Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Giambi
    Guest
    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:34:40 -0000,
    > [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    > ><[email protected]>:
    > >
    > >>I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    > >> have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    > >> house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45

    users
    > >> per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    > >> per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    > >> According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    > >> spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    > >> 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    > >> spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.

    > >
    > >You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    > >not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    > >51 at:
    > >

    >
    >"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessC

    omm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"
    > >
    > >I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    > >you can go directly there:
    > >"http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"
    > >
    > >Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    > >groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    > >side.

    >
    > Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind,

    as
    > is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."


    Ah the irony.. does that advice apply to your posts too, John? Or just
    everyone else? Pot.. kettle, etc.

    Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the technology-neutral
    voice again? That one cracks me up every time.
    --
    Jason G
    2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too!





    See More: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"




  2. #2
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:50:45
    -0700, "Giambi" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]


    >> Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind, as
    >> is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."

    >
    >Ah the irony.. does that advice apply to your posts too, John? ...


    Indeed it does.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  3. #3
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    Actually the reason I cite the impartial sources rather than
    citing the GSM or CDMA trade association propoganda, as
    John does, is that the trade association material is way too
    biased (on both sides). Problem for the GSM camp is that
    there is no impartial data that favors their position in terms
    of spectral efficiency, as this would not be possible.

    At least with the Deutches Bank study, both the CDMA and
    the GSM trade groups claimed that the study favored the
    other side and that their own numbers showed that they
    each were better. That make me feel much more confident
    that the Deutches Bank study was on target.

    > Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the
    > technology-neutral voice again? That one cracks me up
    > every time.


    The Usenet Voice of GSM claimed that he was impartial?
    ROTFLLMAO.

    Personally I'd be quite happy if the whole world had
    settled on GSM, but of course there are technical reasons
    that are leading to the dominance of CDMA in one form
    or another. If you want true 3G and enough spectrum for
    voice, there is no alternative at this time.

    Steve

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



  4. #4
    Giambi
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "Steven Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > Oh, and could you do that bit where you claim to be the
    > > technology-neutral voice again? That one cracks me up
    > > every time.

    >
    > The Usenet Voice of GSM claimed that he was impartial?
    > ROTFLLMAO.


    Yeah.. here's the link (from this very thread no less!):
    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...hoon.sonic.net

    Since you also know John and his posting history, you know yourself why that
    claim is so entertaining. And I never thought he'd say something better than
    the "if the phone doesn't work there, then the cellco has decided it's a
    place meant for peace and quiet anyways" logic I once saw him float:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...hoon.sonic.net
    --
    Jason G
    2002: Yanks - $126M = 103 wins, A's - $40M = 103 wins too!





  5. #5
    Jim-G
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
    Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
    the worst in the country.






  6. #6
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "Jim-G" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <0Ac%[email protected]>:
    > Gee fellas, if you want to see POOR cell coverage of any type... Just go to
    > Western Montana. No doubt (due to terrain and few installations) some of
    > the worst in the country.


    Gotta laugh when I look at the Sprint PCS map
    for Montana. They have more alleged coverage
    than even the FCC shows on AMPS A&B maps, yet
    they have none of their own native coverage.
    At least the GSM maps are not making claims like
    that!.

    You can see all the maps at:

    "http://www.mountainwireless.com/maps.htm"

    The FCC maps are PDF's from their web site.
    "http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-B.pdf"

    "http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/data/AreaBoundaries-A.pdf"

    Wouldn't want to be out in Montana without
    AMPS! Of course if I go to Montana I don't want to
    be bothered with a phone, so I guess it would be
    okay to bring a GSM phone (or not, no difference).
    For kicks, I should go to the Cingular or AT&T kiosk
    and tell them that I often go to Montana and ask if
    my phone will work there.

    BTW, see "http://www.mountainwireless.com/cellmt.htm"
    for information about Montana carriers and coverage.

    You can see a detailed Montana map for Verizon at:
    "http://www.mountainwireless.com/vzmtmap.htm"

    I've added a section to my web sites for the best
    non-responses by salespeople (and shills) to
    questions.

    Go to: "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm"
    and scroll down to: "Salesperson's Non-Answers to
    Customer's Questions"

    If you have any more gems like these, please send
    them to me.

    Steve

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



  7. #7
    Jim-G
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    Steven....gotta tell you that the mountainwireless site doesn't include
    Missoula and the write up for Blackfoot telephone coverage is way toooo
    generous. I had a lot of trouble with getting adequate analog service in
    the city of Missoula let alone around the valley. Of course Blackfoot
    offers pcs but not for Sprintpcs. Sprint admits no pcs coverage at all in
    Montana when we got there.

    The reality check from the Idaho line north to Butte had no coverage of any
    type on I-15 and the analog only ran about 40 miles west on I-90 before
    dieing out until you got inside the Missoula city limits. Just no signal at
    all.

    I was surprised 'cause I used to own a radio station there and had 2-way
    coverage with my mobile for 120 miles around and cell was just plain non
    existant.






  8. #8
    CCCC1 1CCCC
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    Hope so..... hmmm what would a vealot say about this? bet vzn is
    running scared at this news.....

    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/31758.html>
    >
    > When Nokia repeated its prediction that the global GSM standard could
    > grab half of the US cellphone market, we were skeptical. Thanks to
    > adoption by Verizon and SprintPCS networks, CDMA phones grabbed a
    > seemingly impregnable lead in the United States. But the latest
    > prediction from ABI Research suggests that the GSM family of
    > standards, which includes GPRS, could overtake CDMA in a couple of
    > years.
    >
    > ABI pegs this year's numbers as 73 million CDMA handsets , or a 44
    > per cent share, versus 58 million, or a 35 per cent share. The latter
    > is a dramatic increase from 11 per cent last year, thanks to AT&T
    > Wireless moving from TDMA to GSM/GPRS.
    >
    > According to the analyst company, GSM will draw level next year, 45
    > to 44 per cent, and nudge ahead in 2005. The share of others, which
    > includes Nextel's iDEN will fall to 8 per cent. For the rest of the
    > period for which ABI has made forecasts, GSM and CDMA technologies
    > duke it out with scarcely a per centage point of difference between
    > them.
    >
    > [MORE]
    >
    > Previously:
    >
    > "GSM heads for 50pc of US phones"
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/30831.html>
    >
    > While the battle to set Iraq's mobile phone standard may be over,
    > Nokia thinks that GSM can grab 50 per cent of the market back in the
    > Homeland. And analysts seem to agree it's far from impossible. You
    > might be as skeptical as we are, but the global GSM standard and its
    > variants are indisputably on the rise in the United States.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > The others have been nibbling at each other's market share without
    > dramatic shifts in power between the camps. The new GSM player
    > T-Mobile has gained at the expense of old Cingular, and Verizon has
    > gained at the expense of Sprint PCS. AT&T is making strides
    > converting its TDMA network to GSM/GPRS, and the market share of the
    > GSM players combined (38 per cent) is larger than the two CDMA
    > flagbearers at 34 per cent.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > However, come the churn, one factor will play into the GSM operators
    > favor - if they're shrewd enough to realize it. The SIM card model
    > already allows you to take your phone number and address book with
    > you and use it in another handset, while CDMA handsets are closed.
    > And number portability allows you to change the network entirely.
    > This puts more pressure on the carriers to offer more attractive
    > handsets (which the model was designed to do, as much as it was
    > intended to increase competition between network operators). And
    > competing on features and style plays into the GSM operators hands,
    > as the coolest kit and the widest variety of models have always come
    > from the GSM boys, serving a far larger global market.
    >
    > [MORE]
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
    > CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>


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



  9. #9
    Steven Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    [email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:

    >I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    > have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    > house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    > per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    > per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    > According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    > spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    > 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    > spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.


    You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    51 at:

    "http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessComm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"

    I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    you can go directly there:
    "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"

    Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    side.

    TD-SCDMA may be a good technology to work around the
    spectral efficiency issues of GSM, but as you stated, it will
    not be as good as pure CDMA.


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



  10. #10
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:34:40 -0000,
    [email protected] (Steven Scharf) wrote:

    >[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in article
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>I think pure CDMA can handle quite a bit more traffic since you only
    >> have to give up voice quality to add another subscriber until the whole
    >> house of cards falls. Under the best case, CDMA can handle about 45 users
    >> per cell per Mhz. Under the worst case, CDMA can handle about 12 users
    >> per cell per Mhz. GSM can handle about 6-7 users per cell per Mhz.
    >> According to the documentation, TD-SCDMA is about 3 to 5 times more
    >> spectrally efficient than GSM. So that puts its range around 18-21 to
    >> 30-35 users per cell per Mhz. As you can see, it is not quite as
    >> spectrally efficient as pure CDMA, but much better than GSM.

    >
    >You can see the spectral efficency numbers (impartial,
    >not from the GSM or CDMA trade associations), on page
    >51 at:
    >
    >"http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~paulette/courses/Spring03_HW/IS290_WirelessComm/2_Riseofthe3GEmpire.pdf"
    >
    >I have a table with this data in the appendix of my sites,
    >you can go directly there:
    >"http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/appendix.htm"
    >
    >Be wary of any "studies" from the CDMA or 3G trade
    >groups, or from equipment manufacturers on either
    >side.


    Be equally wary of material from interested parties with as axe to grind, as
    is the case here, which is anything but "impartial."

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  11. #11
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "Michael Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:b6b%[email protected]

    >>Thus, here
    > > in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device,

    >
    >Another classic from John. Who the heck was talking about an "emergency
    >device?" Another example of you twisting the subject around to avoid the
    >issue at hand.


    Exactly. No one ever claimed that it was wise to _rely_
    absolutely on a wireless phone for emergencies. But it's
    just common sense to choose a service with as much
    coverage as possible so in the event of an emergency you've
    got better odds of being able to summon assistance. I've
    used my phone on AMPS several times to summon help for
    others or to alert the authorities of erratic drivers or
    road problems. Not everyone is interested in becoming an
    amateur radio operator.

    I'd love to see the training materials for the carriers
    that provide lousy coverage. This thread inspired me to
    add a section to my web site with typical non-answers to
    questions. Send me some good ones and I'll add them.

    You can go directly to this sub-page at:

    "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm" and
    scroll down to "Salesperson's Non-Answers to Customer's
    Questions"






  12. #12
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    I like the site, it tells it like it is!...good post.

    --
    Mark KS4VT


    "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <J0O%[email protected]>:
    > "Michael Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:b6b%[email protected]
    >
    > >>Thus, here
    > > > in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device,

    > >
    > >Another classic from John. Who the heck was talking about an "emergency
    > >device?" Another example of you twisting the subject around to avoid the
    > >issue at hand.

    >
    > Exactly. No one ever claimed that it was wise to _rely_
    > absolutely on a wireless phone for emergencies. But it's
    > just common sense to choose a service with as much
    > coverage as possible so in the event of an emergency you've
    > got better odds of being able to summon assistance. I've
    > used my phone on AMPS several times to summon help for
    > others or to alert the authorities of erratic drivers or
    > road problems. Not everyone is interested in becoming an
    > amateur radio operator.
    >
    > I'd love to see the training materials for the carriers
    > that provide lousy coverage. This thread inspired me to
    > add a section to my web site with typical non-answers to
    > questions. Send me some good ones and I'll add them.
    >
    > You can go directly to this sub-page at:
    >
    > "http://nordicgroup.us/ssub/fraud.htm" and
    > scroll down to "Salesperson's Non-Answers to Customer's
    > Questions"
    >
    >
    >


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



  13. #13
    Steven M. Scharf
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    "Giambi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Yeah.. here's the link (from this very thread no less!):
    >

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&oe
    =UTF-8&selm=aSXSa.3931%24dk4.184142%40typhoon.sonic.net
    >
    > Since you also know John and his posting history, you know yourself why

    that
    > claim is so entertaining.


    Indeed I do.

    > And I never thought he'd say something better than
    > the "if the phone doesn't work there, then the cellco has decided it's a
    > place meant for peace and quiet anyways" logic I once saw him float:
    >

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...r=&ie=UTF-8&oe
    =UTF-8&selm=joH2a.66001%24Ik.2775860%40typhoon.sonic.net

    I did see that gem. Funny thing is, I agree with half of it. There are
    places that
    I don't want my phone to ring. But I want to be the one that decides for
    this
    to happen by turning it off. And even if it's off, if there is a situation
    that requires
    it to work so I can make a call, and there is coverage of some sort, I want
    to be
    able to simply turn it on. But as a rationalization of why it's okay to
    select a carrier
    with poor coverage, it remains a classic.

    My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often use,
    and
    John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage" argument.
    This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
    coverage
    and ones with < 100% coverage. Since all carriers fall into the latter
    category,
    ipso facto, they all are equal. Since you can't depend on either AMPS or GSM
    to provide a signal no matter where you are, you may as well just choose
    GSM.
    The fact that AMPS provides magnitudes more geographic coverage is
    irrelevant
    to these people, as is the fact that TDMA and CDMA provide far more digital
    coverage.





  14. #14
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <BS6%[email protected]> on Fri, 15 Aug
    2003 15:20:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often use,
    >and
    >John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage" argument.
    >This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
    >coverage
    >and ones with < 100% coverage. ...


    No, that "no carrier provides 100% coverage" simply means that there will
    *always* be places where your cell phone won't work, no matter what the
    technology (AMPS included) and no matter what the carrier (your buddy Verizon
    included, notwithstanding misleading "Can you hear me now? ads). Thus, here
    in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device, simply
    because there are too many places where there isn't coverage (other than
    perhaps in metro areas, although there are holes even in metro areas) -- you
    may be able to call for help, but then again you may not. Different areas
    have coverage by different carriers, and no one carrier works best in all
    areas -- even if a given carrier has more coverage overall, that won't matter
    if try to use that carrier in an area without coverage. The bottom line is
    that cell phones are a convenience, not something you can depend on. If you
    are truly concerned about being able to get help in an emergency, then you
    need something better than a cell phone (e.g., satellite phone, personal
    EPIRB*, SSB, even VHF).

    * <http://www.acrelectronics.com/PLB/palmhand.htm>

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  15. #15
    Michael Lynch
    Guest

    Re: "GSM to overtake CDMA in USA"


    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:Lg8%[email protected]
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <BS6%[email protected]> on Fri, 15 Aug
    > 2003 15:20:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >My other favorite, which the salespeople of the poorer carriers often

    use,
    > >and
    > >John has used as well, is the "no carrier provides 100% coverage"

    argument.
    > >This is an attempt to divide the carriers into two camps, ones with 100%
    > >coverage
    > >and ones with < 100% coverage. ...

    >
    > No, that "no carrier provides 100% coverage" simply means that there will
    > *always* be places where your cell phone won't work, no matter what the
    > technology (AMPS included) and no matter what the carrier (your buddy

    Verizon
    > included, notwithstanding misleading "Can you hear me now? ads). Thus,

    here
    > in the USA a cell phone isn't a terribly good *emergency* device,


    Another classic from John. Who the heck was talking about an "emergency
    device?" Another example of you twisting the subject around to avoid the
    issue at hand.


    --
    Mike





  • Similar Threads

    1. ATT
    2. Nokia
    3. alt.cellular.verizon
    4. alt.cellular.verizon
    5. alt.cellular.verizon



  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast