Advantages of GSM vs. TDMA?

I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my time
and stay TDMA?

Thanks.

--

Mickey A

---

› See More: Advantages of GSM vs. TDMA?

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
>my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
>are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my time
>and stay TDMA?
>
Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
that technology.
>Thanks.
Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
designed for world wide roaming.

IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
before you run out of timing)

The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
in it, and that's that.

So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
>my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
>are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my time
>and stay TDMA?
>
Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
that technology.
>Thanks.
Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
designed for world wide roaming.

IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
before you run out of timing)

The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
in it, and that's that.

So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mickey A" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
> question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
> my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
> are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my time
> and stay TDMA?

Better coverage is not really dependant on whether the system is TDMA or
GSM, but more on how well the network has been built. You can have two
networks using the same standard where one will work better in a
location than the other.

As for whether to use TDMA or GSM, it really depends what features you
want. GSM phones contain a removable chip, which identifies you. With
GSM you can also roam to more places around the world, or you could use
your phone overseas with a local prepaid SIM (as long as your phone is
unlocked). You should also look at what features are on the models of
phones. Phones now have a lot of features other than the standard "make
and receive calls".

--
Matthew Smith
(to reply via email remove xxx)

Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.motorola:34953 alt.cellular.nokia:150649

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mickey A" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
> question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
> my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
> are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my time
> and stay TDMA?

Better coverage is not really dependant on whether the system is TDMA or
GSM, but more on how well the network has been built. You can have two
networks using the same standard where one will work better in a
location than the other.

As for whether to use TDMA or GSM, it really depends what features you
want. GSM phones contain a removable chip, which identifies you. With
GSM you can also roam to more places around the world, or you could use
your phone overseas with a local prepaid SIM (as long as your phone is
unlocked). You should also look at what features are on the models of
phones. Phones now have a lot of features other than the standard "make
and receive calls".

--
Matthew Smith
(to reply via email remove xxx)

Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't bothered to
keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't available but I am
thinking of a new phone and thought I should include that in my decision. I
like the SIM concept...That's worth its weight in gold.

Thanks again.

"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
>my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
>are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
time
>and stay TDMA?
>
Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
that technology.
>Thanks.
Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
designed for world wide roaming.

IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
before you run out of timing)

The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
in it, and that's that.

So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't bothered to
keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't available but I am
thinking of a new phone and thought I should include that in my decision. I
like the SIM concept...That's worth its weight in gold.

Thanks again.

"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA is
>my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the towers
>are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
time
>and stay TDMA?
>
Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
that technology.
>Thanks.
Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
designed for world wide roaming.

IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
before you run out of timing)

The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
in it, and that's that.

So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

Time DIVISION Multiple Access .. i believe .. but minor point ..

Is the D-AMPS the same old AMPS system used in Australia about 5 years ago
or something? Or totally different?




"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
> >question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA
is
> >my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the
towers
> >are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
time
> >and stay TDMA?
> >
> Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
> also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
> that technology.
> >Thanks.
> Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
> higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
> designed for world wide roaming.
>
> IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
> size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
> before you run out of timing)
>
> The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
> phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
> just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
> in it, and that's that.
>
> So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

Time DIVISION Multiple Access .. i believe .. but minor point ..

Is the D-AMPS the same old AMPS system used in Australia about 5 years ago
or something? Or totally different?




"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
> >question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA
is
> >my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the
towers
> >are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
time
> >and stay TDMA?
> >
> Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
> also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
> that technology.
> >Thanks.
> Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
> higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
> designed for world wide roaming.
>
> IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
> size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
> before you run out of timing)
>
> The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
> phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
> just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
> in it, and that's that.
>
> So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:19:38 +1100, "Lord-Data" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Time DIVISION Multiple Access .. i believe .. but minor point ..
>
>Is the D-AMPS the same old AMPS system used in Australia about 5 years ago
>or something? Or totally different?
The original D-AMPS is digital, but used analog signaling, which
allowed it to coexist on a channel by channel basis with AMPS. It used
the same channel assigments and control protocols, so could readily
share infrastructure. You just got 3x the calls into a single channel!

However the desire to move away from analog signaling lead to IS-136,
which is D-AMPS with digital signaling, which cannot coexist with
AMPS.

I am not aware of D-AMPS use in Australia, but NZ-Telcom was a major
user of the IS-136 variant.
>
>
>
>
>"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>> >question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA
>is
>> >my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the
>towers
>> >are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
>time
>> >and stay TDMA?
>> >
>> Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
>> also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
>> that technology.
>> >Thanks.
>> Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
>> higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
>> designed for world wide roaming.
>>
>> IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
>> size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
>> before you run out of timing)
>>
>> The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
>> phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
>> just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
>> in it, and that's that.
>>
>> So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,
>

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:19:38 +1100, "Lord-Data" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Time DIVISION Multiple Access .. i believe .. but minor point ..
>
>Is the D-AMPS the same old AMPS system used in Australia about 5 years ago
>or something? Or totally different?
The original D-AMPS is digital, but used analog signaling, which
allowed it to coexist on a channel by channel basis with AMPS. It used
the same channel assigments and control protocols, so could readily
share infrastructure. You just got 3x the calls into a single channel!

However the desire to move away from analog signaling lead to IS-136,
which is D-AMPS with digital signaling, which cannot coexist with
AMPS.

I am not aware of D-AMPS use in Australia, but NZ-Telcom was a major
user of the IS-136 variant.
>
>
>
>
>"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:52:39 GMT, "Mickey A"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I believe we will be offered GSM in the coming months in may area. My
>> >question regards the "real" difference and which is better and why. TDMA
>is
>> >my current service and is just OK at my house. Will GSM(assuming the
>towers
>> >are close) provide better coverage or service? Or should I not waste my
>time
>> >and stay TDMA?
>> >
>> Never ceases to amaze me why people call D-AMPS/IS-136 TDMA, GSM is
>> also TDMA. Time Domain Multiple Access, and both systems utilize
>> that technology.
>> >Thanks.
>> Generally GSM provides extended services (such as GPRS/Data) at much
>> higher rates than D-AMPS/IS-136, and better voice quality. It is also
>> designed for world wide roaming.
>>
>> IN terms of coverage, timing limits place absolute limits on GSM cell
>> size (where as with TDMA you usually run out of link margins long
>> before you run out of timing)
>>
>> The less obvious advantage of GSM is the SIM. the SIM is YOU. Whatever
>> phone you put it in is 'your phone'. So if you don't like your phone,
>> just buy another one (unlocked), from anybody, anywhere, drop you SIM
>> in it, and that's that.
>>
>> So while can stay with D-AMPS/IS-136 AKA TDMA,
>

Mickey A wrote:
> Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't
> bothered to keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't
> available but I am thinking of a new phone and thought I should
> include that in my decision. I like the SIM concept...That's worth
> its weight in gold.
>
> Thanks again.

Not really. Someone can steel your phone and just replace the sim card from
their phone to yours. Though they can track who's sim is in your stolen
phone. *shrugs*

Ryan

Mickey A wrote:
> Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't
> bothered to keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't
> available but I am thinking of a new phone and thought I should
> include that in my decision. I like the SIM concept...That's worth
> its weight in gold.
>
> Thanks again.

Not really. Someone can steel your phone and just replace the sim card from
their phone to yours. Though they can track who's sim is in your stolen
phone. *shrugs*

Ryan

"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mickey A wrote:
> > Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't
> > bothered to keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't
> > available but I am thinking of a new phone and thought I should
> > include that in my decision. I like the SIM concept...That's worth
> > its weight in gold.
> >
> > Thanks again.
>
> Not really. Someone can steel your phone and just replace the sim card
from
> their phone to yours. Though they can track who's sim is in your stolen
> phone. *shrugs*

In the UK the networks operate a common database of handset IMEI (serial)
numbers, if your phone is stolen or lost once it is reported it can be
barred across all networks, irrespective of what SIM card is in it. It's
not always easy to get them to do this, particularly if you're using a SIM
that was not the original one supplied with the phone, but it *is*
possible.

Ivor

"DarkSheer" <rdettl__@__dundee.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mickey A wrote:
> > Thanks for the explaination(and a good one at that)..I haven't
> > bothered to keep up with the new technologies since it wasn't
> > available but I am thinking of a new phone and thought I should
> > include that in my decision. I like the SIM concept...That's worth
> > its weight in gold.
> >
> > Thanks again.
>
> Not really. Someone can steel your phone and just replace the sim card
from
> their phone to yours. Though they can track who's sim is in your stolen
> phone. *shrugs*

In the UK the networks operate a common database of handset IMEI (serial)
numbers, if your phone is stolen or lost once it is reported it can be
barred across all networks, irrespective of what SIM card is in it. It's
not always easy to get them to do this, particularly if you're using a SIM
that was not the original one supplied with the phone, but it *is*
possible.

Ivor