Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42
  1. #1
    David
    Guest
    One of the reasons that I switched to Sprint was that my friend's sprint
    phone would get perfect reception indoors while my AT&T GSM phone would get
    no signal in the same place. This seemed to be true in many indoor (and
    outdoor locations.

    I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also read
    that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie sprint).


    Is there any truth to either statement?

    David




    See More: CDMA vs GSM indoors




  2. #2
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors


    "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > One of the reasons that I switched to Sprint was that my friend's sprint
    > phone would get perfect reception indoors while my AT&T GSM phone would

    get
    > no signal in the same place. This seemed to be true in many indoor (and
    > outdoor locations.
    >
    > I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also

    read
    > that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie

    sprint).
    >
    >
    > Is there any truth to either statement?
    >



    800 will penetrate a building better than 1900 with all other factors being
    the same. However, GSM does not penetrate any better than CDMA, as these
    are protocols and have nothing to do with signal. One difference though is
    that CDMA seems to have better error correction algorithms and it can also
    make use of reflected signals, so this allows CDMA to operate on weaker
    signals it seems.

    Tom Veldhouse





  3. #3
    Steve Punter
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    Just barely. Besides, the statement that one technology PENETRATES building
    better is a misnomer anyway, since RF penetrates to the same degree at a
    given frequency, regardless of the underlying modulation technique. What
    does differ is the ability for various schemes to cope with extremely weak
    signals, which might be where the statement originates from.

    CDMA can cope with markedly weaker field strengths than GSM, and IF ALL
    OTHER THINGS WERE EQUAL this would translate to better in-building service
    for CDMA. However, in a dense urban environment where sites are quite close
    together (and are operating at far less than their maximum output), this
    single variable no longer has quite the same impact (and in fact, often has
    the REVERSE effect).

    CDMA sites in close proximity must deal with the problem of channel
    pollution, which occurs when far too many signals exist in one place. For
    this reason the overlap on CDMA sites must be tightly controlled, which
    means limiting the range of the site so that only minimal overlap occurs
    with neighboring sites. GSM networks can get away with greater overlap
    simply because the next co-channel site may be 2 or 3 tiers out from any
    other site.

    Making direct comparisons between two networks is always a difficult thing,
    since they just about NEVER have sites in the same locations. Site proximity
    is the biggest single factor to in-building penetration. And remember that
    even in free space, RF signals fade at rate of DISTANCE SQUARED. It has been
    demonstrated however, that in terrestrial systems the fade rate is more
    along the lines of DISTANCE CUBED. That means a site located 1/2 mile away
    will have 8 times the signal of a site at 1 mile, and 27 times the signal of
    a site located 1.5 miles away.

    Even when sites are the same distance, obstacles between you and site can
    have a devastating effect. A small forest for example can knock 30 dB off of
    a signal, which can make the difference between a really strong signal, and
    no signal at all.

    I don't know what sort of site density is offered by AT&T in your area,
    especially compared to whichever CDMA provider your friend had, but it is
    highly likely that the CDMA provider had a much higher site density. If you
    want proof that a well-engineered GSM network can penetrate buildings as
    well as, and often better than, a well-engineered CDMA network, you should
    come to Toronto some time.
    --
    Steve Punter
    http://www.arcx.com/sites





  4. #4
    Group Special Mobile
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 7:14:28 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:

    >One of the reasons that I switched to Sprint was that my friend's sprint
    >phone would get perfect reception indoors while my AT&T GSM phone would get
    >no signal in the same place. This seemed to be true in many indoor (and
    >outdoor locations.


    No, it's not true. It depends to a large part on where the base
    stations are located what kind of reception you get and if there are
    any obstructions between you and the base station.

    >I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also read
    >that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie sprint).


    I don't know where you got that CDMA penetrates buildings better than
    GSM. The technology doesn't have anything to do with how well a
    building can be penetrated. It is somewhat influenced by the
    frequency in that 800 Mhz is a bit better able to handle penetration
    of buildings than is 1900 Mhz. However, if you have the transmitting
    base station close enough it will not make much difference.
    >
    >
    >Is there any truth to either statement?
    >
    >David


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com



  5. #5
    Bill Radio
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    No on 1, Maybe on 2.

