Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
  1. #1
    CCMiami
    Guest
    We have the old ATT/Cingular service in the Washington-DC / North
    Virginia area using a SMT-5600 phone.The service is not that great, I
    get a lot of dropped calls & spotty service. Also people tell me the
    voice quality on the other end is not great.
    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?
    Thanks!




    See More: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?




  2. #2
    Jeremy
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > 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





  3. #3
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    Jeremy wrote:
    > "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> 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


    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.



  4. #4
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    On 7 Jun 2006 07:12:02 -0700, "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote
    in <[email protected]>:

    >We have the old ATT/Cingular service in the Washington-DC / North
    >Virginia area using a SMT-5600 phone.The service is not that great, I
    >get a lot of dropped calls & spotty service. Also people tell me the
    >voice quality on the other end is not great.
    >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?


    Probably. New Cingular phones support ENS, which when used with a 64K
    SIM enables homing on the better of either "blue" (old ATTWS) or
    "orange" (old Cingular networks). Voice quality on newer phones like
    the Motorola V3 RAZR and V557 is very good.

    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  5. #5
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:27:35 GMT, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in
    <rnBhg.6871$9f2.4958@trnddc04>:

    >"CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> 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.


    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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  6. #6
    CCMiami
    Guest

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    Thanks John,
    So does that mean that my phone is currently limited to the blue
    network unless there is absolutly no other choice? I do note that it
    will sometimes "roam" to 310410 (cingular) when there is, i guess, no
    blue network (I have thought it kind of strange it would not say
    "cingular" rather then 310410, you would think they would have it at
    least display the correct text by now and not show the roam icon).

    Does anyone have experiance doing the change and getting better or
    worse service?

    PS: Don't need the GSA/CDMA argument, I know either will work with a
    good network and neither will work without one. I have had both.

    John Navas wrote:
    > On 7 Jun 2006 07:12:02 -0700, "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote
    > in <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >We have the old ATT/Cingular service in the Washington-DC / North
    > >Virginia area using a SMT-5600 phone.The service is not that great, I
    > >get a lot of dropped calls & spotty service. Also people tell me the
    > >voice quality on the other end is not great.
    > >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?

    >
    > Probably. New Cingular phones support ENS, which when used with a 64K
    > SIM enables homing on the better of either "blue" (old ATTWS) or
    > "orange" (old Cingular networks). Voice quality on newer phones like
    > the Motorola V3 RAZR and V557 is very good.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>





  7. #7
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    On 7 Jun 2006 12:01:25 -0700, "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote
    in <[email protected]>:

    >Thanks John,
    >So does that mean that my phone is currently limited to the blue
    >network unless there is absolutly no other choice?


    Correct.

    >I do note that it
    >will sometimes "roam" to 310410 (cingular) when there is, i guess, no
    >blue network (I have thought it kind of strange it would not say
    >"cingular" rather then 310410, you would think they would have it at
    >least display the correct text by now and not show the roam icon).
    >
    >Does anyone have experiance doing the change and getting better or
    >worse service?


    I have switched home networks for clients and friends, and the results
    have tended to be good.

    >PS: Don't need the GSA/CDMA argument, I know either will work with a
    >good network and neither will work without one. I have had both.
    >
    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On 7 Jun 2006 07:12:02 -0700, "CCMiami" <[email protected]> wrote
    >> in <[email protected]>:
    >>
    >> >We have the old ATT/Cingular service in the Washington-DC / North
    >> >Virginia area using a SMT-5600 phone.The service is not that great, I
    >> >get a lot of dropped calls & spotty service. Also people tell me the
    >> >voice quality on the other end is not great.
    >> >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?

    >>
    >> Probably. New Cingular phones support ENS, which when used with a 64K
    >> SIM enables homing on the better of either "blue" (old ATTWS) or
    >> "orange" (old Cingular networks). Voice quality on newer phones like
    >> the Motorola V3 RAZR and V557 is very good.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    >> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>


    --
    Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
    John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  8. #8
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    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?




  9. #9
    Anon E. Muss
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:53:47 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> 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.



  10. #10

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    Having recently taken the plunge, I would advise you to run, not walk,
    away from Cingular. We had good service out in the boonies of Northern
    Virginia with AT&T/Cingular. We upgraded, got 4 new phones. That was
    over a week ago. To date, only 1 of the 4 phones works. All we get
    from Cingular is to wait 24-48 hours because "there are some towers
    down in the Baltimore-Washington area". Towers being down does not
    explain why 1 phone works while 3 do not.

    Looks like Verizon will be getting our business...

    CCMiami wrote:
    > We have the old ATT/Cingular service in the Washington-DC / North
    > Virginia area using a SMT-5600 phone.The service is not that great, I
    > get a lot of dropped calls & spotty service. Also people tell me the
    > voice quality on the other end is not great.
    > 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?
    > Thanks!





  11. #11

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    About the only thing Cingular did "right" was to change (raise) the
    amount I was getting charged. That came through promptly. (Big
    surprise!)

    Why did I make the change? The guy at the Cingular store told me when
    my original 2 year contract expired (June '06) if I kept my old phones
    I would only be hitting on some of the towers available, not all.
    Being out in the boonies, that was a concern for me. Plus, one of our
    phones was broken and it seemed like a good time to get new ones for
    the whole family.

    The fact is switching from my old AT&T/Cingular to the new Cingular
    service cost me more for less. I went from evenings starting at 7 to
    now starting at 9. My allowed minutes went from 1050 to 700. And my
    (family) plan costs $10 more per month.

    All this and still phones don't work right. As of this morning, and 3
    weeks since I ordered the service, my new Razr will not receive any
    calls. Cingular tech support tells me to... wait 24 to 48 hours.

    I'm guessing I'll have to call them, since they (or anyone else) can't
    call me.




  12. #12
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Can we expect better service on Cingular than old ATT?

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Having recently taken the plunge, I would advise you to run, not walk,
    > away from Cingular. We had good service out in the boonies of Northern
    > Virginia with AT&T/Cingular. We upgraded, got 4 new phones. That was
    > over a week ago. To date, only 1 of the 4 phones works. All we get
    > from Cingular is to wait 24-48 hours because "there are some towers
    > down in the Baltimore-Washington area". Towers being down does not
    > explain why 1 phone works while 3 do not.
    >
    > Looks like Verizon will be getting our business...


    You better do this fast, while you can still get out of your contract.
    If you want coverage out in the boonies, you want a Verizon or Sprint
    tri-mode phone.



  13. #13
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >
    > 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.





  14. #14
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    Anon E. Muss wrote:
    > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:53:47 GMT, John Navas
    > <[email protected]> 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.


    The world is moving to CDMA, unfortunately part of world is moving to
    W-CDMA, and part of the world is moving to CDMA2000.



  15. #15
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: How Is CDMA Superior To TDMA?

    On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:13:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:12:51 GMT, John Navas
    ><[email protected]> wrote:


    >>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.


    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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast