Results 1 to 15 of 42
- 09-08-2003, 08:14 AM #1DavidGuest
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
- 09-08-2003, 09:06 AM #2Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
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
- 09-08-2003, 09:12 AM #3Steve PunterGuest
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
- 09-08-2003, 10:38 AM #4Group Special MobileGuest
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
- 09-08-2003, 11:08 AM #5Bill RadioGuest
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]
- 09-09-2003, 08:27 AM #6Isaiah BeardGuest
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).
- 09-09-2003, 07:12 PM #7About DakotaGuest
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
>
- 09-10-2003, 07:02 AM #8Group Special MobileGuest
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
- 09-10-2003, 07:30 AM #9Guest
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.
- 09-10-2003, 07:53 AM #10Jerome ZelinskeGuest
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
- 09-10-2003, 10:39 AM #11Mark FGuest
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]
- 09-10-2003, 11:07 AM #12Dan 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]
- 09-10-2003, 03:58 PM #13James KnottGuest
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.
- 09-10-2003, 05:04 PM #14Group Special MobileGuest
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
- 09-10-2003, 05:07 PM #15Group Special MobileGuest
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
- General Service Provider Forum
- General Service Provider Forum
- General Cell Phone Forum
- Cingular
- alt.cellular.cingular
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat