Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / July 2004
What is the diffrance between GSM 900 and EGSM 900
|
|
Thread rating:  |
A.J - 29 Jul 2004 16:42 GMT I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM 900,1800,1900. but when I was in Europe it did not work even thus it was GSM 900, I asked the service provider why, and they told me because my phone supports EGSM 900 not GSM 900, does anyone know what is the difference??? thanx A.J
Gator - 29 Jul 2004 17:01 GMT http://www.ringnow.com/EGSM.html
Steve - 29 Jul 2004 17:01 GMT > I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM > 900,1800,1900. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thanx > A.J My understanding is that EGSM is used in newer phones as the BTS emits signal on the old analogue frequencies which are generally better quality then normal GSM 900. ASFAIK only o2 use EGSM (as well as GSM and DCS) but generally only in more built up areas.
Your phone may be EGSM compatible but is definatly GSM 900 compatible so dont know why it doesnt work
Steve
matt weber - 30 Jul 2004 06:39 GMT >> I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM >> 900,1800,1900. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Steve A GSM phone should work just fine in an EGSM evirornment. EGSM has 10 Mhz more spectrum available in both directions. An EGSM phone can use some channels which are unavailable to a GSM phone, but that's about all. (even though the spectrum space is below the standard spectrum, the channel numbers are above the standard GSM 900 channels to insure compatability.
Dick Silk - 30 Jul 2004 18:02 GMT > My understanding is that EGSM is used in newer phones as the BTS emits > signal on the old analogue frequencies which are generally better quality > then normal GSM 900. oh, that's just *great*... now my analogue cell phone spectrum is gonna get clogged and I'll be right back to "all circuits are busy" again. (I never understood why people would give up the clarity of analogue to get that digital crap!)
Ivor Jones - 30 Jul 2004 19:41 GMT > > My understanding is that EGSM is used in newer phones as the BTS emits > > signal on the old analogue frequencies which are generally better quality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understood why people would give up the clarity of analogue to get that > digital crap!) Depends on the digital service - here in the UK we have been all-GSM for several years, there is no analogue any more, and the call quality is as good as any I've ever experienced in the US..!
One excellent reason to use digital over analogue is call security - it's all too easy to eavesdrop on an analogue phone and before we ditched it there were many documented cases of criminals hijacking the ESN of an analogue phone and cloning it, running up huge bills for the genuine user. I myself had this happen to me on one occasion, to the tune of ?300. Fortunately it was a company phone and they took it up with the airtime provider, so it didn't cost me personally.
Digital systems are much harder to hack, in fact I don't know of any cases where this has successfully been done. That's not to say that it isn't possible to hack into the system somewhere and listen to the calls, but it takes the budget of the security services and it isn't done by listening to the radio signals..!
I look forward to the day when the US is all-GSM, then I might get coverage in the wilds of Yosemite, which is totally non-existent at the moment..!
Ivor
Jeremy - 30 Jul 2004 21:01 GMT > One excellent reason to use digital over analogue is call security - it's > all too easy to eavesdrop on an analogue phone and before we ditched it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > coverage in the wilds of Yosemite, which is totally non-existent at the > moment..! I remember cloning--what a mess that was! We have lots of immigrants in USA, and they all wanted to call back to the old country for free. Gangs of thieves would set up equipment in vans to intercept the ESNs of cell phones, then they would program those numbers into dummy phones and the cellular carrier had no way of knowing that the call was being made from a phone other than the one that was signed up on the account.
Wireless phones are always "checking in" with the tower--especially after a lapse of signal. The thieves would set up vans near the entrances and exits of tunnels, because as the cars came out, their cell phones would all dutifully report their ESN to the tower, to tell it that it was available if a call were to come in. The thieves in the vans harvested thousands of ESNs in just a couple of hours.
The cellular carriers originally started to suggest that people actually shut their phones off when not using them--making them useless to receive incoming calls, of course.
For awhile, some cellular carriers (Cellular One in the Philadelphia area, for one) had their customers pick a secret 4-digit code. Whenever the customer dialed out, he would hear a beep tone on the phone, which was his signal to enter the 4-digit code. If the customer failed to enter the code properly, the call would not be accepted by the tower.
This procedure minimized the usefulness of stolen serial numbers, but it one more hassle for the consumer. Entering those code numbers was a pain--especially while driving.
Finally the phone manufacturers began implementing a new technology, called authentication. My understanding of it is very limited, but essentially there was an algorithm deposited in the phone memory by the tower. Let's say, it was the number "2." When the phone tried to dial out, the tower would send a number to the phone, which the phone would multiply by the number "2," and respond back with double the number that the tower transmitted. (I am grossly oversimplifying this--forgive me).
So if the tower sent out "100," it would expect to receive a response of "200," or it knew that the phone was not the one that it was supposed to be. The tower could change the algorithms in phones periodically, so thieves could not find out what the algorithm was.
That was the end of cloning.
As far as I know, this authentication scheme continues to be used today. By the time that digital handsets came out, all phones were equipped for it. The process is instant, and is completely transparent to the user.
What I find ironic is the fact that long distance prices have dropped to where there are often free in the US--and the very thing that carriers were trying to eliminate has become almost a non-issue.
Go figure . . .
Cheers
John Navas - 29 Jul 2004 17:08 GMT >I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM >900,1800,1900. >but when I was in Europe it did not work even thus it was GSM 900, I asked >the service provider why, and they told me because my phone supports EGSM >900 not GSM 900, does anyone know what is the difference??? http://www.ringnow.com/EGSM.html
p.s. Please show more restraint on cross-posting in the future. Thanks.
 Signature Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
Robert - 30 Jul 2004 05:06 GMT > http://www.ringnow.com/EGSM.html > > p.s. Please show more restraint on cross-posting in the future. Thanks. Megalomania.
Cross post if you want, no one can stop you.
Niall / Lina - 29 Jul 2004 18:18 GMT > I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM > 900,1800,1900. > but when I was in Europe it did not work even thus it was GSM 900, I asked > the service provider why, and they told me because my phone supports EGSM Well, to cut out all the technical bits: if it supports EGSM then it will also support GSM. I would assume that most GSM mobiles that support GSM900 also support EGSM these days.
As a matter of interest, in what way did it not "work"?
Ralph Blach - 30 Jul 2004 14:26 GMT A.J.
As a matter of policy, cingular disables international calling, 900 numbers, and internation roaming.
It will not for any reason allow a cell phone to dial a 900 number.
To make a phone able to call an international call you must call cingular and request it.
To allow you phone to roam overseas, you must call and request that service to be enabled.
I needed my cell phone to call venezula and I enabled international calling for about an hour.
Chip
> I bought my Nokia 6820, and I thought it would work anywhere that has GSM > 900,1800,1900. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thanx > A.J
|
|
|