    Building penetration is strictly dependent on the signal strength at the
    exterior of the building. The technology (CDMA, GSM, etc.) makes NO
    difference.

    Some carriers deliver a much better signal inside some buildings because
    they have a closer cell site. Making a general statement like 800 MHz
    penetrates better may mean nothing if a 1900 MHz carrier has a cell site
    next to, or inside, the building you're in.

    Carriers like Sprint and T-Mobile have done a lot to improve in-building
    coverage. They started with sites inside airports and malls, then
    worked toward tunnels and office complexes, and are now improving other
    areas where people, and potential customers, gather.

    I get a better signal from a 1900 MHz carrier in three indoor locations
    than my normal 800 MHz carrier. So you need to test each spot, or ask
    around, and see.

    -Bill Radio

    Western U.S. Wireless Reviews & Ratings:
    http://www.MountainWireless.com


    David <[email protected]> wrote in article <
    >
    > I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also read
    > that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie sprint).
    >
    >
    > Is there any truth to either statement?








    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  6. #6
    Isaiah Beard
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    David wrote:

    > One of the reasons that I switched to Sprint was that my friend's sprint
    > phone would get perfect reception indoors while my AT&T GSM phone would get
    > no signal in the same place. This seemed to be true in many indoor (and
    > outdoor locations.
    >
    > I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also read
    > that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie sprint).
    >
    >
    > Is there any truth to either statement?


    You'll get plenty f people with varying degrees of real or
    self-professed qualifications saying that both, either, or neither are true.

    When you get down to it, the real question is how well built the
    infrastructure is to handle in building coverage. In some markets, a
    carrier has a better placement of cell sites than others, and that makes
    all the difference. It looks like in your case, Sprint beats out AT&T in
    this regard. That may not necessarily true everywhere (FWIW, ATTWS
    coverage is also lousy where I live).





  7. #7
    About Dakota
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    I think that a big thing you also have to take into consideration is the
    phone. Sometimes a CDMA or TDMA phone gets better reception because of
    the enhanced external antenna, where as a phons of similar model with an
    internal antenna does not have the same reception. I have never seen a
    GSM phone with an external antenna (not to say they don't exist, just
    that they are not common).

    David wrote:
    > One of the reasons that I switched to Sprint was that my friend's sprint
    > phone would get perfect reception indoors while my AT&T GSM phone would get
    > no signal in the same place. This seemed to be true in many indoor (and
    > outdoor locations.
    >
    > I've been told that CDMA penetrates buildings better than GSM, I've also read
    > that 800 signals (ie verizon) penetrate better than 1900 signals (ie sprint).
    >
    >
    > Is there any truth to either statement?
    >
    > David
    >





  8. #8
    Group Special Mobile
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:12:12 -0500, About Dakota <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I think that a big thing you also have to take into consideration is the
    >phone. Sometimes a CDMA or TDMA phone gets better reception because of
    >the enhanced external antenna, where as a phons of similar model with an
    >internal antenna does not have the same reception. I have never seen a
    >GSM phone with an external antenna (not to say they don't exist, just
    >that they are not common).


    TDMA phones don't have extendable antennas and CDMA phones have
    extendable antennas because they are the best for the type of phone.
    CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.

    If you have never seen a GSM phone with an external antenna you
    haven't been around very long. External antennas was the norm on all
    phones up until a couple years ago and still is very common for some
    phones.

    http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/antenna.html
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com



  9. #9

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    Reply assumptions:

    All antennas are co-located and radiation patterns are the same,
    including "gain profiles". 800 MHz vs. 800 MHz and 1900 MHz vs. 1900
    MHz.
    -----
    CDMA cells are designed with a 3 dB signal to noise ratio advantage
    than GSM, so penetration would be "better".

    CDMA carriers cover 1.23 MHz vs. GSM 200 kHz, so narrow-band noise
    rejection is much more effective.

    CDMA's RAKE receivers take advantage of multi-path, vs. GSM phones
    having to equalize the multi-path out.

    If any of the assumptions aren't true your mileage WILL vary.




  10. #10
    Jerome Zelinske
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    Antenna length is based on frequency not signal type.


    Group Special Mobile wrote:
    > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:12:12 -0500, About Dakota <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I think that a big thing you also have to take into consideration is the
    >>phone. Sometimes a CDMA or TDMA phone gets better reception because of
    >>the enhanced external antenna, where as a phons of similar model with an
    >>internal antenna does not have the same reception. I have never seen a
    >>GSM phone with an external antenna (not to say they don't exist, just
    >>that they are not common).

    >
    >
    > TDMA phones don't have extendable antennas and CDMA phones have
    > extendable antennas because they are the best for the type of phone.
    > CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    > technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.
    >
    > If you have never seen a GSM phone with an external antenna you
    > haven't been around very long. External antennas was the norm on all
    > phones up until a couple years ago and still is very common for some
    > phones.
    >
    > http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/antenna.html
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    > To send an email reply send to
    > GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com





  11. #11
    Mark F
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:12:12 -0500, About Dakota <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I think that a big thing you also have to take into consideration is the
    > >phone. Sometimes a CDMA or TDMA phone gets better reception because of
    > >the enhanced external antenna, where as a phons of similar model with an
    > >internal antenna does not have the same reception. I have never seen a
    > >GSM phone with an external antenna (not to say they don't exist, just
    > >that they are not common).

    >
    > TDMA phones don't have extendable antennas and CDMA phones have
    > extendable antennas because they are the best for the type of phone.


    iDEN is considered TDMA and all NEXTEL phones have extendable antennas.
    I disagree totally that it is inherent of the moduation scheme. It has
    very little to do with it.

    > CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    > technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.
    >
    > If you have never seen a GSM phone with an external antenna you
    > haven't been around very long. External antennas was the norm on all
    > phones up until a couple years ago and still is very common for some
    > phones.


    The reason for the antennas to be now internal to the phone is based on
    2 reasons:

    1. PCS/GSM systems are slowly becoming more mature and the numbers of
    tower sites are increasing steadily. This is allowing the manufacturers
    to hide the antenna without worrying about decreased performance and
    complaints of RF performance.

    2. Customer satisfation...the end user is sick and tired of breaking the
    damn things off and the manufacturers are also tired of replacing
    them...especially under warranty. It's one less thing for them to
    manufacturer and/or purchase from a third party decreasing the price of
    the phone.

    Mark

    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  12. #12
    Dan W.
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    I think you are correct Mark, and I would go further to suggest that
    your #2 is the main reason. Customers want antenna-less phones, so
    thats what the industry gives them.

    I think "generally" speaking though, the true gains (no pun intended) of
    external antennas come into play with AMPS systems.

    When holding the phone out in front of me, my (AT&T) Nokia 8265 gets
    (margionally) better digital reception than my Motorola V60i. However,
    my Motorola V60i gets better AMPS reception than my Nokia 8265.

    When talking on the handset however, the V60i tends to make up for the
    gains of the 8265 in digital by the fact the antenna sticks out from
    around my big head. And to go further to contradict myself, i think the
    "flat" design of internal antennas might tend to get better reception
    when said side of handset is facing the direction the signal is coming
    from, but that's not always real-world relative. So all in all, perhaps
    it's a wash. Sometimes phones i've owned with poorer reception actually
    worked better because they gave up on the digital signal and switched
    into roaming sooner, thus giving me a better calling experience, albeit
    at the price of roaming. On Sprint though, that's a mute point as they
    have the ability to force your phone into roam mode, and on AT&T i dont
    have that luxury, but i can go seamlessly between TDMA and AMPS and back
    again.

    --
    Dan W.
    North Texas
    hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
    Provider: ATTWS-TDMA



    [email protected] (Mark F) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > Group Special Mobile <look@signature_to.reply> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 20:12:12 -0500, About Dakota <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >I think that a big thing you also have to take into consideration is the
    > > >phone. Sometimes a CDMA or TDMA phone gets better reception because of
    > > >the enhanced external antenna, where as a phons of similar model with an
    > > >internal antenna does not have the same reception. I have never seen a
    > > >GSM phone with an external antenna (not to say they don't exist, just
    > > >that they are not common).

    > >
    > > TDMA phones don't have extendable antennas and CDMA phones have
    > > extendable antennas because they are the best for the type of phone.

    >
    > iDEN is considered TDMA and all NEXTEL phones have extendable antennas.
    > I disagree totally that it is inherent of the moduation scheme. It has
    > very little to do with it.
    >
    > > CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    > > technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.
    > >
    > > If you have never seen a GSM phone with an external antenna you
    > > haven't been around very long. External antennas was the norm on all
    > > phones up until a couple years ago and still is very common for some
    > > phones.

    >
    > The reason for the antennas to be now internal to the phone is based on
    > 2 reasons:
    >
    > 1. PCS/GSM systems are slowly becoming more mature and the numbers of
    > tower sites are increasing steadily. This is allowing the manufacturers
    > to hide the antenna without worrying about decreased performance and
    > complaints of RF performance.
    >
    > 2. Customer satisfation...the end user is sick and tired of breaking the
    > damn things off and the manufacturers are also tired of replacing
    > them...especially under warranty. It's one less thing for them to
    > manufacturer and/or purchase from a third party decreasing the price of
    > the phone.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  13. #13
    James Knott
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    Group Special Mobile wrote:

    > CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    > technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.



    ??????

    Antenna length is determined by frequency of operation, not technology used.
    Also antennas can be reduced in physical size and still be electrically the
    same length, though with reduced efficiency. If you want more gain, you
    can always go to a multielement colinear design, though it will be much
    longer.

    --

    Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

    To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
    james.knott.



  14. #14
    Group Special Mobile
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:39:07 -0000, [email protected] (Mark F) wrote:

    >The reason for the antennas to be now internal to the phone is based on
    >2 reasons:
    >
    >1. PCS/GSM systems are slowly becoming more mature and the numbers of
    >tower sites are increasing steadily. This is allowing the manufacturers
    >to hide the antenna without worrying about decreased performance and
    >complaints of RF performance.
    >
    >2. Customer satisfation...the end user is sick and tired of breaking the
    >damn things off and the manufacturers are also tired of replacing
    >them...especially under warranty. It's one less thing for them to
    >manufacturer and/or purchase from a third party decreasing the price of
    >the phone.


    But you will *never* see CDMA handsets with internal only antennas.
    They always have a telescoping antenna. Even the models that on TDMA
    or GSM are completely internal are not for the CDMA model e.g. compare
    a Nokia 6360 and a Nokia 6385. They look *almost* identical but the
    6385 has a telescoping whip antenna.

    http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6360

    http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/6385 (see short nub on upper right
    corner)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com



  15. #15
    Group Special Mobile
    Guest

    Re: CDMA vs GSM indoors

    On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:58:52 GMT, James Knott <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Group Special Mobile wrote:
    >
    >> CDMA phones require an antenna of a certain length because of the
    >> technology. TDMA and GSM does not require this same length.

    >
    >
    >??????
    >
    >Antenna length is determined by frequency of operation, not technology used.
    >Also antennas can be reduced in physical size and still be electrically the
    >same length, though with reduced efficiency. If you want more gain, you
    >can always go to a multielement colinear design, though it will be much
    >longer.


    That may indeed be true. However, I've never seen a telescoping
    antenna on anything other than CDMA handsets from folks using services
    such as Sprint and Verizon. Never have seen folks with TDMA or GSM
    handsets with telescoping antennas.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com



  • Similar Threads

    1. General Service Provider Forum
    2. General Service Provider Forum
    3. General Cell Phone Forum
    4. Cingular
    5. alt.cellular.cingular



  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast