GSM vs TDMA ?

Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
for an understanding of the basic technology.

Thanks,

---

› See More: GSM vs TDMA ?

Jimmy wrote:
>
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,

Only an engineer would understand the highly technical difference in
protocols. The real answer is that the two are not compatible. So, if
you have an FM-only radio, and you want to listen to an AM station,
you're out of luck. Same for GSM versus TDMA. They both do the same
thing, but they do it differently.

>Only an engineer would understand the highly technical difference in
>protocols.

Basically true.

>They both do the same
>thing, but they do it differently.

Even more confusing is that they are both a variation of TDMA (Time Division
Multiple Access).

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

What does GSM mean in a cell phone?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question537.htm

Cellular Access Technologies: TDMA
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone13.htm

How Cell Phones Work
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm


--
Aloke
----
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

"Jimmy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,
>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:26:47 GMT, Jimmy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
>technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
>light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
>about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
>for an understanding of the basic technology.

When in doubt google it!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

Good replies Jimmy.

The other side of the coin, traditionally TDMA was 800mhz, and GSM was
1900mhz. In practice, 800mhz has been better for building penetration. So
ATTWS Digital at 800 mhz had a following that wanted the better service. Me
too. Verizon uses 800 mhz CDMA and Sprint uses 1900mhz cdma, and the result
was similar.

4 years ago, I dropped the hi bands (Sprint, Cingular) and put all accounts
on TDMA or CDMA low band (ATTWS digital and Verizon). Now days ATTSW TDMA
is losing allocation and service is declining.

I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.



"Jimmy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,
>

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:26:12 -0700, "Alesandra"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The other side of the coin, traditionally TDMA was 800mhz, and GSM was
>1900mhz. In practice, 800mhz has been better for building penetration. So
>ATTWS Digital at 800 mhz had a following that wanted the better service. Me
>too. Verizon uses 800 mhz CDMA and Sprint uses 1900mhz cdma, and the result
>was similar.

But ATTWS doesn't own "cellular" 800 Mhz in all markets. In some
markets they are relegated to use "PCS" 1900 only. Just as at present
cingular is limited to 1900 PCS only in CA/NV/NC & SC.

>I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
>degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
>you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.

While it is generally true that 800 Mhz "cellular" penetrates
buildings better what's more important and what can absolutely negate
this advantage of 800 Mhz is where the nearest base station is
located. A strong 1900 PCS signal will trump a weak 800 cellular
signal. Even though AT&T Wireless has both 1900 PCS and 800 cellular
where I am the service is inferior to T-Mobile's 1900 PCS service
where I am located. It all depends on several variables including
what obstructions are between the base station as well as how far the
base station is from where you receive signal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:55:41 GMT, "Aloke Prasad"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What does GSM mean in a cell phone?
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question537.htm
>
>Cellular Access Technologies: TDMA
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone13.htm
>
>How Cell Phones Work
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm


Thanks. Very informative.

Alesandra wrote:
>
> I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
> degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
> you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.
>

I'll back you up here. One of the common misunderstanding that I see
developing in the market is the idea that "higher frequencies are
better" when the exact opposite is true. Just today I saw an
advertisement for a "New 5.2gig" cordless phone. The general rule is
that the higher the frequency the more attenuation you get going through
walls and other objects. I think the reason 1900 networks outperform 850
is that they compensate for the attenuation by having closer towers.
Another thing to keep in mind is the RF exposure. I know people debate
the hole cancer from cell phone thing, but consider this. The resonance
frequency of water is in the K-band or 24ghz and the closer you get that
frequency the more it effects flesh. Now 1900mhz and 24ghz(24000mhz)
might seem like a they are quite far from eachother, but consider that
the common household microwave heats food using 2.6ghz 2600mhz. 2600 and
1900 aren't all that far apart. Now I'm not saying that there are proven
health risks, I'm just showing you the facts. I hopes this help and I'm
sticking to my 850mhz phone for now.

73's de wo5m

>The other side of the coin, traditionally TDMA was 800mhz, and GSM was
>1900mhz.

Don't spout crap that you obviously know nothing about. This is NOT the case at
all.

The TDMA carriers overlaid the GSM on whatever they had lisences for - 800 or
1900. The only instance where they are strictly 1900 is T-Mobile as they only
have PCS lisences.

Your EE degree failed you in this instance.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

Dear John

Never mind.

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

>> Don't spout crap that you obviously know nothing about.

.... the term personality impaired comes to mind.

"Alesandra" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dear John
>
> Never mind.
>
> "John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Don't spout crap that you obviously know nothing about.
>
>

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:25:00 GMT, Randy McLean <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Now 1900mhz and 24ghz(24000mhz)
>might seem like a they are quite far from eachother

Yes, of course 1900 Mhz and 24000 Mhz *are* quite far from each other!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply