GSM 850 or 900?

In article <[email protected]>, DaveC wrote:
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)

850 is the old TDMA A&T Wireless network. Sold to some one (Cingular)?
AFIK covers almost all of the U.S.

900 is the standard for most of the world outside of the US and Canada.
Except for these and two exceptions (I think Brazil and an eastern
European country) every other country that has a GSM network has a
900 mHz one, usually the older and more expensive.

1800 is the alternate band for 900 mHz. Usually the newer, cheaper
GSM networks are here, but coverage is "spotty" (less range
than 900 mHz) in some places.

Some companies have both 900 and 1800 GSM networks, for example, Orange
Israel, but their 1800 network does not have the coverage of their
900 network.

1900 was the PCS (personal communication services) band in the U.S.
Some operators were TDMA, some were GSM, there were a few
TDMA and analog networks. (used for modems). GSM covers
about 90% of the population, but you may find it does not work
in your area.

A friend who used to live in Baltimore had 1900mHz GSM, and it did not
work at his home (inside and outside).


Asia has various non compatible GSM networks, e.g. Japan and Korea,
other countries, have GSM 900/1800.

Motorola has a nice triband (900/1800/1900) phone, the C380, which my wife
has. I've seen it for sale on the internet from a U.S. dealer for less
than $110.

Another option is to get an 850/1900 phone for the U.S. and buy a cheap
900/1800 for the rest of the world.

What ever you get, you will need a 230 volt charger and a set of plugs.
The most common is two thin round pins, which is now the E.U. standard
(but lots of places still have the old ones). Unless you are making a
quick airport tour, you can generaly buy an adaptor when you get there
at any hardware store and often in a supermarket.

Another possibility is to get a light bulb adaptor. One the screws into
a table lamp and gives you an outlet. While many places have "oddball"
light bulbs, almost everywhere has gone to the same size and thread as
the U.S.

I have a device that goes into a lamp socket and provides my with
another lamp socket on top and two E.U. type sockets on the sides.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

---

› See More: GSM 850 or 900?

I am personally not buying a new GSM phone that does not have GSM 850. In
rural america, this is going to be important.

In about 6 months, I suspect that you won't see any more tri-band GSM
phones. Everything will be quad band. In the mean time, both the Motorola
V188 and V330 are quad band and are quite inexpensive if you buy them from
T-Mobile. (Note: I didn't like the V330; I'm holding out for Nokia's new
quad band phone coming out at the end of the year).

Mike Schumann

"DaveC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must
> decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good
> secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> [email protected]
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

In article <[email protected]>, Joseph wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Geoffrey
> S. Mendelson) wrote:

> Do realise though that even though the screw threads may be the same
> the bulbs are definitely not compatible. A bulb that's meant for 120V
> when inserted into a 230V socket will do a loud "poof" if you apply
> current to it. A 230V bulb put into a 120V socket will work but
> weakly at half the strength were it used in a socket with proper
> voltage.

Of course, :-)

My point was not to bring a light bulb, I had assumed that he would unscrew
the bulb, insert the adaptor and put the original bulb back in. The idea
was to then use the socket to plug in his charger. That way he only needed
one adaptor.

A long time ago (about 20 years), I stayed in a hotel in Paris that had
absolutely NO outlets. It had lamps and a built in hair dryer.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.

DaveC wrote:
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So, must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900 frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900". Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,

Here in Australia we have 900 and 1800 GSM. You will normally only find
1800 GSM in city areas and the way the networks are configured
apparently you must first log in at 900 GSM before you will be handed to
1800 GSM if the network so chooses.



--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

In message <[email protected]> DaveC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's why it's called a "signature" (c:
>--
>Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
>ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.

Which is fine, except that your question could have been answered on
Google. I know, because I did the research myself, and ultimately, it's
a personal decision.

You need to decide what is more important, coverage in the US or
coverage overseas, and make your phone purchases appropriately.

Alternatively, there ARE some quad-mode phones that aren't too hideously
priced.

--
The cigarette does the smoking, you're just the sucker.

"Joseph" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> well. If you're not going to opt for a quad band phone you'll have to
> make the decision which is more imporant for you to have 850/1800/1900
> or 900/1800/1900.

IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
service to consider that a vaible option.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:33:08 -0700, DaveC <[email protected]> wrote:

>EGSM covers a little wider spectrum than GSM, right? I presume that EGSM 900
>phones and GSM 900 phones are compatible with both types of services (EGSM
>and GSM). Is this right?
EGSM tacks 10Mhz worth of channels (50) onto the system. an EGSM phone
will work just fine with a GSM system, a GSM phone in theory will
work on an EGSM system provided the system is not near capacity. I.E.
if on a handoff, the only channels available in the next cells are in
the EGSM part of the spectrum, the call will be dropped.

Consequently most EGSM 900 operators try to keep the BTS in the basic
GSM part of the band. However I am not aware of any phones made in the
past 5 years that don't support EGSM.
>
>Thanks,

DaveC wrote:
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>
>>IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get a
>>850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
>>purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
>>travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
>>service to consider that a vaible option.
>
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?

It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
Global System for Mobiles!



--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

DaveC <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without service?

The only phone I've used in the US was a 900/1800/1900, so I can't really
compare, but...

With a Cingular SIM card, I could not get a signal in many parts of
Georgetown, DC (a very densely-populated area which I am sure has a lot of
cell phone users), even standing outdoors on the sidewalk.

Also had trouble inside buildings in Phoenix sometimes.

My phone has 8 bars for signal quality; it was rare anywhere in the US
outside of Los Angeles that I had all 8 bars showing - usually 3 or 4 (but
the phone worked in those cases). By contrast, in Asia and Europe, even in
small Indonesian towns and the like, it is rare that I do NOT have all 8
bars showing.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

"DaveC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
service?

Yes, this is a big problem, today; but they only came out with GSM-850 a
couple of years ago. My solution has always been to have two phones. My wife
has an account with an old-line cellular company that has been using TDMA
and we have always had coverage everywhere in the US & Canada with her
phone. I've also had a TDMA prepaid that gave me the coverage GSM 1900
didn't. What's more, is that my US GSM carrier is T-Mobile, which has always
been only 1900 MHz and only recently got some 850 MHz roaming agreements.
This is sort of like being an Orange customer in UK or Metror customer in
Ireland. Since GSM 1900 was the first, and for many years, only form of GSM,
the companies that employed it tried to build continuous coverage over those
areas they covered.

Contrast this with the countries which either have no GSM-1800 or only use
it for spot augmentation of GSM-900 or only have GSM-1800 in cities. In the
Netherlands it doesn't matter; the 900 and 1800 coverage maps are the same
but in Norway it could be a big deal and in most of Africa you will be flat
out of luck without 900.

Yes, I am looking for a good deal on an unlocked Quad-band phone (with BT,
Java & EDGE, if you please) but I certainly wouldn't take an 850/1800/1900
phone as a substitute.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
> Global System for Mobiles!

This debate got off the boat with Noah.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 850 is the old TDMA A&T Wireless network. Sold to some one (Cingular)?
> AFIK covers almost all of the U.S.

Actually the original gaggle of companies that formed Cingular had quite a
bit of 850 MHz cellular coverage. BellSouth DCS and PacBell were GSM-1900.
AFAIR, the rest were TDMA 850 & 1900. (e.g BellSouth everywhere but the
Carolinas). ATTWS just added more of each to the mix.

> 1900 was the PCS (personal communication services) band in the U.S.
> Some operators were TDMA, some were GSM, there were a few
> TDMA and analog networks. (used for modems). GSM covers
> about 90% of the population, but you may find it does not work
> in your area.

I believe that there was never any analog on 1900 MHz. The FCC required that
the service be digital-only. Analog was only at 850 MHz.

> Asia has various non compatible GSM networks, e.g. Japan and Korea,
> other countries, have GSM 900/1800.

Since I am confused by this statement, I will assume others might be too.
Japan and South Korea have no GSM. They do have WCDMA-2100, which one might
be able to roam, given a compatible WCDMA-2100 phone. Japan's WCDMA networks
are well developed. Apparently, S. Korea's are only in operation around
Seoul and have only recently been opened to roaming. If this interests you
take a look at some of the GSM 900/1800/1900+WCDMA-2100 phones for sale on
TigerDirect.com

> Another option is to get an 850/1900 phone for the U.S. and buy a cheap
> 900/1800 for the rest of the world.

Yes, but in the US it's as cheap and easy to buy an unlocked tri-band, so
you won't have to carry two phones (one to the airport and the other for the
rest of the trip.)

> What ever you get, you will need a 230 volt charger and a set of plugs.
> The most common is two thin round pins, which is now the E.U. standard
> (but lots of places still have the old ones). Unless you are making a
> quick airport tour, you can generaly buy an adaptor when you get there
> at any hardware store and often in a supermarket.

But just keep your eyes open and you will probably be able to pick up an
adapter kit at a cut-rate some place like Tuesday Morning or Big Lotts.
Also, even if your charger has the standard European two round pins, carry a
round-pin adapter. The reason is that in some places you may find that all
the plugs are recessed into round holes. Your charger may, or may not, fit
into the recess (most newer ones do) and you may need a way to extend its
reach.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"DaveC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seems quad-band GSM phones are out of my reach, financially. So,
> must decide
> between offerings of tri-band phones.
>
> So, it's a phone with either 850/1800/1900 or 900/1800/1900
> frequencies.
>
> I'm mostly going to be using the phone in USA, but will be
> traveling in
> Europe and/or Asia.
>
> What are the likely scenarios regarding coverage & lack of
> coverage with
> these two phone choices, 'round the world? Which would you choose?
>
> I'm thinking that it's not as simple as "if you want best USA
> coverage,
> choose 850; if you want best non-domestic coverage, choose 900".
> Does USA
> have good secondary coverage with 1800? Does Europe/Asia have good
> secondary
> coverage with 1900? (I *think* I got those frequencies right and
> which are
> used where, but maybe I mixed them up...)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> [email protected]
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>

The NEC 525 phone is quad-band. Look for them on eBay for under
$100.00. Most are designed for the former ATTWS but can be unlocked
with software.

--
Earl F. Parrish

Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>It is a real shame the US is the odd one out with 850. So much for
>>Global System for Mobiles!
>
>
> This debate got off the boat with Noah.

I realise it is an old debate.

The fact remains that 850 GSM is an oddball allocation that only works
in the US and as such has created a problem for worldwide roaming,
whether you are a visitor to the US or taking a US phone overseas.

Whatever the cause or reason it is still a shame.



--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452
VoIP http://www.TALKonIP.com.au/
Domain Hosting http://www.GizNet.com/

Northern Wisc and MN, you need 850 GSM if you are a T-Mobile Customer and
want to roam on Dobson. If you don't have 850 GSM, you are out of luck.
This covers a pretty big area.

Mike Schumann

"DaveC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thus spake Donald Newcomb:
>
>> IMHO, I would not pay 5c extra for a 850/1800/1900 phone. Rather, I'd get
>> a
>> 850/1900 phone for use at home and take that 5c and apply it toward the
>> purchase of a good phone with 900 & 1800. Then swap out the SIM when I
>> travel. I've been in too may places overseas where there was no 1800 MHz
>> service to consider that a vaible option.
>
> Your advice rings of that from someone well travelled with wisdom to
> impart.
> I'll take it to heart.
>
> But I have to ask the inverse: have you ever been somewhere in the US
> where
> you had to get by with a 900/1800/1900 phone and were stuck without
> service?
> --
> Please, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't
> ask a question here if I hadn't done that already.
>
> DaveC
> [email protected]
> This is an invalid return address
> Please reply in the news group
>