GSM or CDMA???

[JoeBloggs]

Since I need to significantly upgrade my phone plan, I've been shopping for a new phone and trying to decide on a carrier. My current phone is a Siemens S46 (it's been a good phone), with service through AT&T. I travel quite a lot throughout North America, used to travel a lot to Europe but not anymore, so nationwide coverage is important. I can't stay with AT&T, they're forcing me to switch to Cingular. Do I go with Cingular for the GSM technology, and better selection of phones, or do I go with Verizon, for the better service in the northeast (where I live)?

I want a phone that I can use a Bluetooth wireless headset with, good reception and sound qualities, and a good address book that I can sync with Outlook, preferably through an IR connection. I don't care about camera capabilities, although it seems all the best new phones have cameras (an unwanted feature that I'd rather not pay for).

GSM or CDMA? Cingular or Verizon? Any opinions?

[jmax577]

GSM hands down. first of all, for voice and data, GSM is the superior technology. voice quality, call connectivity, and coverage is awesome with cingular. i know the coverage in the upper northwest is hit and miss but keep in mind that cingular has 100 percent coverage in all hte top markets so all your major cities, suburbs, and connecting highways should be adequately covered. the data is where gsm really shines though. EDGE is simply bliss for wireless data due to its awesome speeds. on the other hand, verizon is the last wireless company i would ever go with. they're technology is lagging, theier coverage is not NEAR as good as they claim it is and they are the only wireless provider that will still roam on analog. They're rate plans do not even compare to cingulars, plus with the new cingular the mobile to mobile is a huge plus since you have 46 million people and the largest network. i am employed by cingular, was formerly with at and t, and i honestly think cingular is the best wireless provider in the us.

[carcomptoy]

Well, you can't really go with what he says...he works for Cingular and is thus biased. Although, to be honest, I could be considered biased as well. I have been with T-Mobile for 2 years now, and I LOVE IT! Their rate plans are so much cheaper and I haven't had problems with reception really except for a small rural town in New Mexico, but it's not significant. Also, while EDGE is nice and all, it's expensive and Cingular can't give you unlimited internet, albeit GPRS, for $5 a month. If you must ABSOLUTELY have fast internet at a high price, then get Cingular; but if you want a plan that has what phones were meant for in the first place and has unlimited internet, then go with T-Mobile. Also, if you do happen to travel abroad, T-Mobile can roam in more countries than Cingular. Also, with Cingular, you use two different bands, 850 and 1900. If you get just a regular triband phone, it won't work as well on Cingular, where as on T-Mobile, you use just the normally included 1900 band, giving you more flexibility. Either way, coverage-wise, T-Mobile has Cingular/AT&T Wireless as a roaming partner and therefore shares coverage...

[jmax577]

really? biased maybe but your facts are certainly not straight. with cingular you can get the media works package which is 1500 texts, 200 mms's. and unlim data for 20 bones. granted with tmob you can get unlim data and unlim text for 15 but no mms. edge more expensive? um, well, no. its billed the same. just cause your using edge instead of standard gprs you're not going to get billed more. you will certainly use more data but what does it matter cause its all unlimited right? on the 850/1900 issue it is t mobiles stupidity NOT to support 850 because it is better, farther traveling, better penetrating bandwidth than 1900. thats why at and t and cingular both built their networks with both in mind. T mobile is missing out on a butt ton of caverage because they tought the 850 bandwidth was 'irrelevant'. have you looked at a coverage map? CIngular's EDGE network is bigger than tmobiles freakin voice! granted if you oversees you are not going to have the 900 on a us model triband nokia. but quad bands aqnre becoming more and more commonplace and hopefully nokia will integrate quad band technology into their upcoming handsets.

[carcomptoy]

;) \CIngular's EDGE network is bigger than tmobiles freakin voice! granted if you oversees you are not going to have the 900 on a us model triband nokia. but quad bands aqnre becoming more and more commonplace and hopefully nokia will integrate quad band technology into their upcoming handsets.

I did check the EDGE coverage map...there is no way that the EDGE service covers more than T-Mobile's voice! T-Mobile's coverage is pretty extensive; Cingular's EDGE service only is about half of T-Mobile's voice. And if you notice the newest phones, they're still only triband...most phone manufacturers don't want to spend the extra cost of making a phone quadband. Most of the quadbands right now are only from Motorola, who's by the way suck. The Treo and Windows handhelds also have quadband capability, but I have no interest in them, much less that new LG slider phone. He'd be better off with T-Mobile, who's going to have EDGE pretty soon anyways...

[jmax577]

actually t mobile chose not to pusrsue edge because they want to allocate all their finances and time to umts deployment.

[carcomptoy]

So what is this then? (copied from Reuters.com)

(December 9, 2004) In the meantime, T-Mobile USA is upgrading its network with EDGE, a technology that is roughly twice as fast as home Internet connections that use traditional phone lines but about three times slower than UMTS networks.

It expects to start selling EDGE services next year and begin by gradually phasing in the service in selected markets, according to T-Mobile USA Chief Financial Officer Brian Kirkpatrick, who also attended the conference.

[Box215]

yeah, T-Mobile EDGE is due in June, if not before. Which sucks cause i went out and bought an S700. Shouldve waited for the S710a.

[jmax577]

i stand corrected. but by the time t mobile finally gets around to edge deployment cingular will be ready to launch umts.

[jmax577]

cingular umts nationwide launch (it is already in six markets) is projected 4th quarter this year.

[jmax577]

another advantage of cingular is all of our phones are sold UNLOCKED. you don't have to go through all the bs that tmob makes you do to simply get an unlock code. granted you can find that codes numersous places online (including here) but at least ours will work unlocked out of the box.

[carcomptoy]

another advantage of cingular is all of our phones are sold UNLOCKED.

SINCE WHEN?! My aunt gave me one of her old Cingular phones and it was locked...had to get the unlock code online. Besides, what kind of an unlock is it when every single little thing is Cingular-branded?

[jmax577]

trust me. they are. at least all the models they carry now. the advantage is international travel.

[carcomptoy]

International travel? When most of your triband phones are American tribands anyways? Makes sense...

[jmax577]

850 and 1900 are us. 900 and 1800 are int. tmob tri modes are 1900/1800/900. a tru us grm phone is 850/1900/1800. there is no such thing as a us only trimode phones being that the us onely uses two.

[carcomptoy]

It's still not really internationally capable because out of three bands, there's only one non-US band, meaning in places that use only or for the most part use 900 (i.e. the Philippines), you're missing out. That's what I don't understand about American versions of tribands. Also, even if you do have the 1800 band, just like if you used only 1900 on Cingular, you wouldn't have the best coverage as you'd only be using 1 out of 2 possible bands in Europe and Asia, leaving you with subpar coverage.

[fabarati]

haha this thread was fun, war between t-mobile fans and cingular fans. i say use the best network, which can change very fast or take the one who offers u the phone u want. i dislike mobile carriers because they don't think about us users, only of themselves.

[carcomptoy]

I see your point about disliking carriers, but seeing as how the individual cannot provide his own service, it's a necessarily evil. Not all carriers are alike, and that's the beauty of it. The consumer has the option of choosing a better company, one that fits his own needs. I wouldn't necessarily go with the phone you want, because the phone you want might be CDMA whereas your carrier that you like is GSM (not so in my case, but just as an example). I know some people who have done that (i.e. my parents) who chose phones over carrier and right now are not happy with their carrier because the coverage is horrible at our house and the service is expensive. However, they still like their phones, which gives them in a quandary. And mobile carriers do think about themselves because obvious they're a company and their trying to make money, but some carriers do try to please the consumer more, and so that's what separates carriers from each other. Service with one particular carrier may be horrible, but if the person is pleased with the customer service, they're more likely to stay with them...

[gromitjc]

I'm hardly an expert, but here's my take. You're going to get pretty good coverage with either Verizon and Cingular, it really boils down to details. I'd probably steer clear of T-Mobile unless you don't plan on leaving big metro areas/major interstates (plus they lock their phones). I switched to Verizon almost two years ago because Cingular had spotty (TDMA) coverage at my house, and overall I really can't fault their coverage/service. However I'm going to switch back to Cingular once my contract expires for serveral reasons. 1)I'd really like international roaming - yes Verizon now has a CDMA/GSM phone - but it's $400 and doesn't have Bluetooth. 2)Verizon only has one phone with Bluetooth (the Motorola V710), and they've crippled it so it only be used to connect to a headset, and can't transfer data - though I'm not sure if it can synchronize with Outlook - someone can correct me here. I think it's rather nervy of them - why should I have to pay $0.25 to get my own pictures off of my phone? 3G is sort of a moot point - neither Verizon nor Cingular have 3G phones available, and probably won't for a while, though I suspect Verizon might release one first since they already have EV-DO PC cards available.

Anyhow, hope that helps.

[jmax577]

im goona have to agree with the point about people choosing their provider because that particular provider offers a phone that an individual wants. is the general public still this misinformed? granted certain models are locked to one particular technology but come on....t mobile in the us is terrfic provider as long as you stay in major metro areas. other than that they are not a very good provider. in numerous years of service their map has not grown much where as cingular's gsm is of the chain in only 15 months of service.

[jmax577]

wcdma and do should be launched nationwide about the same time...just fyi...

[carcomptoy]

Yes, T-Mobile may lock their phones, but they do offer free unlocking service, albeit that's an extra step. Also, just because AT&T/Cingular both use 850 AND 1900, doesn't necessarily guarantee better service. At my house, everyone (including AT&T and Cingular and even VERIZON) has coverage problems EXCEPT T-MOBILE. Now I know this may be a one in a million things, but whatever, that's where I live and T-Mobile's the best for me. Also, I know your reason is that the use of two bands makes Cingular more capable, but I still can't get over having to use another band and having another trouble to worry about. When I went to the Philippines, if I had Cingular I wouldn't have been able to use my dual band phones as they would be 850/1900. Thankfully I had T-Mobile dual band phones (900/1900) so I was able to use them. Have to worry about one less band when buying phones is less stressful. Although there are more and more quadbands, a lot of phones still only offer 900/1800/1900 bands, like the Sendo X I want. Even if I had a triband phone but 850/1800/1900, I wouldn't have been able to use it in the Philippines, as the companies there don't or barely use the 1800 band, only 900...

[gromitjc]

The only phones capable of true (GSM) global roaming are quad band. With tri-band, no matter what, there a small number of countries where you wouldn't get service. Leave out 900 and you lose a number of African/Asian/Middle Eastern countries (China, Thailand, Egypt, Saudi Arabia), leave out 800 and you lose coverage in the US and some Latin American countries (Ecuador, Panama, Honduras).

[jmax577]

true that

[YJT]

You guys should be very grateful that you have unique carriers to choose from that offer different services and price plans etc.. in NZ vodafone dominates leaving us with no choice but to live by their rules their price plans and rates which all %R@#$.

[carcomptoy]

That's true...competition is necessarily in any business situation in order to benefit the customer. Btw, what countries does Vodafone operate in? It seems like every country I hear, Vodafone's there (UK, Australia, [USA through Verizon sort of], Japan, now New Zealand...are they like some kind of monopoly or something?!)

[YJT]

Vodafone is a plaque and its everywhere as far as i'm concerned. In NZ they are the only GSM carrier so the rates and price plans all suck. I didn't realise how crap it was until i went to aussie and taiwan this summer and saw first hand the awesome deals that the users have, yet the ppl overseas are complaining.

[jmax577]

never thought of that bro.....

[carcomptoy]

That really sucks dude...ever thought of moving? How about creating your own carrier? lol Just kidding

[gromitjc]

Btw, what countries does Vodafone operate in? It seems like every country I hear, Vodafone's there (UK, Australia, [USA through Verizon sort of], Japan, now New Zealand...are they like some kind of monopoly or something?!)

Vodafone is really enormous - they're the largest mobile carrier in the world. They operate (not always under the "Vodafone" name, like with their stake in Verizon in the US) in Albania, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania , Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US.

[Box215]

I would consider them to operate in the US...they dont own the majority stake in Verizon (only 44%). Verizon owns the majority.

[Box215]

Now had they bought ATT for the $40 billion they had proposed...Cingular beat them out by $1 billion, lol.

[gromitjc]

Vodafone's stake in Verizon really doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering Verizon's use of a technology incompatible with the rest of their network. Kinda wish they'd bought AT&T, Cingular could use some GSM competition.

[psykon99]

GSM hands down. first of all, for voice and data, GSM is the superior technology. voice quality, call connectivity, and coverage is awesome with cingular.


I must beg to differ on GSM when it comes to voice quality. CDMA is the superior technology for call/sound clarity. This is due to the fact that CDMA phones can reconstruct the call from bounced signal as well from the tower itself. GSM only reconstructs the call from the tower. That's why CDMA works much better in downtown situations when buildings are getting in the way.

Now, as to HOLDING a call w/ less chance of dropping, the victor is GSM.

[Box215]

I must beg to differ on GSM when it comes to voice quality. CDMA is the superior technology for call/sound clarity. This is due to the fact that CDMA phones can reconstruct the call from bounced signal as well from the tower itself. GSM only reconstructs the call from the tower. That's why CDMA works much better in downtown situations when buildings are getting in the way.

Now, as to HOLDING a call w/ less chance of dropping, the victor is GSM.

In my personal experience, GSM's call quality has always been much better.

[jayesh]

In my personal experience, GSM's call quality has always been much better.
i so agree. i am in a unique position of using both cdma and gsm based networks at the same time.... cdma is better at holding signals .. ( atleast in mumbai ) but on voice quality .... gsm is tonnes better better modulated and less harsh and very natural sounding .


( using nokia gsm/ cdma fones)

[psykon99]

i so agree. i am in a unique position of using both cdma and gsm based networks at the same time.... cdma is better at holding signals .. ( atleast in mumbai ) but on voice quality .... gsm is tonnes better better modulated and less harsh and very natural sounding .


Interesting. In all of my experience and training, it has been reversed. CDMA due to it's ability to use bounce signal and because it does not use time division has better voice quality but is more suseptable to dropped calls because the phone runs the show not the tower and because of the fact that the system breathes its coverage in and out.

GSM is controlled by the tower. The signal is less likely to be lost. Also, there is no breathing (as I understand it w/ GSM). The downside is that GSM still uses time division which inhibits voice quality and it does not reconstruct calls with bounce signal.

[jayesh]

Interesting. In all of my experience and training, it has been reversed. CDMA due to it's ability to use bounce signal and because it does not use time division has better voice quality but is more suseptable to dropped calls because the phone runs the show not the tower and because of the fact that the system breathes its coverage in and out.

GSM is controlled by the tower. The signal is less likely to be lost. Also, there is no breathing (as I understand it w/ GSM). The downside is that GSM still uses time division which inhibits voice quality and it does not reconstruct calls with bounce signal.


ahh as u said ... experience and training. I am just an end user making guesses * that too not really educated ones but no i am not taking potshots...** You probably are right.... but i stick to my word.... i get far less dropped calls on the cdma networks and harsher tones vs clear and natural sounding speech on gsm with more chances of dropping calls

[YJT]

Having used both gsm and cdma i think that cdma has better at holding a call for sure. However sound quality and type depends on which type of phone maker..

[ishaanranderia]

in india its not easy to change handsets for cdma, and i change my handset every year so gsm offers that convenience. so its gsm for me

[carcomptoy]

For me it doesn't matter...as long as I can hear them and they hear me, I'm good. Besides, I much prefer the convenience of GSM to CDMA...I can't believe people put up having to call in and register their phone and eveything everytime they change phones. SUCH A HASSLE!

[psykon99]

I can't believe people put up having to call in and register their phone and eveything everytime they change phones. SUCH A HASSLE!


Yea, I really wish CDMA carriers and phone makers would come up with a SIM chip style solution. That would make my job as a repair technician sooooo much easier!

[jmax577]

any technology can use sims. docomo uses sims and they are 100% wcdma

[gromitjc]

Despite what it's name may suggest, WCDMA is an evolution of GSM, not CDMA - so it makes sense for WCDMA phones to use SIMs.

[carcomptoy]

Yea, I really wish CDMA carriers and phone makers would come up with a SIM chip style solution. That would make my job as a repair technician sooooo much easier!

There technically already are SIM-like modules for CDMA, called RIM cards. They're used in (South) Korea...if you happen to buy an import CDMA phone from let's say wirelessimports.com, they have to configure the RIM card to make it work on Verizon.

[Box215]

Vodafone's stake in Verizon really doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering Verizon's use of a technology incompatible with the rest of their network. Kinda wish they'd bought AT&T, Cingular could use some GSM competition.

You wish who had bought ATT? Cingular does have GSM competition...its called T-Mobile. And just because T-Mobile is alot smaller in terms of subscribers doesnt mean its not competition.

[gromitjc]

True, T-Mobile is competition, but it's not as formidable a competitor as Vodafone would be, purely because they'd be willing to throw a lot more money into the equation than DeutscheTelekom is.

[carcomptoy]

Yeah, but Vodafone was stupid in putting a stake in Verizon...not even the same technologies, so they can't really bring their influence to the partnership. Then again, I'm glad the big monster Vodafone isn't in the US...lots of complaints and nagging about how they have a big huge monopoly in many places and I'm happy with what the US has...

[gromitjc]

Exactly, that's what I meant in my previous post, though I bet they do more than we think. True, Vodafone has a monopoly in some places, which isn't good, but there are plenty of places that they don't - they certainly wouldn't in the US. I used it in Spain (where they had plenty of competition) and had no issues.

[carcomptoy]

Yeah, sometimes that largeness and influence is good for the consumer, as they are able to provide more services as well as newer and more capable handsets. I love T-Mobile to death, but I just wish they had EDGE already or at least better Series 60 phones! The 6600 was seriously so last year!!! And I don't understand why they can't transplant their phones from the UK and Germany to here...the phone selections is SO much more interesting in Europe! But I guess I have more expectations than the average American has for cellphones...

[Sprint4EverBaby]

For me, the whole discussion about CDMA v. GSM is pointless. I have never understood. Can anyone actually give some sort of fact-based assessment of the advantage of one over the other? I mean, I know GSM is supposed to be the "world-phone" technology but I have absolutely no complaints about my CDMA service with Sprint. Good reception & clear calls. I had tried AT&T many moons ago and found their service to be terrible. All told, I have been with Sprint & CDMA for the majority of my wireless phone use time (about 8 years).

[carcomptoy]

Interesting. In all of my experience and training, it has been reversed. CDMA due to it's ability to use bounce signal and because it does not use time division has better voice quality but is more suseptable to dropped calls because the phone runs the show not the tower and because of the fact that the system breathes its coverage in and out.

GSM is controlled by the tower. The signal is less likely to be lost. Also, there is no breathing (as I understand it w/ GSM). The downside is that GSM still uses time division which inhibits voice quality and it does not reconstruct calls with bounce signal.

There is some fact for you^...I must agree that AT&T does suck. I hate the pricing and I just think the addition of the 850 band is an additional pain. But as for Sprint, I HATE THE WAY IT WORKS! Everything is so crippled, from the phone to the service to its "Vision" service...UGH! With CDMA, I just feel so restrained, having to stick with that particular phone and it's so expensive and the internet is just crappy. I like GSM's flexibility and I love the way T-Mobile works...everything just seems to make sense! I like having something in common with the rest of the world (GSM) and I love how the possibilities are endless with GSM when it comes to your phone selection!

[gromitjc]

I currently have Verizon, and their coverage is really fantastic - but once my contract is up with them (in under two weeks) I'm cancelling in favor of a GSM carrier. I'm a gadget person, and I hate how the CDMA carriers make you pay for things you *could* be doing for free if they hadn't disabled the features on their phones. My phone is completely dependent on Get It Now! (such a stupid name) and it's awful - why should I have to pay $0.25 to retrieve my own pictures? Verizon is hell-bent on making money any way they can.

[lpietro]

Here in Brasil we use both GSM and CDMA. We have around 3 GSM carriers per state - which can be TIM, Claro, Oi, BrT or Telemig - and only 1 CDMA carrier - Vivo. I didn't use CDMA (I have a GSM phone), by most of my friends have - they used to have Vivo's TDMA (the only technology around here a few years ago), and decided to keep their number - but I used their phones and came to this conclusion:
- In therms of calls, it's not technology dependant; it's manufacture dependant;
- In terms of signal, GSM is better; we have digital coverage where CDMA users have analog (AMPS);
- GSM is NOT carrier dependant: your phone will still work if there is no signal reception. In CDMA (at least here in Brasil) your phone loses even it's clock;
- If you choose CDMA you are obligated to go with Vivo, it's prices and it's coverage, no matter what. If you choose GSM you have at least 2 carriers per state, that competes with each other;
- Since we have more GSM carriers than CDMA, the new phone releases proporcion is 5 GSM by 1 CDMA, and we have manufacturers that make GSM phones only like Sony Ericsson and Siemens (IMHO, they are a lot better than Kyocera and Z-Tec, that are CDMA only)
- GSM phones are relatively better than CDMA ones: GSM have A LOT more bluetooth-capable phones, cheaper camera phones, among other things. We can get a GSM phone with camera(MC60) for R$599 (around US$230 - I know, it expensive, but all phones are expensive here :P). In CDMA, you'll have to pay R$1099 (around US$420) for a 3205.

I thinks this resolves the question

[jmax577]

HOLY SCHNIKES! 420 BONES FOR A 3205! ARE YA KIDDIN ME?!?! damn bro, thats rediculous

[lpietro]

That's pretty much it. In pre-paid mode (kinda "Pay-As-You-Go"), it's R$1099, and in account mode it varies between R$299-R$999: the cheaper you pay the phone, the more expensive is your account.
And there's one extra problem: GSM there IS competition (although in BrT you get a 3660 for R$1399), CDMA there isn't competition.

In case you are all wondering the values in dollars or in euros, do the math:
- 1 Dollar equals to R$ 2,61
- 1 Euro equal to US$1,35

[Box215]

You have carriers in each state? You dont have like a National Carrier?

[carcomptoy]

lpietro just out of curiousity, my Brazilian friend was telling me how she had a Nokia phone nicknamed the Neo back in Brazil...would you happen to know which Nokia it is? I've been wanting to know which model, but she doesn't remember...all she knows is that it was a Nokia and it was nicknamed the Neo. Btw, she was from Rio, if that's of any importance...

[scotsboyuk]

@carcomptoy

Perhaps it was a Neo Node?

[carcomptoy]

But that's not Nokia...

[scotsboyuk]

@carcomptoy

... and as far as I am aware it was never officially released.

@all

Having read through this thread I notice that the chap advocating T-Mobile is putting T-Mobile's lack of a second frequency forward as a good point. In the U.S. this isn't really the case because there is far from total coverage, meaning that extra coverage through different frequency bands is very much desireable.

The European networks have almost total blanket coverage, so use of only one frequency band is irrelevant. The UK has two networks, which exclusively use the 1800 MHz band with no noticeable difference in coverage or quality of service.

The best way to determine the network most suitable to one's needs is to speak with people who live in the areas you will be using your mobile phone in. Ask them what they think of the mobile service where they live and what they would recommend.

[carcomptoy]

Exactly! See I live in a major city and so coverage is not a problem with me. Hypothetically, if I had Cingular/AT&T who use the two bands 850 & 1900, I would have been left without the 900 band, which is the only band they use in the Philippines. Now, I know there are quad-band phones, but NONE of them interest me, as I only go for Series 60 phones. That is my main concern with having to deal with the extra band...

[scotsboyuk]

@carcomptoy

The 850 MHz band is extremely useful to have whilst in the Americas, but not so useful outside the Americas. It all depends on where one travels and how often, an American tri-band handset will serve one perfectly well in Europe for example.

It is quite alien to me to think, of which frequency bands a mobile uses, I don't think many people in Europe even factor it into their decision to a buy a new mobile.

[jayesh]

@carcomptoy

... and as far as I am aware it was never officially released.

@all

Having read through this thread I notice that the chap advocating T-Mobile is putting T-Mobile's lack of a second frequency forward as a good point. In the U.S. this isn't really the case because there is far from total coverage, meaning that extra coverage through different frequency bands is very much desireable.

The European networks have almost total blanket coverage, so use of only one frequency band is irrelevant. The UK has two networks, which exclusively use the 1800 MHz band with no noticeable difference in coverage or quality of service.

The best way to determine the network most suitable to one's needs is to speak with people who live in the areas you will be using your mobile phone in. Ask them what they think of the mobile service where they live and what they would recommend.

i so agree with the points... forget europe same is true for india and other parts of south east asia too the coverage is total even and blanket in almost all the states of the sub-continent .

the last line as said by u talk to people ... Wise words ... often people go by notions we want gsm fones where as a cdma provider may have tonnes better coverage in the area

[carcomptoy]

You have to remember, though, the size of the US...yes you may have almost complete coverage, but your country maybe just the size of one or maybe two states. Any carrier would have to invest a lot of money just get full coverage when it would be pointless when most of the profit would be made in the major metropolitan areas...

[jmax577]

it would be awsome if the entire us operated on one band but since att and cingular discovered that they could cover a lot more ground with fewer towers with 850 it was hard for them to say no to that. the 1900 band is actually a clearer more crisp bandwidth for voice but its just too expensive. it takes about three 1900 towers to cover the ground one 850 can.

[jayesh]

it would be awsome if the entire us operated on one band but since att and cingular discovered that they could cover a lot more ground with fewer towers with 850 it was hard for them to say no to that. the 1900 band is actually a clearer more crisp bandwidth for voice but its just too expensive. it takes about three 1900 towers to cover the ground one 850 can.

yep u are quite right. we got a similiar situation with 1800 and 900 bands.... ive consistently found 1800 mhz providers are far more crisper and clearer on full signals than 900 mhz providers. imho maybe i am hearing things but consistency over multiple manufacturers and providers speaks for something

[lpietro]

Sorry about the delay, I just got back home.

Just answering a few questions:

@Box215: The carriers that I mentions earlier, 3 of them are nationwide (Vivo, TIM and Claro - for those who live in Europe, TIM is the same as there: Telecom Italia Mobile)

@carcomptoy: I had the phone (Neo). A few years ago, Nokia was licensed in Brasil by a company named Gradiente, which is an electronic product company (they manufacture TVs, DVD Players, Home Theaters, etc.). When Nokia first launched its cellphones, Gradiente took them and made a copy of most of them, lauching them with its own name. I already had one, as you can see in my signature. The Gradiente Neo was the Gradiente version of Nokia 8260 (TDMA), but now Nokia cancelled its license with Gradiente, and Gradiente's cellphones are now Sagem ones, so Neo can be Nokia 8260, Nokia 8265, Sagem MX-5 or Sagem MX-5-II (I don't know if this last one is correct). You can check their phones in www.gradiente.com.br

[scotsboyuk]

You have to remember, though, the size of the US...yes you may have almost complete coverage, but your country maybe just the size of one or maybe two states. Any carrier would have to invest a lot of money just get full coverage when it would be pointless when most of the profit would be made in the major metropolitan areas...

That is only partly true because the entire continent of Europe has almost total coverage as does most of South East Asia. The real difference is in terms of population density. Europe has a much larger population than the U.S. and population density is also far higher, making is profitable for the networks to provide coverage to almost all of Europe.

The other major advantage Europe has is that there is a single standard that is used across the continent by all European networks. The U.S. has had competing standards, which hinder competition and make it more difficult to provide widespread geographical coverage by any one standard.

[carcomptoy]

I wish we didn't have to deal with CDMA here...I hate having to explain to people the way GSM works! But anyways, yeah the population density is greater in Europe and Asia and plus the landlines are already established here and thus most people still see the need for a landline, where as in less developed countries like the Philippines, almost everyone has cellphones because they can't afford a landline.

[jayesh]

I wish we didn't have to deal with CDMA here...I hate having to explain to people the way GSM works! But anyways, yeah the population density is greater in Europe and Asia and plus the landlines are already established here and thus most people still see the need for a landline, where as in less developed countries like the Philippines, almost everyone has cellphones because they can't afford a landline.
quite true.... india has exploded with cellfones infact they have overtaken landlines with people surrendering in favour of cellfones since it makes more sense

[scotsboyuk]

@jayesh

The UK has more mobile phone users than India does at the moment and we had a very well established landline network. There is a cliched notion of landline calls being so expensive in Europe that many switched to mobile phones, this is only partly true. Mobile phone calls started off as being rather expensive in the UK and it is only really within the last few years that they have become less expensive and that free minutes have grown to a level great enough to allow people to make a significant number of calls.

Pay As You Go deals are actually quite expensive, they aren't really economical unless one uses one's mobile relatively little.

The reason for mobile phone growth, in my opinion, is cultural. As mobile phones became cheap enough for the average chap to own they became the 'must have' consumer item. Non-business users had no real need for a mobile phone when they first went on sale, but as more people bought them they became 'de rigeur' and so they perpetrated a self-fulfilling cycle.

It is a shame that 3G will not realise the goal of a single global standard, but at least we are taking a step in that direction.

[jayesh]

you might want to check that ... maybe for now wont be long india does happen to be the fastest growing cell market outside china now. all the major players vodafone orange are focused on the indian market with its vast middle class and rural areas. last count we were

last when i had checked was uk 53 million india 52 odd... probably over taken by now. weird really just 6 yrs of growth has really seen a meteoric rise . orange and its ilk expect india to cross 100 million by june of this yr

besides rates in india are as low as they can get probably the lowest on the planet. and they are all set to only go further south


[QUOTE=scotsboyuk]@jayesh

[scotsboyuk]

@jayesh

I agree, India is set to become, along with China, one of the largest mobile markets on the planet. The last count I had seen numbered Indian mobile phone users at approximately forty five million with the UK having slightly more than fifty million. I have no doubt that India will, if it hasn't already, soon overtake the UK.

The difference between the two markets is services. The UK is a saturated market and pricing can only be effective to a certain extent; customers are increasingly looking for better services and better handsets. With respect, India is a relatively poor country by European standards and the majority of the mobile phones being sold and used in India are at the low-end of the market. This is the same situation as we saw in the UK a few years ago, but people are now very much concerned with the features their mobile has, even the traditionally non-technical customers.

[jayesh]

@jayesh

I agree, India is set to become, along with China, one of the largest mobile markets on the planet. The last count I had seen numbered Indian mobile phone users at approximately forty five million with the UK having slightly more than fifty million. I have no doubt that India will, if it hasn't already, soon overtake the UK.

The difference between the two markets is services. The UK is a saturated market and pricing can only be effective to a certain extent; customers are increasingly looking for better services and better handsets. With respect, India is a relatively poor country by European standards and the majority of the mobile phones being sold and used in India are at the low-end of the market. This is the same situation as we saw in the UK a few years ago, but people are now very much concerned with the features their mobile has, even the traditionally non-technical customers.


yeah 6610 is fairly common but smartphones have made huge inroads into the market. already 30 percent i believe and climbing

[carcomptoy]

If only the same could be said about the US...

[scotsboyuk]

@carcomptoy

The old Churchillian quote on America sums it up nicely;

"The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative."

[carcomptoy]

Lol I hope he's right...sooner rather than later!

[bop4o]

What about SMS-ing ? Do SMS work between GSM and CDMA? I know that they don’t between T-Mobile and Sprint phones.

[carcomptoy]

Actually, they do...I haven't but my friend who used my phone (on T-Mobile) a lot for texting because she couldn't on hers texted her friend on Sprint a lot and so yes, it actually does work. Texting should work regardless of technology, as long as the specific phone has texting capabilities...

[jayesh]

Actually, they do...I haven't but my friend who used my phone (on T-Mobile) a lot for texting because she couldn't on hers texted her friend on Sprint a lot and so yes, it actually does work. Texting should work regardless of technology, as long as the specific phone has texting capabilities...

thats really funny india we have a huge provider called reliance that is running a cdma2000x network and we can sms country wide fine with them. instant and quick

[gromitjc]

What about SMS-ing ? Do SMS work between GSM and CDMA? I know that they don’t between T-Mobile and Sprint phones.

Texting between carriers using different technologies should be seemless. The issue there isn't different technology, it's just Sprint. Until recently (I think) their handsets were unable to directly receive SMS messages.

[carcomptoy]

Yeah, by now, texting is no problem between networks, domestic and international...I just wish T-Mobile didn't decide to raise the rates on int'l texts to $.15 even with included texts. Also, when will intercarrier multimedia messaging be possible? I can never MMS my relatives even though they have camera phones as well...

[jayesh]

Yeah, by now, texting is no problem between networks, domestic and international...I just wish T-Mobile didn't decide to raise the rates on int'l texts to $.15 even with included texts. Also, when will intercarrier multimedia messaging be possible? I can never MMS my relatives even though they have camera phones as well...

Am finding this funny too here its possible to mms other networks. Ah well guess if they wanted too it would be done by now

[gromitjc]

Also, when will intercarrier multimedia messaging be possible?

It already is possible.

[carcomptoy]

Since when? Last time I tried back in May 2004, I couldn't send a picture from my 3650 T-Mobile to my aunt's V400 on Cingluar...

[gromitjc]

Don't know how it works with T-Mobile, but with Cingular as far as I can tell, if you send an MMS to someone on another carrier they receive a text message with a link to the MMS. Whether the link is viewable via WAP I don't know. Haven't tried it, just going by what Cingular has in their MMS FAQ.

http://www.cingular.com/media/multimedia_messaging_faqs#faq4

[psykon99]

it takes about three 1900 towers to cover the ground one 850 can.


Actually, that's backward. 1900 can throw farther but it gets absorbed faster and easier which is not good for in building service. 850 doesn't throw as far but their inbuilding service is much better because it is not absorbed as fast.

[jmax577]

850 does travel farther than 1900. a helluva lot farther. ask an gsm tower tech. trust me. :cool: why do you think cingular built 75% of their network on 850?

[jmax577]

Since when? Last time I tried back in May 2004, I couldn't send a picture from my 3650 T-Mobile to my aunt's V400 on Cingluar...
not too long ago, maybe 6 months, but its gsm carrier to gsm carrier, not any other way.

[psykon99]

850 does travel farther than 1900. a helluva lot farther. ask an gsm tower tech. trust me. why do you think cingular built 75% of their network on 850?


Sorry man. That's incorrect.

1900 - Benefit: Throws far. Negative: Signal absorbed faster (ie worse in building service).

850 - Benefit: Better in building service. Negative: Does not throw as far.

Just got out of training a few weeks ago w/ a system engineer where once again this was presented.

[psykon99]

why do you think cingular built 75% of their network on 850?


Probably because they already had tons of 850 spectrum allocated to them already. They used to be a TDMA carrier w/ the entire network on 850. Also, staying w/ 850 is wise for in building coverage.
This is why they probably stuck w/ 850.

[carcomptoy]

But that would be contradicting AM and FM...AM's sound is crappier but it travels more because it uses lower frequencies, where as FM's sound is good but it has shorter range due to the higher frequencies. It's all about the wave frequencies...longer waves/lower frequencies travel faster, where as shorter waves/higher frequencies travel shorter. I learned that back in 8th grade :D

[psykon99]

But that would be contradicting AM and FM...AM's sound is crappier but it travels more because it uses lower frequencies, where as FM's sound is good but it has shorter range due to the higher frequencies. It's all about the wave frequencies...longer waves/lower frequencies travel faster, where as shorter waves/higher frequencies travel shorter. I learned that back in 8th grade


Regardless, you've got it backward. I just went through training on this, man. And I've got a Motorola radio tech as a friend who's always sayin' the same thing.

[gromitjc]

No, he's definitely right there. The AM/FM analogy is a good one.

They used to be a TDMA carrier w/ the entire network on 850.
Their TDMA network operates on both the 1900MHz and 800MHz bands. My old V60 did TDMA 1900/800 and AMPS 800.

[jmax577]

Sorry man. That's incorrect.

1900 - Benefit: Throws far. Negative: Signal absorbed faster (ie worse in building service).

850 - Benefit: Better in building service. Negative: Does not throw as far.

Just got out of training a few weeks ago w/ a system engineer where once again this was presented.

i've been is this industry a very long time. i work with tower techs daily. i have worked for t mobile, at and t and now cingular since the merger. i am not going to argue about this.

[jmax577]

But that would be contradicting AM and FM...AM's sound is crappier but it travels more because it uses lower frequencies, where as FM's sound is good but it has shorter range due to the higher frequencies. It's all about the wave frequencies...longer waves/lower frequencies travel faster, where as shorter waves/higher frequencies travel shorter. I learned that back in 8th grade :D

we are in total agreement :eek:

[psykon99]

No, he's definitely right there. The AM/FM analogy is a good one.


i've been is this industry a very long time. i work with tower techs daily. i have worked for t mobile, at and t and now cingular since the merger. i am not going to argue about this.


Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :)


Their TDMA network operates on both the 1900MHz and 800MHz bands. My old V60 did TDMA 1900/800 and AMPS 800.


Just because your phone was capable of 1900 and 800, that doesn't mean that Cingular operated on both. However, I will defer here and rephrase: the entire Chicago network of Cingular (previously known as Cellular One) operated soley on 800.

[gromitjc]

From the Personal Communications Industry Association (which represents companies that develop/own/operate towers):

"800MHz...carries farther than 1900[MHz]"

http://www.pcia.com/Carrier-Tech-Matrix.pdf

[jmax577]

From the Personal Communications Industry Association (which represents companies that develop/own/operate towers):

"800MHz...carries farther than 1900[MHz]"

http://www.pcia.com/Carrier-Tech-Matrix.pdf

thank you

[psykon99]

From the Personal Communications Industry Association (which represents companies that develop/own/operate towers):

"800MHz...carries farther than 1900[MHz]"

http://www.pcia.com/Carrier-Tech-Matrix.pdf

That same page states that 800 "penetrates deeper" than 1900 which is my point. It penatrates deeper because it is not absorbed as fast. Better in building service with 800. Are we using terminology differently? When I say 1900 throws farther I'm talking distance over ground. Just so that we're clear. :)

We actually have this as a mini-problem in one of our southern, IL areas. There is one 1900 cdma tower smack dab amid our 800 cdma towers. It throws so far that it is interfering 3-4 tower sites away. Our performance engineer just went over this with us about three weeks ago. Really dinks with the phones if one catches that tower and doesn't get handed off.

[gromitjc]

"Carries farther" and "throws farther" mean the same thing in my book. Thus, the PCIA page does not support your argument.

[carcomptoy]

psykon99

Besides, it makes no sense if 1900 did carry/throw farther as the old analog networks such as Sprint's that cover almost the whole country run on 800MHz!

[psykon99]

psykon99

Besides, it makes no sense if 1900 did carry/throw farther as the old analog networks such as Sprint's that cover almost the whole country run on 800MHz!


Uh, Sprint never had its own analog network. It built PCS 1900 from the ground up.

[psykon99]

So, back to the GSM v. CDMA discussion:

Does Cingular still offer a GATE phone (not sure if I got that letters right for the acronym)?

That would be my only drawback to GSM at this time: no analog service and the inability to access a TDMA network. Where I live (Rockford, IL), if you want to visit any towns to the west in our state, there is no GSM service until Dubuque, IA.

With U.S. Cellular, there is CDMA service almost the entire way and analog to back it up.

[gromitjc]

Do you mean the dual TDMA/GSM phones? If so - I don't think they carry them anymore, or at the very least they're not listed on the website.

[jmax577]

gait phones were garbage. the nokia 6340i and the SE t62u (which is the WORST mobile phone in history). they did not operate as they should have, they couldnot cross network while on a call, they never optimized the local network, etc.

[psykon99]

Do you mean the dual TDMA/GSM phones? If so - I don't think they carry them anymore, or at the very least they're not listed on the website.


Yea, that's what I'm talking about. So what do you GSM blokes do when you're in an area w/ no GSM? Suffer?

[gromitjc]

So what do you GSM blokes do when you're in an area w/ no GSM? Suffer?

It's never been an issue. In fact, with Cingular I have service in some places that I didn't with Verizon (like deep the bowels of Grand Central).

[psykon99]

It's never been an issue. In fact, with Cingular I have service in some places that I didn't with Verizon (like deep the bowels of Grand Central).


So it's GSM or bust basically. No more multi technology phones.

[carcomptoy]

Uh, Sprint never had its own analog network. It built PCS 1900 from the ground up.

Um, I think I'd know...my mom used to have Sprint and when she had to make a really important call, I switched it from digital to analog...why do you think most of their phones have AMPS???

Btw, at my house, which is like at the edge of town almost, T-Mobile is the only one that has optimal coverage...Cingular has a bit of trouble, Sprint is almost nonexistent, and you can just forget about Verizon! GO GSM!

[gromitjc]

A lot of Sprint's phones do support AMPS, but only as a last resort because they don't have their own analog network. (That's why it's called Sprint PCS - they only operate on 1900MHz in the PCS band). If it is neccesary to fall back on AMPS, you're using another carrier's analog network and would most likely be charged roaming.

[carcomptoy]

Well either way, it makes sense that the old AMPS networks run on 800...BECAUSE 800 TRAVELS FARTHER!

[psykon99]

But that would be contradicting AM and FM...AM's sound is crappier but it travels more because it uses lower frequencies, where as FM's sound is good but it has shorter range due to the higher frequencies.


Actually, AM is on higher frequencies and FM on lower. For example, here in Rockford we get AM in at 720 780 820 1110 1160 1440 and FM from 88.3 to 107 or so. Notice, the FM frequencies are much lower than the AM. AM does travel farther, because it is at a higher frequency.

Think about satellites. They all broadcast at high frequencies because of the distance that has to be traveled.

Also, for submarines, they use what's calle VLF (very low frequency). That's because lower frequencies penatrate better than higher frequencies.

Once again, 1900 throws farther. 850 penetrates deeper. If I had my choice, I would always go w/ 850 for better in building service.

[psykon99]

i've been is this industry a very long time. i work with tower techs daily. i have worked for t mobile, at and t and now cingular since the merger. i am not going to argue about this.


Well, if we're quoting credentials now, I have sold or teched over the last 7 years for the following:

Cellular One / Cingular Wireless
PrimeCo
Sprint PCS
AT&T
U.S. Cellular (where I currently work as a service technician).

[psykon99]

Um, I think I'd know...my mom used to have Sprint and when she had to make a really important call, I switched it from digital to analog...why do you think most of their phones have AMPS???


Having worked for Sprint, I can tell you for sure that Sprint does not have an analog network. The phones all have AMPS built in because Sprint does not have PCS service everywhere and does not always have CDMA roaming agreements everywhere. Some customers will get into places where the only signal available is analog. That is why Sprint has the capability on their phones. The analog network being used however, is not Sprint's.

[psykon99]

Well either way, it makes sense that the old AMPS networks run on 800...BECAUSE 800 TRAVELS FARTHER!


Actually, the analog networks run on 800 because that's the spectrum the FCC licensed for cellular back when analog networks were being built. Since then, they have opened up the 1900 band, also known as PCS, for carriers to use as well.

800 does not travel farther than 1900. Higher frequencies travel farther, lower frequences penetrate better. See my above post.

[gromitjc]

Actually, AM is on higher frequencies and FM on lower.
Not true. AM does travel farther, but because it's on lower frequencies. This is also why AM audio quality is inferior to FM, because higher frequencies = higher quality.

For example, here in Rockford we get AM in at 720 780 820 1110 1160 1440 and FM from 88.3 to 107 or so. Notice, the FM frequencies are much lower than the AM.
The FM frequncies are not lower. Frequencies on the AM and FM bands are not measured using the same units. AM frequencies are measured in kilohertz, FM in megahertz. So 720AM = 720kHz = 0.72MHz, and 88.3FM = 88.3MHz = 88300kHz.

[carcomptoy]

Get it through your head, psykon99...lower frequencies travel FARTHER while higher frequencies while higher frequencies have higher quality but less travel. I explained to you before that AM has KILOhertz while FM has MEGAhertz, the latter being GREATER. And as anyone knows, AM travels faster...besides it's common sense! Higher frequencies equals greater compression, making the wave SHORTER; inversely, lower frequencies equals lower compression, making for a longer wave!

[Box215]

Lol, this has turned into like the Americans arguing with each other thread! :rolleyes:

[carcomptoy]

Well he won't get it...everyone's trying to correct him but he's being stubborn. Btw, here's some more proof from Encarta.com

As a result, FM broadcasting is done on high-frequency bands (88 to 108 MHz), which are suitable for broad signals but have a limited reception range.

[psykon99]

Get it through your head, psykon99...lower frequencies travel FARTHER while higher frequencies while higher frequencies have higher quality but less travel. I explained to you before that AM has KILOhertz while FM has MEGAhertz, the latter being GREATER. And as anyone knows, AM travels faster...besides it's common sense! Higher frequencies equals greater compression, making the wave SHORTER; inversely, lower frequencies equals lower compression, making for a longer wave!


Well you're going to have to explain that to alot of Motorola radio engineers and wireless performance engineers. ALL of whom have said the reverse of what you purport to be true.

I'll take their word over yours any day. No offense.

[gromitjc]

Well you're going to have to explain that to alot of Motorola radio engineers and wireless performance engineers. ALL of whom have said the reverse of what you purport to be true.

I'll take their word over yours any day. No offense.

I'll bet you anything the Motorola radio engineers would agree with us. You must've misunderstood them. Have you actually read our posts? Our explanations make sense. Your's don't. Can you cite any online references that support your argument?

According to you higher frequencies travel farther. Yet how do you explain AM radio? The AM band (525kHz-1715kHz) falls under the Mediumwave spectrum (300kHz-3000kHz). The FM band (88MHz-108MHz) falls under the VHF (Very High Frequency) spectrum(30MHz-300MHz). (Note AM is measured in kilohertz and FM in megahertz). AM obviously works at lower frequencies, yet travels much farther. By your logic, FM should travel farther since it works at higher frequencies. On top of that, if FM is lower frequency - why is the audio quality better? That would completely contradict PCS being clearer than cellular.

[jayesh]

Lets keep it civil fellas .... we dont need an unruly debate in here

[psykon99]

I'll bet you anything the Motorola radio engineers would agree with us. You must've misunderstood them.


Uh, yea, so one of my closest friends is one of those radio techs. I just checked w/ him a couple of days ago asking specifically about our little debate here. He confirmed that the higher the frequency the farther it throws. I did not misunderstand.

[jmax577]

Yea, that's what I'm talking about. So what do you GSM blokes do when you're in an area w/ no GSM? Suffer?

if you are knowledgable as you claim then you should no that the gait phones were trash. they had tower stall issues, they never would properly make the tdam-gsm switch, service overall was terrible.

[jayesh]

if you are knowledgable as you claim then you should no that the gait phones were trash. they had tower stall issues, they never would properly make the tdam-gsm switch, service overall was terrible.


And with that we have reached the end of this little discussion.... We hereby return you to your reguarly scheduled programmes.

[jayesh]

Ok this thread is open after some valid points were made to me by concerned posters of the thread. PLEASE do not let this fall into a name calling and frankly idiotic post and keep it clean and civil with a tech discussion in a cool calm and rational manner

[carcomptoy]

Okay, thank you, jayesh...btw, psykon99, for our sakes, why don't you ask them to explain AM/FM then? As radio technicians, they should know that AM travels/throws farther but FM has better audio quality. If they agree with that, then believing 1900 travels/throws farther is contradictory to that, as the lower frequency (AM, 800MHz) travels farther but the higher frequency has higher quality (FM, 1900MHz)...

[Michael]

Okay, thank you, jayesh...btw, psykon99, for our sakes, why don't you ask them to explain AM/FM then? As radio technicians, they should know that AM travels/throws farther but FM has better audio quality. If they agree with that, then believing 1900 travels/throws farther is contradictory to that, as the lower frequency (AM, 800MHz) travels farther but the higher frequency has higher quality (FM, 1900MHz)...I'll play devil's advocate here.

The wavelengths used by the AM signals could fall within a range that bounces off of the earth's atmosphere, thereby reflecting back. This occurs in the ionosphere, which changes position depending on a number of conditions, including day vs. night.

In fact, AM signals do indeed bounce off of clouds and such, which explains why you can pick up stations from further away on overcast days and such and get even better ranges at night.

In such a situation, it would be possible for a signal that doesn't get reflected to have a lesser effective range even though it has a better line of sight range, merely because it would shoot out into space. The earth is curved, afterall....

In general, higher frequencies resist atmospheric attenuation better. But if the frequency is too high, it will pass straight through the atmosphere and not gain the benefit of boosted range by reflecting back to the earth.

This is why satellite communications use higher frequencies - they have better range than lower frequencies and can transmit more data. Sat frequencies start at 1500Mhz and go well beyond 1000Ghz.

From the perspective of mobile phones, though, lower frequencies seem to penetrate buildings and such better, making them more useful for the relatively small cell size used in today's networks.

Everybody get all that?

[psykon99]

if you are knowledgable as you claim then you should no that the gait phones were trash. they had tower stall issues, they never would properly make the tdam-gsm switch, service overall was terrible.


I was asking an honest question. Why the 'tude dude?

[psykon99]

Quote:
if you are knowledgable as you claim then you should no that the gait phones were trash. they had tower stall issues, they never would properly make the tdam-gsm switch, service overall was terrible.

I was asking an honest question. Why the 'tude dude?


Sorry, I just realized that my question could have sounded like I was having a 'tude of my own.

Honestly, I left Cingular just before the TDMA to GSM conversion so my knowledge of GSM Gait phones comes from my close friends who worked with them. I have primarily been working with CDMA technology since.

So anyway, it was an honest question. :)

[carcomptoy]

But if the frequency is too high, it will pass straight through the atmosphere and not gain the benefit of boosted range by reflecting back to the earth.

From the perspective of mobile phones, though, lower frequencies seem to penetrate buildings and such better, making them more useful for the relatively small cell size used in today's networks.

Judging from the two sentences, it seems as if you're contradicting yourself. Technically, both the atmosphere and walls are barriers, and yet you say that both higher and lower frequencies can penetrate it...care to elaborate?

[gromitjc]

A wall and the atmosphere are both barriers - but they've got vastly different properties. Penetrating a wall is a lot easier than penetrating the atmosphere.

[carcomptoy]

Then by that respect...shouldn't 1900 penetrate better than 800?

[gromitjc]

No - again, because the atmosphere and a wall are completely different. High frequencies penetrate the atmosphere because they don't reflect off of it.

[Michael]

Judging from the two sentences, it seems as if you're contradicting yourself. Technically, both the atmosphere and walls are barriers, and yet you say that both higher and lower frequencies can penetrate it...care to elaborate?There is no contradiction at all. Different frequencies reflect or refract off of different types of substances. There's no mental leap there.

A quick search on Google will teach you how this stuff works.

http://www.nzart.org.nz/nzart/examinat/amateur%20radio%20study%20guide/Course%20Files/Propagation%20of%20Radio%20Signals/STUDY%20NOTES%20-%20PROPAGATION.htm

And it perfectly explains your FM/AM issue. You may choose to ignore it, but this is how things really work. AM signals don't have a better line of sight range - they merely reflect when the more powerful FM signals penetrate the atmosphere.

AM radio signals don't travel great distances through the earth's crust to get to far off listeners. They bounce around back and forth in the atmosphere - skipping large sections of the surface of the earth.

That is why I could possibly pick up an AM station from Vegas here in Philly, but somebody closer in Ohio couldn't.

[carcomptoy]

So then to go back to the original debate...does 800 or 1900 travel better?

[Michael]

So then to go back to the original debate...does 800 or 1900 travel better?Depends on what you mean by "travels better".

850/900 penetrate buildings slightly better. 1900 has better line of site range.

[jmax577]

michael

i will ask you this....
since i am in an 850 only area for cingular, the 7710 which does not support 850 would not be able to get an an edge connection right? (because i would roam tmob) i have heard this argument go both ways...

[WirelessImports]

There technically already are SIM-like modules for CDMA, called RIM cards. They're used in (South) Korea...if you happen to buy an import CDMA phone from let's say wirelessimports.com, they have to configure the RIM card to make it work on Verizon.

This is not true.

S. Korea does not use RUIM cards. They use Moneta cards which are used as mini credit cards inside your cell phone to pay for merchandice.

You can find the use of RUIM cards in CDMA networks such as China or Mexico.

[psykon99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carcomptoy
There technically already are SIM-like modules for CDMA, called RIM cards. They're used in (South) Korea...if you happen to buy an import CDMA phone from let's say wirelessimports.com, they have to configure the RIM card to make it work on Verizon.



This is not true.

S. Korea does not use RUIM cards. They use Moneta cards which are used as mini credit cards inside your cell phone to pay for merchandice.

You can find the use of RUIM cards in CDMA networks such as China or Mexico.


I'll I can say is that the lack of SIM cards in CDMA phones is probably my main beef. There's no reason such a good technology as CDMA should be left with such an antiquated system as needing to perform esn changes and the like.

Oh to just be able to move a card!
Oh to be able to store all my numbers in one piece of equipment and to have them go
with me without having to use a UME machine!
Oh if I could only have my way!

:)

[carcomptoy]

I know!!! If it weren't for that, I'd have such a greater choice of providers instead of just T-Mobile and Cingular! Although, GSM still reigns as roaming king, because of its widespread popularity, but I guess if CDMA had used SIM-like modules n the first place it'd be just as popular...

[Michael]

michael

i will ask you this....
since i am in an 850 only area for cingular, the 7710 which does not support 850 would not be able to get an an edge connection right? (because i would roam tmob) i have heard this argument go both ways...A 7710 would be a poor choice as a Cingular customer in an 850Mhz area only. Are you even certain that you can roam into T-Mobile's 1900Mhz network in that area? Often where networks overlap, they do not offer roaming agreements.

[Michael]

I'll I can say is that the lack of SIM cards in CDMA phones is probably my main beef. There's no reason such a good technology as CDMA should be left with such an antiquated system as needing to perform esn changes and the like. I don't really see the big deal. I switch Verizon phones constantly when doing reviews. I go to their website, click the mouse a few times, and it is done.

The fact that I can do that without physical access has saved me in the past (left a phone somewhere, activated a different one that I had with me).

I don't store any phone numbers in the SIM on my T-Mobile acct anyway.

But I do admit that the lack of a SIM card has probably hurt the CDMA world. People simply don't switch/upgrade phones as often.

[jmax577]

A 7710 would be a poor choice as a Cingular customer in an 850Mhz area only. Are you even certain that you can roam into T-Mobile's 1900Mhz network in that area? Often where networks overlap, they do not offer roaming agreements.
i am pretty sure we can. thanks for the advice. that is what i was assuming just wanted to hear from the master. :cool:

[psykon99]

I don't really see the big deal. I switch Verizon phones constantly when doing reviews. I go to their website, click the mouse a few times, and it is done.


Is that kind of access given to all Verizon customers?

[jayesh]

This is not true.

S. Korea does not use RUIM cards. They use Moneta cards which are used as mini credit cards inside your cell phone to pay for merchandice.

You can find the use of RUIM cards in CDMA networks such as China or Mexico.
though they are not popular here with most people preferring to goto gsm and with even cdma provider reliance infocomm offering " bring your own cdma fone" as long as it matches cdma2000 "kits" and change it yourself ruim cards are available here too in india.

[Michael]

Is that kind of access given to all Verizon customers?Yeah, anybody can do it from Verizon's website. You log in and it is under manage your account, I believe. I've done it dozens of times.

[psykon99]

Yeah, anybody can do it from Verizon's website. You log in and it is under manage your account, I believe. I've done it dozens of times.


Is it free? That's a really cool service!

[carcomptoy]

Oh wow I didn't know that...still, I like the flexibily with roaming on GSM phones:D Plus, even if Verizon claims they have the most complete nationwide coverage, the only carrier that really works at my house is T-Mobile so yeah...

[psykon99]

Oh wow I didn't know that...still, I like the flexibily with roaming on GSM phones Plus, even if Verizon claims they have the most complete nationwide coverage, the only carrier that really works at my house is T-Mobile so yeah...


Are you talking about worldwide roaming? Because I think there's WAY more flexibility in roaming w/ CDMA. With most CDMA handsets you are set up w/ dual mode tri-band service that allows you to get CDMA 800/1900 and Analog 850. With GSM, it's just GSM 850/1900. No analog. Plus, more carriers in the US are using CDMA (when you count the smaller rural carriers such as Western Wireless, Alltel, U.S. Cellular, etc...).

[gromitjc]

I think he meant international roaming. Analog is sort of a moot point. It's gone after 2008. I had Verizon for two years and my phone rarely, if ever fell back onto AMPS, and when it did the signal was virtually non-existant - sort of pointless really.

[psykon99]

I think he meant international roaming. Analog is sort of a moot point. It's gone after 2008. I had Verizon for two years and my phone rarely, if ever fell back onto AMPS, and when it did the signal was virtually non-existant - sort of pointless really.


I agree about the AMPS thing. I'm currently using the LG VX6000 which is a single mode phone (no analog). I don't think I've ever even missed it (thought I'm sure some of the southern Illinois territories might require an AMPS relapse.

I think he must have meant international roaming too because it's nearly impossible with CDMA. In the US, however, CDMA provides a superior roaming experience in my personal opinion.

[carcomptoy]

I did mean international roaming, because obviously you can't really roam with a CDMA-only phone except in a limited number of countries. And as for domestic roaming, T-Mobile covers most of the major highways and so I'm satisfied with that, as I'm not really looking into camping or hiking in the mountains. The only time I really roam is when driving, and the places I go are usually major metropolitan areas so yeah...T-Mobile suits me quite well. Now if only I could get a Nokia 6681...

[Michael]

Is it free? That's a really cool service!Yeah, it is free.

[3gpeasy]

GSM have A LOT more bluetooth-capable phones, cheaper camera phones, among other things. We can get a GSM phone with camera(MC60) for R$599 (around US$230 - I know, it expensive, but all phones are expensive here :P). In CDMA, you'll have to pay R$1099 (around US$420) for a 3205.


that's purely ridiculous; can't you order them from overseas? either of those phones (3200 instead of 3205 though) would be around 50 quid in the UK

[3gpeasy]

Actually, AM is on higher frequencies and FM on lower. For example, here in Rockford we get AM in at 720 780 820 1110 1160 1440 and FM from 88.3 to 107 or so. Notice, the FM frequencies are much lower than the AM. AM does travel farther, because it is at a higher frequency.


um, nope. the AM frequencies are expressed in KHz, FM in MHz. in KHz, fm is 88000 to 107000

[psykon99]

um, nope. the AM frequencies are expressed in KHz, FM in MHz. in KHz, fm is 88000 to 107000


Yea, that was my oversight, but as Michael so aptly confirmed, the point still stands: 800 penetrates better but 1900 throws farther.

[lpietro]

that's purely ridiculous; can't you order them from overseas? either of those phones (3200 instead of 3205 though) would be around 50 quid in the UK

I know, but brazilian people usually have a grudge against non-brazilian-manufactured products, meaning that: if it's not made in Brazil, you can't have it. If I was going to import, for instance, a 3200, I would pay about R$700 (US$250 - it's still expensive) in MercadoLivre.com.br (brazilian's e-bay), for the phone, import taxes and shipping, but since this phone isn't avaliable in Brazil, it's hard to find and unsafe to get.

[carcomptoy]

For those of you who wished S60 was on CDMA, your dream has come true. Now, even more, you have decide GSM or CDMA!

Nokia 6638 (http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/readarticles.php?id=562)

Still, GSM is lightyears ahead, especially with the new Nseries:D

[Toocool]

Lightyears ahead?? U r right... the nseries rock..

whatever it is, i am always with GSM...

[carcomptoy]

Definitely...I love GSM! People here in the US are mind boggled when I switch phones...it's like that's what you get for being on CDMA:p

[jimwnola]

After reading all this, can any of you answer these questions for me. I'd appreciate your input.

I have a camp with a land-line phone that is about 10 miles away from closest cell towers. I got the land phone about 7 years ago because there was no real cell reception. My experience since then with the land line phone has been horrible.
I have a cheapy cell phone plan (Virgin) that operates on Sprint's CDMA network. Sprint doesn't claim to cover area, but if I stand just right, I can get some reception outside, but it is very, very shaky. If I could get decent cell coverage at camp, I'd dump the land phone and be willing to pay for a better cell service.

The land is pretty flat around the whole area, but camp is covered by trees, raised, and has metal roof. The 2 closest towers, apparently, are Cingular and Sprint, both about 10 miles away. (There are some other towers listed but not idenified to a cell provider.) The Cingular might be 1 mile closer. Cingular claims to cover area, but when it was Bellsouth 7 years ago, it also claimed it covered area but didn't. However, the technology or towers may have improved since then.

1. Would the gsm tower, Cingular, have a better chance of reaching me? I assume it was TDMA 7 years ago, any differece now? I assume it is gsm now?

2. T -Mobile makes no real claim of coverage in area. Has Cingular quit sharing its network with T-Mobile? Or is it because the tower might be an 800mhz gsm tower not compatible with T-Mobile? On T-Mobiles' website, 1 map comes close to showing area covered, but its "street level" map doesn't show any coverage in area at all.

3. If it is an 800 mhz tower, would that be worse or better for distance in this situation? Anyway to tell what kind of tower?

4. Is there any difference in distance between how far 1900 CDMA travels versus 1900 gsm?

5. Is there any simple antenna solution that might make real difference without paying alot of money? I'm also not sure if I want to buy a cell phone antenna connection for phone I might soon replace.

Generally, what might be simplist approach to seeing if better cell service might be possible though combination of choosing best provider for circumstances, some sort of easy and inexpensive antenna solution, or particular phone?

[carcomptoy]

You could try an amplifier/repeater...it costs a lot, but apparently it'd probably the best solution for you. If you get a weak weak signal, then this baby'll help strengthening it and enable you to keep it. There's a review on MobileBurn, http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=798&source=SEARCH, in which Michael seemed to like it a lot.

You can purchase it at http://www.4cellular.com/search/accessory_Detail.cfm?ID=111 ...there's other models as well (just search under amplifier/repeater) although I'm not sure how well they work.

[jimwnola]

Thanks for info, but I'm not willing to pay that much now.

I wish I had seen something like that 6 or 7 years ago, when I had to pay just under $1,000 to install a phone at my camp. (It was suppose to be like $200, and after being half-way committed to idea, I was told it would be an extra $700 to run line.)The phone has required calling Bellsouth for repair at least twice a year; I only wanted it for isolated use and it has been out of service several critical times; the phone company never keeps any records of where camp is from past repairs, always want me to meet them, and make go through 3 levels of buruacracy each time for the repair, etc, etc.

If I had my choice, I'd sue to get money back on the phone installation due to years of unreliablity and use the money for the repeater. I just can't face that kind of fight with phone company, which would be a very uphill battle.

Out of curiosity, anyone know answers to some of my other questions?
For T-Mobile people, are you familar with their "street level" coverage map on internet? If you look at their regular map for coverage in this area, it clearly shows a fairly large coverage area for area north of Lake Pontchartrain in metro New Orleans, but the street level map shows virtually no coverage in that area. Any reason for this great disparity between the 2 maps?

[carcomptoy]

One of the maps might not be updated, or one is more correct. Either you're now getting service, or they realized that they don't and now it doesn't show it. You could double check it with a T-Mobile customer...

Those kinds of problems with the phone company are just one of the many reasons I'm not gonna get a landline when I'm living on my own...

[Box215]

Thanks for info, but I'm not willing to pay that much now.

I wish I had seen something like that 6 or 7 years ago, when I had to pay just under $1,000 to install a phone at my camp. (It was suppose to be like $200, and after being half-way committed to idea, I was told it would be an extra $700 to run line.)The phone has required calling Bellsouth for repair at least twice a year; I only wanted it for isolated use and it has been out of service several critical times; the phone company never keeps any records of where camp is from past repairs, always want me to meet them, and make go through 3 levels of buruacracy each time for the repair, etc, etc.

If I had my choice, I'd sue to get money back on the phone installation due to years of unreliablity and use the money for the repeater. I just can't face that kind of fight with phone company, which would be a very uphill battle.

Out of curiosity, anyone know answers to some of my other questions?
For T-Mobile people, are you familar with their "street level" coverage map on internet? If you look at their regular map for coverage in this area, it clearly shows a fairly large coverage area for area north of Lake Pontchartrain in metro New Orleans, but the street level map shows virtually no coverage in that area. Any reason for this great disparity between the 2 maps?

where exaclty are you located? Note that T-Mobile and Cingular only shared networks here in New York and in CA/NV. They no longer share those networks though.

[carcomptoy]

LOL doesn't his post say New Orleans? North of Lake Pontchartrain? Just a guess:p

[Box215]

yes, but north of Lake Pontchartrain is a big place

[jimwnola]

I think my question has been answered, but my options aren't good.

The exact area is on river in little town called Isabel, in Washinton Parish, with nearest towers in Sun, Bush and Folsom, LA in St Tammany parish.

Basically, unless a new tower is built, it looks like my best bet for reception is an amplifier, repeater, etc, not changing to another provider. However, since I already sunk $1,000 into landline, I'm not going to pay several hundred or more dollars for something that still might not work. If there was someone local with a potential solution of $200 or less that I could try, and return if no good, I would consider it. However, it doesn't look like anyone in area sells anything, and I'm not thrilled with concept of ordering something for $200 or more, that would be difficult to return.

[carcomptoy]

HAHA what about a satellite phone? OMG you'd easily spend $1000 in just one month...wait maybe 2 weeks:p

That sucks...but you know, it might turn out to be a good investment. Can you not have like a fundraiser or something? Raffle something off, increase tuition, idk something

You could try this: http://www.ctinyc.com/index.php?p=product&id=199&parent=23
It's obviously gonna make less of a hole in your pocket, but the downside is that the phone has to be physically connected to the thing and that you have to make sure there is an external antenna jack on your phone...
for Nextel and the other antenna models: http://www.ctinyc.com/index.php?p=catalog&parent=23&pg=0