Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Karen
    Guest
    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




  2. #2
    Diamond Dave
    Guest

    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




  3. #3
    Dean M
    Guest

    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.





  4. #4
    John R. Copeland
    Guest

    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
    >




  5. #5
    Thomas M. Goethe
    Guest

    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





  6. #6
    Michael Notforyou
    Guest

    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*





  7. #7
    N9WOS
    Guest

    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.





  8. #8
    Joseph
    Guest

    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



  9. #9
    Jesse McGrew
    Guest

    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



  10. #10
    eXistenZ32
    Guest

    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
    | -__||__ || __|
    |_____||______||______|



  11. #11
    N9WOS
    Guest

    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.





  12. #12
    Thomas M. Goethe
    Guest

    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





  13. #13
    Thomas M. Goethe
    Guest

    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





  14. #14
    Thomas M. Goethe
    Guest

    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





  15. #15
    Jesse McGrew
    Guest

    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

    1. RingTones
    2. alt.cellular.verizon



  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast