What Band GSM?

Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same system
wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it seems to be 1900,
but I can't get a straight answer locally.

Ken

---

› See More: What Band GSM?

>Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same system
>wide, or area specific?

They have both. And it is area specific.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:07:25 -0500, "cc0057160"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same system
>wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it seems to be 1900,
>but I can't get a straight answer locally.

cingular is 1900 on the west coast. It's 1900 in NC and SC and part
of eastern TN. Most of the rest of cingular is GSM "850" (800.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
add .com to reply

I'm in central IN too. My MotoT720 is 850/1900 GSM so that leaves 800
out, I would think. Must be 1900.


c> Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same
c> system wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it
c> seems to be 1900, but I can't get a straight answer locally.

--
Jack

850mhz is the same as 800mhz.

--bgmncwj

"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm in central IN too. My MotoT720 is 850/1900 GSM so that leaves 800
> out, I would think. Must be 1900.
>
>
> c> Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same
> c> system wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it
> c> seems to be 1900, but I can't get a straight answer locally.
>
> --
> Jack
>

>I'm in central IN too. My MotoT720 is 850/1900 GSM so that leaves 800
>out, I would think. Must be 1900.

850 is really 800. Same set of frequencies and same lisences. For some reason
someone along the line decided to bastardize the band and call it 850.

Kinda like 19th street in Austin Texas - someone along the way decided to call
it "Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Day".

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

In Indiana, that is a transition market, it should be 850 for
Cingular. Although I just went to WirelessAdvisor.com and saw that
Cingular does indeed have a license for 1900 TDMA/AMPS that can be
transitioned to GSM in Indianapolis. I think that came when they
bought a small carrier 2 years ago and also gave us native 1900
coverage in Monroe, MI. Both ATTWS and T-Mobile have 1900 GSM service
in Indianapolis also. If 1900 is deployed properly, it is irrelevant
whether you have 850(800) or 1900 GSM. Cingular uses both 850(800)
and 1900 through it's system for TDMA/AMPS/GSM. CA is only 1900 GSM.

Chris
Plese respond on Usenet
Happy Holidays!


"cc0057160" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same system
> wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it seems to be 1900,
> but I can't get a straight answer locally.
>
> Ken

Thanks for all the responses. My main concern is with building penetration.
As far as I know, the lower freq (800 or 850) would penetrate a building
better than the 1900 band. Especially in a basement level area, where I
spend a great deal of my work days.

Ken

"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If 1900 is deployed properly, it is irrelevant
> whether you have 850(800) or 1900 GSM. Cingular uses both 850(800)
> and 1900 through it's system for TDMA/AMPS/GSM. CA is only 1900 GSM.
>
> Chris
> Plese respond on Usenet
> Happy Holidays!
>
>
> "cc0057160" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Can anyone tell me if Cingular's GSM is 800 or 1900? Is it the same
system
> > wide, or area specific? I am in Central Indiana, and it seems to be
1900,
> > but I can't get a straight answer locally.
> >
> > Ken

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:21:07 -0500, "cc0057160"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for all the responses. My main concern is with building penetration.
>As far as I know, the lower freq (800 or 850) would penetrate a building
>better than the 1900 band. Especially in a basement level area, where I
>spend a great deal of my work days.

Despite the hype 1900 is just as good as 850 provided that you are
near enough to the base station. People somehow think that 850 is
some sort of magic bullet. It is not. You can have crappy 850
coverage as well as crappy 1900 coverage. 850 in a basement won't
mean anything if you're in a poor reception area. It's the very
nature of radio communication which is what cellular telephony is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
add .com to reply

This ia a real-world example of 1900 vs 800. In my apartment in the
very East side of Metro Detroit, my Cingular 800 TDMA, GSM, AMPS
service is at best 3 bars of service and usually 1-2. My Sprint 1900
CDMA is usually 3-4 bars and is the only one I can use in the basement
on a regular basis. Usualy the Cingular phone will ring in the
basement, but you can't have a 2-way conversation. The best thing you
could do is to test friend's phones on different services where you
want coverage to see the real-world comparison. As I posted
previously, what would be the result if the 1900 tower was 500 feet
and the 800 tower was 1 mile from your basement? I think the 1900
service would put the 800 service to shame. All things are relative,
there is no set answer.

Chris
Please respond on Usenet
Happy Holidays



"cc0057160" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks for all the responses. My main concern is with building penetration.
> As far as I know, the lower freq (800 or 850) would penetrate a building
> better than the 1900 band. Especially in a basement level area, where I
> spend a great deal of my work days.
>
> Ken

>Despite the hype 1900 is just as good as 850 provided that you are
>near enough to the base station.

Duhhhhh........

What he said he was concerned about was building penetration. He is correct in
that the lower frequencies WILL penetrate better than the higher frequencies.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On 26 Dec 2003 19:01:21 GMT, [email protected]pamfree (John S.)
wrote:

>>Despite the hype 1900 is just as good as 850 provided that you are
>>near enough to the base station.
>
>Duhhhhh........
>
>What he said he was concerned about was building penetration. He is correct in
>that the lower frequencies WILL penetrate better than the higher frequencies.

But it doesn't make *any* difference if you are close enough to the
base station. All the hype in the world about 850 GSM isn't going to
change that fact.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
add .com to reply

>But it doesn't make *any* difference if you are close enough to the
>base station. All the hype in the world about 850 GSM isn't going to
>change that fact.

No, you don't seem to understand my statement or the reality of the situation.
Frequency penetration of anything has nothing to do with closeness and
everything to do with physics. An 800 signal will penetrate better than a 1900
signal. It has nothing to do with the location of the base station.

Has nothing to do with "hype".

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On 27 Dec 2003 12:35:45 GMT, [email protected]pamfree (John S.)
wrote:

>>But it doesn't make *any* difference if you are close enough to the
>>base station. All the hype in the world about 850 GSM isn't going to
>>change that fact.
>
>No, you don't seem to understand my statement or the reality of the situation.
>Frequency penetration of anything has nothing to do with closeness and
>everything to do with physics. An 800 signal will penetrate better than a 1900
>signal. It has nothing to do with the location of the base station.
>
>Has nothing to do with "hype".

Well, I've been in the real world situations and I can tell you that a
higher frequency carrier often times will beat the performance of the
lower frequency carrier including penetration of buildings. Anyone
who says it makes no difference as far as building penetration using
how close the base station doesn't appear to know what he's talking
about despite his being an "expert" on the subject. Maybe in theory
it makes a difference. Reality says something else again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
add .com to reply

Joseph wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2003 12:35:45 GMT, [email protected]pamfree (John S.)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>But it doesn't make *any* difference if you are close enough to the
>>>base station. All the hype in the world about 850 GSM isn't going to
>>>change that fact.
>>
>>No, you don't seem to understand my statement or the reality of the situation.
>>Frequency penetration of anything has nothing to do with closeness and
>>everything to do with physics. An 800 signal will penetrate better than a 1900
>>signal. It has nothing to do with the location of the base station.
>>
>>Has nothing to do with "hype".
>
>
> Well, I've been in the real world situations and I can tell you that a
> higher frequency carrier often times will beat the performance of the
> lower frequency carrier including penetration of buildings. Anyone
> who says it makes no difference as far as building penetration using
> how close the base station doesn't appear to know what he's talking
> about despite his being an "expert" on the subject. Maybe in theory
> it makes a difference. Reality says something else again.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> add .com to reply



I'm sorry guys, but without empirical evidence in the form of microvolt
RF measurements from multiple points both outside and inside the same
building for both frequency bands, this is all pure conjecture and
happenstance. This would not only provide detailed real-time data to
stand on it's own merits, but would eliminate the inherent incongruities
that are part and parcel to differing receiver sensitivities and
display segmentation designs. You say tuh-may-to and I say tuh-mah-to
and all that other rubbish just isn't gonna cut it.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur