Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:22:57 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>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:
>[SNIP]

<http://www.3gsmamericas.com/pdfs/pearson2003_waste_not_want_not.pdf>:

In a real-world environment, a well-engineered TDMA system can handle
about 37 Erlangs per sector, while a comparable GSM system handles
about 67 Erlangs - or roughly 45% more than TDMA. That boost alone is
enough for most TDMA operators to make a business case for switching
to GSM, but a new voice-coding technology, currently available, more
than doubles GSM’s capacity to 142 Erlangs, which is nearly four
times as much as TDMA.

GSM gains that fourfold advantage from adaptive multi-rate speech
transcoding (AMR), which adjusts the voice-coding rates according to
changing channel conditions, such as decreasing signal strength or
rising interference. ...

GSM operators should start reaping the benefits of AMR by mid 2003
...

Although CDMA operators and vendors always touted their 2G technology
as being almost exponentially more spectrally efficient than Advanced
Mobile Phone System (AMPS), GSM and TDMA, that promise did not always
hold up in the real world. An example is the bold claim made by CDMA
vendors in the mid 1990s that their technology has 20 to 30 times
more capacity than AMPS. When CDMA systems started to be deployed a
few years later, the gain turned out to be only five to six times
better than AMPS. When EVRC was eventually added, the gain increased
again - but still nowhere near the original claim of 20 to 30 times.

Many CDMA operators are currently in the midst of deploying 1XRTT, an
interim step towards 3G that promises to use spectrum more
efficiently. Time will tell whether that is the truth but the fact is
that, based on BEST-CASE DATA from CDMA vendors, 1XRTT with EVRC
handles up to 156 Erlangs per sector. Bearing in mind that GSM with
AMR handles 142 Erlangs, IT IS A GREAT STRETCH TO ARGUE THAT 1XRTT
HAS A MAJOR ADVANTAGE OVER GSM.... [emphasis added]

... Thus, while one technology may have SLIGHTLY HIGHER CAPACITY
GAINS at one point in time, another technology is always preparing to
leap-frog over it. [emphasis added]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:13:35 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The timing is in fact much more precise than that. The only possible
>>> way for me to have gotten a signal that far out is extended range GSM.
>>
>>I suspect certain environmental conditions can form to temporarily extend
>>range [if indeed you actually were 32 miles out ... we only have your word
>>that this even happened]. I do not know what conditions would benefit range
>>for a cellular or pcs signal ... in particular for GSM, but I assume there are
>>such conditions. Do you recall how AM radio signals used to get extended by
>>hundreds or thousands of miles by skipping off of the ionosphere when
>>conditions were right?
>
> The important thing to bear in mind is that for GSM range we're talking
> time of transmission, not some other signal characteristic.
>
> The speed of propagation of radio waves in the atmosphere isn't
> materially affected by "environmental conditions".
>
> GSM cellular doesn't skip, but even if it did, that would take more
> time, not less time, and thus decrease range.
>
> My position was being tracked by GPS, accurate to within 15 meters.
>
> Distance from land was determined from NOAA nautical charts, which are
> both accurate and freely available.
>
>>Honestly though, I really don't believe your tale of floating in the gulf 32
>>miles out from any given GSM site. I have my doubts it even happened
>>California dude.
>
> Suit yourself.
>
>>In fact, if they deployed extended GSM there, don't you
>>think they would do the same along US highways and in rural areas?
>
> Perhaps, but it only makes sense in very flat rural areas where tall
> towers can be sited, which isn't terribly common. By comparison, hills
> available for tower siting near shore here in Northern California.
> That's why coastal marine service is a typical application for extended
> range cellular (GSM or CDMA).
>
>>It doesn't
>>seem like anybody is doing it anywhere?
>
> Based on what?
>
>>So, why just at one site along the
>>gulf coast that you just happened to personally visit [from California] AND
>>happen to make a connection and note its significance and your exact distance
>>from the tower.
>
> The location is actually off the coast of Northern California (as can be
> easily determined from the coordinates), and I didn't just "happen" to
> make a connection and note my exact distance -- I was navigating a large
> racing sailboat, using GPS to plot the track, and cellular data to
> monitor readings from offshore NDBC buoys, along with reading from boat
> instruments, all processed and recorded by notebook computer (an old
> ThinkPad 600 I use for just this purpose).
>
> It's pretty cool -- if you're interested, you can find helpful
> information on my well-known sailing & racing web page
> <http://sail.navas.us/>. My own custom software keeps track of boat
> performance against "polars" (predicted performance plots), providing
> real-time feedback on actual versus predicted performance, and the best
> course to sail. Tidal current, for example, is calculated as the
> difference between (a) boat heading and speed through the water and (b)
> GPS course and speed over ground.
>
>>You story is not well supported by facts,
>
> It's not only well supported by facts, but quite precise.
>
>>and it is a singleton which makes it
>>even less plausible. BTW ... I DID see a UFO land and submerge itself in Lake
>>Superior! I surmise from this fact that aliens exist and live among us. Good
>>thing we weren't arguing that point, because you would lose!
>
> You are of course free to think whatever you want.
>

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:22:57 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>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:
>>[SNIP]
>

So, you fail to indicate whether you agree or disagree with the clipped
article that I posted.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:00:39 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Really ... you don't know any developers that have done this, yet you are in
>>>planning sessions with them. You said so yourself.
>>
>> Since this again degenerated into pointlessness, I'm again letting you
>> have the last word.
>
>Ouch ... caught in a lie again? ...

No, just tired of your endless wrangling.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No, just tired of your endless wrangling.
>

Hmm ... seems I should tire of yours.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

John Navas wrote:
>
>
> My comments are based on real-world Erlangs, not Shannon theory.
>

And Shannon is based on physics which is by definition, "real world".

All I was saying is that equating good (high) spectral efficiency with
high coverage/capacity is wrong. Everything else equal (which it never
is) the system which spreads its transmitter power the MOST, thus
yielding the lowest spectral efficiency, achieves the highest
information capacity.

Business concerned with limited spectrum tend to be concerned about
spectral efficiency, systems which are trying to maximize performance
try to minimize spectral efficiency. It's real-world physics and applies
to everyone.

Glenn

Worth repeating it seems.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:09:37 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:13:35 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The timing is in fact much more precise than that. The only possible
>>>> way for me to have gotten a signal that far out is extended range GSM.
>>>
>>>I suspect certain environmental conditions can form to temporarily extend
>>>range [if indeed you actually were 32 miles out ... we only have your word
>>>that this even happened]. I do not know what conditions would benefit range
>>>for a cellular or pcs signal ... in particular for GSM, but I assume there are
>>>such conditions. Do you recall how AM radio signals used to get extended by
>>>hundreds or thousands of miles by skipping off of the ionosphere when
>>>conditions were right?
>>
>> The important thing to bear in mind is that for GSM range we're talking
>> time of transmission, not some other signal characteristic.
>>
>> The speed of propagation of radio waves in the atmosphere isn't
>> materially affected by "environmental conditions".
>>
>> GSM cellular doesn't skip, but even if it did, that would take more
>> time, not less time, and thus decrease range.
>>
>> My position was being tracked by GPS, accurate to within 15 meters.
>>
>> Distance from land was determined from NOAA nautical charts, which are
>> both accurate and freely available.
>>
>>>Honestly though, I really don't believe your tale of floating in the gulf 32
>>>miles out from any given GSM site. I have my doubts it even happened
>>>California dude.
>>
>> Suit yourself.
>>
>>>In fact, if they deployed extended GSM there, don't you
>>>think they would do the same along US highways and in rural areas?
>>
>> Perhaps, but it only makes sense in very flat rural areas where tall
>> towers can be sited, which isn't terribly common. By comparison, hills
>> available for tower siting near shore here in Northern California.
>> That's why coastal marine service is a typical application for extended
>> range cellular (GSM or CDMA).
>>
>>>It doesn't
>>>seem like anybody is doing it anywhere?
>>
>> Based on what?
>>
>>>So, why just at one site along the
>>>gulf coast that you just happened to personally visit [from California] AND
>>>happen to make a connection and note its significance and your exact distance
>>>from the tower.
>>
>> The location is actually off the coast of Northern California (as can be
>> easily determined from the coordinates), and I didn't just "happen" to
>> make a connection and note my exact distance -- I was navigating a large
>> racing sailboat, using GPS to plot the track, and cellular data to
>> monitor readings from offshore NDBC buoys, along with reading from boat
>> instruments, all processed and recorded by notebook computer (an old
>> ThinkPad 600 I use for just this purpose).
>>
>> It's pretty cool -- if you're interested, you can find helpful
>> information on my well-known sailing & racing web page
>> <http://sail.navas.us/>. My own custom software keeps track of boat
>> performance against "polars" (predicted performance plots), providing
>> real-time feedback on actual versus predicted performance, and the best
>> course to sail. Tidal current, for example, is calculated as the
>> difference between (a) boat heading and speed through the water and (b)
>> GPS course and speed over ground.
>>
>>>You story is not well supported by facts,
>>
>> It's not only well supported by facts, but quite precise.
>>
>>>and it is a singleton which makes it
>>>even less plausible. BTW ... I DID see a UFO land and submerge itself in Lake
>>>Superior! I surmise from this fact that aliens exist and live among us. Good
>>>thing we weren't arguing that point, because you would lose!
>>
>> You are of course free to think whatever you want.
>>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:13:45 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:22:57 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>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:
>>>[SNIP]
>
>So, you fail to indicate whether you agree or disagree with the clipped
>article that I posted.

Again, you have the last word -- this is clearly a pointless debate.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

WOW, but I bet you an Alien Dinner on Alpha Centauri that John Navas will
say that Cingular Technology is better than that Alien Technology!! Cingular
is really good about fighting those NIMBYs that live in the proximity of the
worm holes.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In alt.cellular.cingular Mij Adyaw <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The important questions is: "What wireless carrier are those UFOs using
>> and
>> do they experience any dropped calls?"
>>
>
> They open minute wormholes and send packets through them, so they are not
> bound by distance or bandwidth ... so, no, no dropped calls.
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
>

Down here is SoCal, it is just the opposite.

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The timing is in fact much more precise than that. The only possible
>> way for me to have gotten a signal that far out is extended range GSM.

Your methodology of applying a logical conclusion to an observation is
just soooooo wrong.

I ponder if JN knows for a fact there is not a GSM facility on that
tower on the south side of Seal Rock which as I recall he would have
been in range. Now if there *IS* GSM on Seal rock...mystery solved and
JN is full of it.

> I suspect certain environmental conditions can form to temporarily extend
> range [if indeed you actually were 32 miles out ..
[snip]
> such conditions. Do you recall how AM radio signals used to get extended by
> hundreds or thousands of miles by skipping off of the ionosphere when
> conditions were right?

Skip can certainly happen (but not ionospheric skip at cellular
frequencies), more like tropospheric ducting. Nevertheless, the range is
limited due to timing constraints using GSM and CDMA.

> In fact, if they deployed extended GSM there, don't you
> think they would do the same along US highways and in rural areas? It doesn't
> seem like anybody is doing it anywhere? So, why just at one site along the
> gulf coast that you just happened to personally visit [from California] AND
> happen to make a connection and note its significance and your exact distance
> from the tower.

Has anyone plotted out the RF propagation loss from the San Fran coast
to 30 miles out? EVEN is there was a tower on top of that 2400 ft
mountain 7 miles northwest of Sausalito, the loss is roughly 130 dB -
which gives roughly less than a 10 db relative receive level.

Realistically...a 100 ft. tower will give coverage out to about 15 miles
and then you are over the radio horizon.

John Richards wrote:
> "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.

Very poor coverage in the south bay. No coverage in my neighborhood, no
coverage in parts of San Jose. To T-Mobile's credit, the stores do
discourage new accounts if their coverage map shows no coverage.

What happened is that T-Mobile took over the old Cingular 1900 Mhz
network, which had terrible coverage. First Cingular, then T-Mobile has
been fighting to install new cells, over the objections of many of the
NIMBY people.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It's almost a certainty that the whole thing is fictional. The problem
>>> is that he makes up so much stuff that you never know when he's actually
>>> telling the truth.
>> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who
>> do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>>
>
> And there are those that attack the man who claims evidence and comes up empty
> handed.

Does this mean that Navas is finally going to provide evidence when he
makes up these fantastic stories?

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:54:57 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Richards wrote:
>> "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.
>
>Very poor coverage in the south bay. No coverage in my neighborhood, no
>coverage in parts of San Jose. ...

Again, while all carriers have holes, T-Mobile coverage is good in the
South Bay, just it is in the rest of the SF Bay Area.

>What happened is that T-Mobile took over the old Cingular 1900 Mhz
>network, which had terrible coverage. ...

It actually had and has good coverage, the hole at your wife's workplace
notwithstanding.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:55:45 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> It's almost a certainty that the whole thing is fictional. The problem
>>>> is that he makes up so much stuff that you never know when he's actually
>>>> telling the truth.
>>> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who
>>> do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>>
>> And there are those that attack the man who claims evidence and comes up empty
>> handed.
>
>Does this mean that Navas is finally going to provide evidence when he
>makes up these fantastic stories?

Been there; done that. And you know it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford