Results 16 to 30 of 54
- 07-12-2006, 09:51 AM #16SMSGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> Granted, none are perfect. But intentionally crippling Bluetooth, for
> example, so that you can't transfer wallpaper and ringtones without
> collecting a fee - that's a pretty crappy business practice. And if you
> have one of the new Verizon music-enabled phones, you have to buy their
> software to make it work. That just sucks.
I'm reminded of the comedian that played an oil company executive,
"Hi, I'm here to explain the law of supply and demand, it's very simple.
We have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the f$%k we want."
Verizon _knows_ that for customers for whom coverage is the primary
concern, that these customers won't leave over something like having to
pay for transferring wallpaper and ringtones, since these customers are
unlikely to ever do either.
> I have TMO, partly because I write some of their knowledge base
> articles. They've got a good system and so far, coverage hasn't been a
> major factor.
T-Mobile coverage is okay in some places, but non-existent in many
areas. My neighborhood doesn't have it, since a NIMBY group has
successfully stopped a new cell installation that would cover my area.
› See More: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
- 07-12-2006, 10:20 AM #17John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:51:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> I have TMO, partly because I write some of their knowledge base
>> articles. They've got a good system and so far, coverage hasn't been a
>> major factor.
>
>T-Mobile coverage is okay in some places, but non-existent in many
>areas. My neighborhood doesn't have it, since a NIMBY group has
>successfully stopped a new cell installation that would cover my area.
All carriers have holes. That said, the T-Mobile network, formerly the
Cingular "orange" network, actually has good coverage of the San
Francisco Bay Area.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 10:22 AM #18John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:49:39 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Not really, as Verizon's gain in market share is very small, it's really
>>> Sprint and T-Mobile that have had the biggest gains, percentage-wise,
>>> while the Cingular percentage loss is very large, statistically speaking.
>>
>> I would avoid those who intentionally cripple their hardware and do
>> everything they can to get into your wallet (Verizon).
>
>Yet in terms of ARPU, Verizon is just a tad higher than Cingular, and
>that's very recently and due to Verizon's faster deployment of 3G.
There's no evidence of that.
>Sprint and T-Mobile have significantly higher ARPUs than Verizon. I
>think it may be because Verizon and Cingular have more business
>customers, whose employees are not downloading custom ringtones, sending
>photos, or watching videos, on the network.
Actually due to discounted business plans.
Sprint is now being helped by the high ARPU of Nextel.
>The crippling of hardware is a definite annoyance, but again, coverage
>trumps most everything in making a choice of carrier.
Depends on your personal priorities, especially since coverage is often
comparable between more than one carrier.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 10:39 AM #19John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:03:12 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
wrote in <Qa8tg.11448$Nv.7700@fed1read10>:
>Why does Sprint have better sound quality than Verizon? I have noticed this
>on several different phone models. Does Sprint use a different codec?
The biggest difference comes from network load, since CDMA call quality
degrades as network load increases. Verizon tends to have higher
network load in more areas than Sprint, giving Sprint the edge in call
quality in those areas, but it's just the opposite in other areas (like
the Tri-Valley part of the SF Bay Area, where Sprint has the worst call
quality of any major carrier).
An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
network load.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 11:13 AM #20BeavisGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
> network load.
True. But on the other hand, a CDMA tower can allow more handsets to
make decent calls, without getting a "network busy" message, as I used
to get with AT&T (TDMA) constantly.
- 07-12-2006, 11:41 AM #21Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.verizon Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why does Sprint have better sound quality than Verizon? I have noticed this
> on several different phone models. Does Sprint use a different codec?
>
I really don't know, but I assume so.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-12-2006, 12:22 PM #22John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:13:06 GMT, Beavis <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
>> network load.
>
>True. But on the other hand, a CDMA tower can allow more handsets to
>make decent calls, without getting a "network busy" message, as I used
>to get with AT&T (TDMA) constantly.
GSM is more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"), with spectral efficiency
that's roughly comparable to CDMA.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 01:01 PM #23SMSGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Beavis wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
>> network load.
>
> True. But on the other hand, a CDMA tower can allow more handsets to
> make decent calls, without getting a "network busy" message, as I used
> to get with AT&T (TDMA) constantly.
If you're stationary, then on GSM/TDMA you can at least be assured that
your call quality won't go down during the call. However if you're
moving, and you move into a cell that is at capacity, your call drops.
Dropped calls have been a big problem on Cingular, which is why they
added so many new towers, and why they now are advertising that they've
solved the dropped call issue.
- 07-12-2006, 01:16 PM #24GlennGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
John Navas wrote:
>
> GSM is more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"), with spectral efficiency
> that's roughly comparable to CDMA.
>
However, high spectral efficiency is contrary to maximizing information
throughput. The Shannon equation, C=B*log2(S/N+1), shows that to
maximize information capacity and/or minimize required S/N of a channel,
one needs to use more rather than less B (spectrum). Thus when spectral
efficiency goes down, information (call) delivery goes up.
If one is limited by available spectrum, as are the carriers (and dialup
telephone lines) increasing spectral efficiency may make business sense.
However, it doesn't make purely technical sense if the goal is to
maximize capacity/coverage. For that, you want to spread the signal as
wide as is possible, with resulting performance approaching the Shannon
limit.
Glenn
- 07-12-2006, 01:22 PM #25Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> GSM is more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"), with spectral efficiency
> that's roughly comparable to CDMA.
>
Hmm ... a contentious arguement at best. Doing what you do best, I submit to
Google and find:
"Spectral Efficiency
Channel capacity in a TDMA system is fixed and indisputable. Each channel
carries a finite number of "slots", and you can never accommodate a new caller
once each of those slots is filled. Spectral efficiency varies from one
technology to another, but computing a precise number is still a contentious
issue. For example, GSM provides 8 slots in a channel 200 kHz wide, while iDEN
provides 3 slots in a channel only 25 kHz wide. GSM therefore consumes 25 kHz
per user, while IS-136 consumes only 8.333 kHz per user. When Direct Connect
is used on iDEN, 6 users can be stuffed into a single channel, thus only 4.166
kHz is consumer per user. There is also a new 6:1 interconnect CODEC coming
for iDEN which will allow 6 phone users per channel.
One would be sorely tempted to proclaim that iDEN has 3 to 6 times the
capacity of GSM. In a one-cell system this is certainly true, but once we
start deploying multiple cells and channel reuse the situation becomes more
complex. Due to GSM's better error management and frequency hopping the
interference of a co-channel site is greatly reduced. This allows frequencies
to be reused more frequently without a degradation in the overall quality of
the service.
Capacity is measured in "calls per cell per MHz". An GSM system using N=4
reuse (this means you have 4 different sets of frequencies to spread out
around town) the figure is 5.0 We get an efficiency value of 6.6 for N=3.
Unfortunately I could not find any figures for iDEN systems, but based on
similar figures released for the IS-136 system we can expect efficiency values
of 6.0 to 10.0.
Computing this figure for CDMA requires that certain assumptions are made.
Formulas have been devised, and using very optimistic assumptions CDMA can
provide a whopping 45 users per cell per MHz. However, when using more
pessimistic (and perhaps more realistic) assumptions, the value is 12. That
still gives CDMA an almost 2:1 advantage over GSM, but questionable advantage
over a well-implement iDEN system."
http://www.arcx.com/sites/CDMAvsTDMA.htm
This article is about two years old, so perhaps some things have changed ...
as they always do. However, looking back in time, your litany remains the
same, so if agree that this information was accurate two years ago, then what
you were saying two years ago is suspect. So, is information given here
invalid?
http://tinyurl.com/k9lep ... an argument older than the article minimizing
the differences between CDMA and GSM when it comes to spectral efficiency.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 07-12-2006, 01:41 PM #26SMSGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Glenn wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>>
>> GSM is more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"), with spectral efficiency
>> that's roughly comparable to CDMA.
>>
>
> However, high spectral efficiency is contrary to maximizing information
> throughput. The Shannon equation, C=B*log2(S/N+1), shows that to
> maximize information capacity and/or minimize required S/N of a channel,
> one needs to use more rather than less B (spectrum). Thus when spectral
> efficiency goes down, information (call) delivery goes up.
>
CDMA is much more efficient at the use of spectrum than GSM. Here is the
table of Spectral Efficiencies from the study by Deutsche Bank Securities.
Users per 5 Mhz Relative to AMPS
Min Max Min Max
--- --- --- ---
AMPS 8 8 1.0x 1.0x
GSM 21 23 2.6x 2.9x
TDMA 24 24 3.0x 3.0x
GSM w/AMR 28 34 3.5x 4.3x
GSM FFR w/AMR 34 53 4.3x 6.6x
CDMA (IS-95A) 51 66 6.4x 8.3x
CDMA2000 1X 105 120 13.1x 15.0x
W-CDMA 62 95 7.8x 11.9x
- 07-12-2006, 01:43 PM #27Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
Cingular states that they have an independent study that they have the
fewest dropped calls of any wireless provider.
(any most pigs are capable of flight too)
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Beavis wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
>>> network load.
>>
>> True. But on the other hand, a CDMA tower can allow more handsets to
>> make decent calls, without getting a "network busy" message, as I used to
>> get with AT&T (TDMA) constantly.
>
> If you're stationary, then on GSM/TDMA you can at least be assured that
> your call quality won't go down during the call. However if you're moving,
> and you move into a cell that is at capacity, your call drops. Dropped
> calls have been a big problem on Cingular, which is why they added so many
> new towers, and why they now are advertising that they've solved the
> dropped call issue.
- 07-12-2006, 01:52 PM #28John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:16:29 -0700, Glenn <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> GSM is more efficient than D-AMPS ("TDMA"), with spectral efficiency
>> that's roughly comparable to CDMA.
>
>However, high spectral efficiency is contrary to maximizing information
>throughput. The Shannon equation, C=B*log2(S/N+1), shows that to
>maximize information capacity and/or minimize required S/N of a channel,
>one needs to use more rather than less B (spectrum). Thus when spectral
>efficiency goes down, information (call) delivery goes up.
>
>If one is limited by available spectrum, as are the carriers (and dialup
>telephone lines) increasing spectral efficiency may make business sense.
>However, it doesn't make purely technical sense if the goal is to
>maximize capacity/coverage. For that, you want to spread the signal as
>wide as is possible, with resulting performance approaching the Shannon
>limit.
My comments are based on real-world Erlangs, not Shannon theory.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 01:56 PM #29John NavasGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:01:40 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:
>Beavis wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> An advantage of GSM over CDMA is that call quality isn't affected by
>>> network load.
>>
>> True. But on the other hand, a CDMA tower can allow more handsets to
>> make decent calls, without getting a "network busy" message, as I used
>> to get with AT&T (TDMA) constantly.
>
>If you're stationary, then on GSM/TDMA you can at least be assured that
>your call quality won't go down during the call. However if you're
>moving, and you move into a cell that is at capacity, your call drops.
True, but that's extremely rare. Just as CDMA calls can be degraded to
unusability or dropped because of cell "breathing" under load, one of a
number of CDMA problems. In practice, these aren't significant issues.
>Dropped calls have been a big problem on Cingular,
Not true.
>which is why they
>added so many new towers,
That's to increase coverage. It has little to do with existing network
capacity.
>and why they now are advertising that they've
>solved the dropped call issue.
That's not what they are advertising -- that's your anti-Cingular spin.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 07-12-2006, 01:58 PM #30John RichardsGuest
Re: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> All carriers have holes. That said, the T-Mobile network, formerly the
> Cingular "orange" network, actually has good coverage of the San
> Francisco Bay Area.
So it does. I have no complaints in that regard after switching from
Sprint to T-Mobile four months ago.
--
John Richards (SF North Bay area)
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- General Service Provider Forum
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.verizon
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung