Results 1 to 15 of 20
- 02-27-2004, 06:39 PM #1KarenGuest
So, I have been using T-Mobile since 1999 when it was Omnipoint here in
Upstate New York. I use the service primarily for overseas travel and have
been using Verizon for service in the States. I had found that GSM service
outside of the States is vastly superior to what we have here in the US and
my Ericsson T39m phone is orders of magnitude better than anything I can get
from Verizon.
I came back last week from a three week trip through Europe and decided to
keep using T-Mobile with my T39m phone here in the States instead of going
back to my Verizon service. Even thought the coverage is not as good, it is
good enough and the service is vastly better - call quality, sound quality,
overall reliability is so much better than Verizon. I am looking forward to
T-Mobile continuing to build out coverage.
› See More: Revelation
- 02-27-2004, 07:07 PM #2Diamond DaveGuest
Re: Revelation
GSM is known to have a vastly better voice quality. However, CDMA is
king as far as coverage is concerened.
Until AT&T/Cingular/T-Mobile build out their systems to have the same
footprint and signal quality of Verizon, I'll stick with VZW for the
time being.
Dave
- 02-27-2004, 08:44 PM #3Dean MGuest
Re: Revelation
OK, so you're saying that voice quality is more important to you than coverage.
Cool. I've never used GSM, but have heard great things about cellphone service
in Europe.
I had two Ericsson CDMA phones, bought them because I loved their looks and user
interface. Took 'em both back, they were hardly more than toys. Early on, Nokia
and Ericsson didn't quite seem to get the hang of CDMA, though Nokia's TDMA
phones were always good.
Dean
________________________________________
Karen wrote:
> So, I have been using T-Mobile since 1999 when it was Omnipoint here in
> Upstate New York. I use the service primarily for overseas travel and have
> been using Verizon for service in the States. I had found that GSM service
> outside of the States is vastly superior to what we have here in the US and
> my Ericsson T39m phone is orders of magnitude better than anything I can get
> from Verizon.
>
> I came back last week from a three week trip through Europe and decided to
> keep using T-Mobile with my T39m phone here in the States instead of going
> back to my Verizon service. Even thought the coverage is not as good, it is
> good enough and the service is vastly better - call quality, sound quality,
> overall reliability is so much better than Verizon. I am looking forward to
> T-Mobile continuing to build out coverage.
- 02-27-2004, 09:08 PM #4John R. CopelandGuest
Re: Revelation
I've never used GSM, either, but my daughter used VoiceStream for a =
while.
I hated the hard-handoffs as she'd drive from one cell into another.
---JRC---
"Dean M" <"dean173"@yahoo.com(change to aol)> wrote in message =
news:zgT%[email protected]...
> OK, so you're saying that voice quality is more important to you than =
coverage.
>=20
> Cool. I've never used GSM, but have heard great things about cellphone =
service
> in Europe.
>=20
> I had two Ericsson CDMA phones, bought them because I loved their =
looks and user
> interface. Took 'em both back, they were hardly more than toys. Early =
on, Nokia
> and Ericsson didn't quite seem to get the hang of CDMA, though Nokia's =
TDMA
> phones were always good.
>=20
> Dean
>
- 02-27-2004, 09:29 PM #5Thomas M. GoetheGuest
Re: Revelation
"Diamond Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> GSM is known to have a vastly better voice quality. However, CDMA is
> king as far as coverage is concerened.
>
> Until AT&T/Cingular/T-Mobile build out their systems to have the same
> footprint and signal quality of Verizon, I'll stick with VZW for the
> time being.
If they would just add analog to those flashy GSM phones so there would
be some backup to GSM, they could certainly pull in folks like me.
--
Thomas M. Goethe
- 02-27-2004, 10:14 PM #6Michael NotforyouGuest
Re: Revelation
"Dean M" <"dean173"@yahoo.com(change to aol)> wrote in message
news:zgT%[email protected]...
> OK, so you're saying that voice quality is more important to you than
coverage.
>
I have found that most of the time, I have better quality with my CDMA phone
than I ever had with my GSM phone, especially the 1xRTT CDMA phones. Most
people I call from my LG VX4400B can't tell that it's a cell over a
landline.
It's a matter of personal opinion. I say try both GSM and CDMA and choose
which voice quality you like better. When SPCS deploys EV-DV in 2005/2006,
CDMA voice quality should be leaps and bounds above GSM.
*Michael Notforyou*
- 02-27-2004, 10:31 PM #7N9WOSGuest
Re: Revelation
> I have found that most of the time, I have better quality with my CDMA
phone
> than I ever had with my GSM phone, especially the 1xRTT CDMA phones. Most
> people I call from my LG VX4400B can't tell that it's a cell over a
> landline.
>
> It's a matter of personal opinion. I say try both GSM and CDMA and choose
> which voice quality you like better. When SPCS deploys EV-DV in 2005/2006,
> CDMA voice quality should be leaps and bounds above GSM.
Ok..... I may be missing something........ but.....
On a digital system, what does the transport,
have anything to do with voice quality?
This kinda reminds me of some people arguing over
the affect a different type of cable would have on a sound link.
(ie)Normal copper, or oxi free copper.
And it was a digital sound link.
The answer is NONE.
It's a digital signal, it doesn't care about high fi!!!!
You have a solid signal, or you don't.
The new codecs in the new phone may make a difference,
but the new transport will not.
- 02-28-2004, 12:13 AM #8JosephGuest
Re: Revelation
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:29:16 -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Diamond Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> GSM is known to have a vastly better voice quality. However, CDMA is
>> king as far as coverage is concerened.
>>
>> Until AT&T/Cingular/T-Mobile build out their systems to have the same
>> footprint and signal quality of Verizon, I'll stick with VZW for the
>> time being.
>
> If they would just add analog to those flashy GSM phones so there would
>be some backup to GSM, they could certainly pull in folks like me.
It ain't gonna happen. The closest it's going to get is GAIT. Most
people think the choices of GAIT that cingular offers is pitiful.
Nokia and Ericsson are the only companies at present that offer a
multi-mode GSM/TDMA/AMPS phones. It's really highly unlikely that
newer flashier GAIT phones will be offered. T-Mobile discontinued any
support for analog AMPS on their network and cingular's native GSM
networks you never had any AMPS on their network (CA/NV/NC/SC.)
cingular is only using GAIT handsets to transition people from legacy
networks to the new networks. AMPS is dying old technology. If you
want something that has compatibility with old technology you'll get
CDMA from Verizon or TDMA from cingular/AT&T.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
- 02-28-2004, 12:27 AM #9Jesse McGrewGuest
Re: Revelation
N9WOS wrote:
> Ok..... I may be missing something........ but.....
> On a digital system, what does the transport,
> have anything to do with voice quality?
I might be wrong, but as I understand it, CDMA can have poorer voice
quality than GSM because the towers downgrade the codec to 8k to
increase capacity when a lot of people are using it. When there isn't
much load, you can use the higher quality 13k codec.
In other words, you might have worse sound quality than GSM when there's
a lot of load in your area... but if there were that much load on a GSM
tower, you wouldn't be able to make calls at all, because GSM doesn't
have as much capacity (largely because it can't reallocate bandwidth
like that).
Jesse
- 02-28-2004, 07:27 AM #10eXistenZ32Guest
Re: Revelation
On 2004-02-28, Diamond Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> GSM is known to have a vastly better voice quality. However, CDMA is
> king as far as coverage is concerened.
>
> Until AT&T/Cingular/T-Mobile build out their systems to have the same
> footprint and signal quality of Verizon, I'll stick with VZW for the
> time being.
Agreed. I was considering going to TMobile so I could get a SideKick
, but i noticed a lot of the dealers around me (Poughkeepsie NY) dont carry
T-Mobile. i found 3 places that did and called them up, and all 3 said
they dropped their services because the coverage around here blows.
They arent kidding. I got an easyspeak phone just to try out the coverage.
I have coverage in my apartment, and thats it. Not on the main roads, not at work
and surprisingly, NOT in t-mobiles own store in town.
Ridiculous... Im sticking with vzw
--
______ ______
..-----.|__ ||__ | eXistenZ32
| -__||__ || __|
|_____||______||______|
- 02-28-2004, 10:11 AM #11N9WOSGuest
Re: Revelation
"Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> N9WOS wrote:
>
> > Ok..... I may be missing something........ but.....
> > On a digital system, what does the transport,
> > have anything to do with voice quality?
>
> I might be wrong, but as I understand it, CDMA can have poorer voice
> quality than GSM because the towers downgrade the codec to 8k to
> increase capacity when a lot of people are using it. When there isn't
> much load, you can use the higher quality 13k codec.
I have heard lot of people say that CDMA has worse voice
quality than GSM when it in the 13k mode.
And they say that it sounds like *#$# when it is in the 8K mode.
(ie)they can tell the vocal quality difference when the vocorder is in
the two different modes, and they don't like either mode.
> In other words, you might have worse sound quality than GSM when there's
> a lot of load in your area... but if there were that much load on a GSM
> tower, you wouldn't be able to make calls at all, because GSM doesn't
> have as much capacity (largely because it can't reallocate bandwidth
> like that).
But, in the end, how does all the new modes(1xrtt, EV-DV)
help the total bandwidth?
Or has everyone here already been brainwashed by Qualcomm's marketing?
Yes, they have managed to get up to 3+Mbps through one 1.2Mhz channel,
In test conditions.
(ie) In an electrically sterile environment, with six feet of solid copper
shielding,
With no other carriers, or users on within ten miles!
Same as they was clamming 20X capacity over amps for CDMA.
And I have found reference to a few people that was clamming 40X increase.
Real life system throughput will not change with the new modes.
You will still get about 600Kbps through a 1.2Mhz channel.
You may get 1.2Mbps in rural areas, with no other users on channel.
But any more than one user on channel, and the total channel capacity
will quickly drop to 600Kbps and hold there.
It will not cure capacity problems.
The only thing that will cure capacity problems is a denser cell network.
Qualcomm is selling vaporware again.
- 02-28-2004, 11:16 AM #12Thomas M. GoetheGuest
Re: Revelation
"Jesse McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> N9WOS wrote:
>
> > Ok..... I may be missing something........ but.....
> > On a digital system, what does the transport,
> > have anything to do with voice quality?
>
> I might be wrong, but as I understand it, CDMA can have poorer voice
> quality than GSM because the towers downgrade the codec to 8k to
> increase capacity when a lot of people are using it. When there isn't
> much load, you can use the higher quality 13k codec.
>
> In other words, you might have worse sound quality than GSM when there's
> a lot of load in your area... but if there were that much load on a GSM
> tower, you wouldn't be able to make calls at all, because GSM doesn't
> have as much capacity (largely because it can't reallocate bandwidth
> like that).
That's been exactly my experience with GSM vs. CDMA phones. GSM is
always the same (assuming a decent signal), CDMA can be very, very good or
very, very bad in the same locations depending on whether it is drive time
or 3 AM. The best CDMA I get is a bit better than what I got on a T-Mobile
Moto T280, but the worst CDMA is really annoying, especially CDMA phone to
CDMA phone. The consistency of GSM is rather nice, but we will see if that
survives the transition to a CDMA system in the future.
--
Thomas M. Goethe
- 02-28-2004, 11:20 AM #13Thomas M. GoetheGuest
Re: Revelation
"N9WOS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And I have found reference to a few people that was clamming 40X increase.
>
> Real life system throughput will not change with the new modes.
> You will still get about 600Kbps through a 1.2Mhz channel.
> You may get 1.2Mbps in rural areas, with no other users on channel.
> But any more than one user on channel, and the total channel capacity
> will quickly drop to 600Kbps and hold there.
I will be really happy to get a 200k connection without wires and a seat
at Starbucks.
>
> It will not cure capacity problems.
> The only thing that will cure capacity problems is a denser cell network.
A denser cell network will always help, but there is no cure for
capacity problems. We are always going to want more.
>
> Qualcomm is selling vaporware again.
>
Their vaporware has made my life a lot easier, a 50-60 k 1xRTT data
connection is real and welcome. Heck, the 14.4 connection was very real and
welcome compared to trying to squeeze data through AMPS.
--
Thomas M. Goethe
- 02-28-2004, 11:28 AM #14Thomas M. GoetheGuest
Re: Revelation
"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:29:16 -0500, "Thomas M. Goethe"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If they would just add analog to those flashy GSM phones so there would
>be some backup to GSM, they could certainly pull in folks like me.
>
> It ain't gonna happen. The closest it's going to get is GAIT. Most
> people think the choices of GAIT that cingular offers is pitiful.
> Nokia and Ericsson are the only companies at present that offer a
> multi-mode GSM/TDMA/AMPS phones. It's really highly unlikely that
> newer flashier GAIT phones will be offered. T-Mobile discontinued any
> support for analog AMPS on their network and cingular's native GSM
> networks you never had any AMPS on their network (CA/NV/NC/SC.)
> cingular is only using GAIT handsets to transition people from legacy
> networks to the new networks. AMPS is dying old technology. If you
> want something that has compatibility with old technology you'll get
> CDMA from Verizon or TDMA from cingular/AT&T.
I am sure you are right that it won't happen, but we there aren't many,
if any, places where there isn't analog service. There are a lot of places
where you can't get decent GSM (or CDMA or TDMA) service. That will
eventually change, but in the meantime, the GSM carriers won't get me for a
customer. I believe that the FCC has mandated that analog stay up for about
four more years and I will avoid losing that capability as long as it is
available. Sure, analog has no future, but it has a very robust present. If
the GSM folks wanted to attract more subscribers, they would add analog to
their phones. And you are right, the GAIT phones are pretty weak.
--
Thomas M. Goethe
- 02-28-2004, 03:53 PM #15Jesse McGrewGuest
Re: Revelation
N9WOS wrote:
> But, in the end, how does all the new modes(1xrtt, EV-DV)
> help the total bandwidth?
CDMA capacity is limited by interference between devices, and
interference is caused when more than one device transmits at the same
time. If you increase the data rates, each device doesn't have to
transmit as long to send the same amount of data - therefore it causes
less overall interference, and the network can handle more devices at once.
> Real life system throughput will not change with the new modes.
> You will still get about 600Kbps through a 1.2Mhz channel.
"Still"? You mean you're getting 600 kbps now, with 1xRTT? Pass me some
of whatever you're smoking, dude...
Jesse
Similar Threads
- RingTones
- alt.cellular.verizon
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat