need more
>base stations anyway, eliminates any advantage of the higher power.
Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for 1900,
and then only when range is limited only by power.
Current small handsets don't come close to those power levels, so those
maximums are meaningless.
>In
>urban areas, the number of base stations is determined by capacity
>constraints, and as long as there is no problem placing the additional
>base stations required by 1900 Mhz, the advantage in terms of coverage,
>at least outdoor coverage disappears. The problem with 1900 Mhz is that
>it’s often difficult to place enough cells in suburban areas, due to
>NIMBY concerns.
No additional base stations are needed for 1900 MHz.
>The other issue with 1900 Mhz is that it penetrates
>buildings much less well than 800 Mhz.
It's not that simple. While 1900 penetrates walls less well than 800/850, it
does a better job of penetrating small openings (e.g., windows). Overall
the difference is usually relatively small, with 800/850 better in some
buildings, 1900 better in other buildings.
>In Australia, the range issue was a very big issue, and they ended up
>with a CDMA system for the extended range in the vast rural areas,
Contradicting what you said above. ;)
>and a
>GSM system for European compatibility. Now the CDMA carrier is trying to
>convert the CDMA voice network over to W-CDMA. Even though W-CDMA is
>primarily intended for data, nothing really stops it from being used for
>voice as well, even though it isn’t optimal in terms of latency.
W-CDMA is actually very good in terms of latency.
>I don't know why Navas continues to lie about rural coverage. It's not a
>secret that rural coverage on GSM is very poor.
Anyone that disagrees with you based on actual experience is a liar? Cute.
Rural GSM coverage here in Northern California compares well to rural CDMA
coverage (apples to apples).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|