> I've received a number of e-mails in the past two weeks complaining about
> worsening TDMA coverage on the AT&T network in Northern California. Does
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> to GSM that TDMA coverage would suffer, but I'm surprised that it's
> happening so soon.
Those of us with "new Generation" GSM phones like the better coverage
we're getting.
I have been on ATTWS TDMA in Los Angeles for several years and have seen no
degradation in service. In my experience their TDMA coverage is better than
that of other networks in this area. Sorry, all ATTWS bashers out there
:o).
George

Signature
To reply by email send to
gweischadle (@) sattel.com
> I've received a number of e-mails in the past two weeks complaining about
> worsening TDMA coverage on the AT&T network in Northern California. Does
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> to GSM that TDMA coverage would suffer, but I'm surprised that it's
> happening so soon.
Steven M. Scharf - 11 Dec 2003 16:43 GMT
> I have been on ATTWS TDMA in Los Angeles for several years and have seen no
> degradation in service. In my experience their TDMA coverage is better than
> that of other networks in this area. Sorry, all ATTWS bashers out there
I'm not bashing them. Up until recently, everyone agreed that AT&T and
Verizon had the best coverage on TDMA and CDMA respectively. It's just
lately, up in Northern California anyway, that there have been a lot more
complaints of TDMA coverage getting worse.
A lot of people won't move to GSM because of the nationwide coverage issues,
and planned on staying with TDMA until the GSM network is built out.
> > I've received a number of e-mails in the past two weeks complaining about
> > worsening TDMA coverage on the AT&T network in Northern California. Does
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> > to GSM that TDMA coverage would suffer, but I'm surprised that it's
> > happening so soon.
Thomas M. Goethe - 11 Dec 2003 17:01 GMT
It seems that the biggest problem is that, other than the GAIT phones,
GSM phones don't have analog backup, so you are really screwed, especially
if you just want to call 911. If the carriers were more responsible, they
would have sold nothing but GAIT phones until the transition was over and
then insisted on analog being available on GSM phones.

Signature
Thomas M. Goethe
> > I have been on ATTWS TDMA in Los Angeles for several years and have seen
> no
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> > > to GSM that TDMA coverage would suffer, but I'm surprised that it's
> > > happening so soon.
Mike - 11 Dec 2003 16:46 GMT
>I have been on ATTWS TDMA in Los Angeles for several years and have seen no
>degradation in service. In my experience their TDMA coverage is better than
>that of other networks in this area. Sorry, all ATTWS bashers out there
>:o).
I'm not an ATTWS basher at all...I even have one of their phones,
though I'm not sure how long I'm hanging onto it (VZW is my main
carrier). But there've been a number of folks noticing the
degradation of TDMA coverage lately. It probably isn't everywhere,
and isn't as bad in some areas as others, but it's definitely
happening.
Mike
Pete - 14 Dec 2003 00:26 GMT
Mike I think your are right about the TDMA service getting worse over the
last four years I have been with them. I tried ATTWS GMS but here in
Southern Calif coverage is pretty grim. I went to another carrier and pay
more but the coverage is excellect. When they get the GMS network completed
I would consider going back but I think it is going to take them a good
while.
> >I have been on ATTWS TDMA in Los Angeles for several years and have seen no
> >degradation in service. In my experience their TDMA coverage is better than
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Mike
> My speculation is that as they deploy 800 Mhz GSM, they are moving to the
> minimum number of 800 Mhz TDMA sites needed to cover an area geographically.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> cells, especially in an area with hills, tall buildings, etc. Anyway, this
> is speculation, but does anyone know for sure what is happening?
Sorry to follow up on my own post, but I got an e-mail that confirms my
speculation above.
'There are physical and licensing issues with trying to get a GSM antenna on
the same tower as a TDMA antenna and if an area has complaints about GSM
being bad (ie SF), switching that tower from TDMA to GSM is the easiest
thing to do.. The range on GSM sites is only 3 miles, while the TDMA range
is 5 miles. The suggestion is to get a GAIT phone or switch to GSM.'
Thanks to an e-mailer for relaying this account of his conversation with
AT&T Wireless. Of course the funniest part of this e-mail was that he said
that the first person he talked to claimed that GSM worked via satellites!
George Weischadle - 12 Dec 2003 03:52 GMT
Actually, it's true - GSM DOES work via satellite! My company was the first
that I know of to implement 13 kbps GSM voice encoding on a satellite link.
We built two-way satellite telecom terminals and sold 'em in Asia,
Australia, Central America and a few in Africa. We chose GSM because its
voice quality is quite good for the relatively low 13 kbps bit rate.
Totally different application from cellular telephones, but the terminals do
work in the international public switched telephone network.
George

Signature
To reply by email send to
gweischadle (@) sattel.com
> > My speculation is that as they deploy 800 Mhz GSM, they are moving to the
> > minimum number of 800 Mhz TDMA sites needed to cover an area
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> AT&T Wireless. Of course the funniest part of this e-mail was that he said
> that the first person he talked to claimed that GSM worked via satellites!
someguy - 13 Dec 2003 04:01 GMT
Whatever some dumbass CSR may have said, AT&T Wireless is not turning
off TDMA to add GSM. The only tradeoff that's happening is that they
are reallocating some 850 MHz spectrum from TDMA to GSM. No sites are
going down. Look... obviously it was a dumb CSR if they said
something about the GSM coming from satellites. I also was told by a
AT&T Wireless salesman that the GSM phone would work on a cruise
because if you weren't in range of a site it would automatically lock
on to a satellite. So I'll grant you that the CSRs are dumb, but AT&T
Wireless is not turning off TDMA sites.
> Sorry to follow up on my own post, but I got an e-mail that confirms my
> speculation above.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> AT&T Wireless. Of course the funniest part of this e-mail was that he said
> that the first person he talked to claimed that GSM worked via satellites!
Steven M. Scharf - 13 Dec 2003 17:26 GMT
> Whatever some dumbass CSR may have said, AT&T Wireless is not turning
> off TDMA to add GSM. The only tradeoff that's happening is that they
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> on to a satellite. So I'll grant you that the CSRs are dumb, but AT&T
> Wireless is not turning off TDMA sites.
I believe that what AT&T said is accurate. There is no other logical
explanation for the deterioration of TDMA coverage.
If I were AT&T, I'd do exactly what they are doing. The sooner they can
migrate customers to GSM the better, and the loss of some TDMA subscribers
that can't deal with GSM coverage issues is a price that they are willing to
pay. They must solve their GSM coverage and penetration issues and 800 Mhz
is the only way to do so.
Thomas M. Goethe - 13 Dec 2003 19:02 GMT
> Whatever some dumbass CSR may have said, AT&T Wireless is not turning
> off TDMA to add GSM. The only tradeoff that's happening is that they
> are reallocating some 850 MHz spectrum from TDMA to GSM.
But if the spectrum is being reallocated to GSM, doesn't that mean there
is less available to TDMA customers? Won't there be the potential problem of
allocating spectrum to that both types of users have enough?

Signature
Thomas M. Goethe
Jack Hamilton - 13 Dec 2003 19:53 GMT
>> Whatever some dumbass CSR may have said, AT&T Wireless is not turning
>> off TDMA to add GSM. The only tradeoff that's happening is that they
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>is less available to TDMA customers? Won't there be the potential problem of
>allocating spectrum to that both types of users have enough?
I believe that's what he's saying, yes. If there's a conflict, TDMA
loses.
--
Jack Hamilton
jfh@acm.org
If men are to wait for liberty until they become wise and good in slavery,
they may indeed wait for ever.
- Lord MacCaulay
NavelGuy00 - 26 Dec 2003 00:01 GMT
>The range on GSM sites is only 3 miles, while the TDMA range
>is 5 miles.
I don't know where you got that stat from, but the range of a GSM site is 35
kilometers which is equivalent to exactly 21.8 miles. This has proven correct
for me because I live in a rural area of Northeast Pennsylvania and the towers
are few and far between however when I log onto mmode and select "what's
nearby?" and then select either dining, shops etc. the auto locate detects the
tower that my phone is using a signal on and depending on which part of the
house I am in the auto-locate picks up either 1 of 3 towers that are closest to
my home and all 3 are within a 16 to 20 mile radius of my home. I know this
because after I OK the auto-locate I get a list of businesses with the name of
the business, it's address and phone number and the proximity of miles that the
business is within the radius of the tower. IMHO it's a nifty little feature
that I find mmode really only worth of value especially living in a very rural
area. When I had ATTWS TDMA I couldn't even pick up a signal at my home but
with ATTWS GSM my reception, RF is excellent. By the way I use the Siemens
SL56, one of the best phones I have ever had with ATTWS since ATTWS in my area
went GSM in October of 2002.
As for the range of TDMA I honestly don't know what the stat is on that
frequency.
Just my 2 cents.
John S. - 26 Dec 2003 18:41 GMT
>but the range of a GSM site is 35
>kilometers which is equivalent to exactly 21.8 mile
I don't know where you got that information but I know GSM cell sites that
barely get around the block.
There are a lot of factors for cell range and virtually NONE of them have to do
with the type of interface (GSM/TDMA/Etc) but have everything to do with how
the system is set up, how the sites are arranged and teh traffic on those sites
and system.
Trying to compare distance with the air interface is like trying to compare
Ferarries with Cargo Ships.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
NavelGuy00 - 26 Dec 2003 18:51 GMT