 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / January 2004Cingular GSM in Dallas
Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed that T-Mobile has very strong signal strength in Dallas. It would appear AT&T Wireless' TDMA net at 850 is pretty close in signal strength to T-Mobile. But Cingular's GSM signal strength has been a big mystery to me. RDT  Signature"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." --- Sir Winston Churchill RDT wrote: > Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed > that T-Mobile has very strong signal strength in Dallas. It would appear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > RDT Everytime I'm in the neighbourhood, Cingular 850 GSM is crawling all over the place. Mysteriously, when visiting the lair of the parental units, everyone had to stand on the north edge of the jacuzzi for a usable TDMA signal. This was known as the NEJ Syndrome. Sadly, there's no more hiding outside the NEJ Syndrome - Cingular GSM is now a regular occupant in the jacuzzi. Anecdotal evidence would indicate similar syndromes amoung their friends have also disappeared since the onset of GSM. Some of these reports have included a radical shift from "I'm sorry to have to keep calling you back..." to "Does s/he ever shut up?" Some are considering giving their new GSM housemate a nickname. I'm thinking of turning the parental units over to Cingular, maybe they could use them for a commercial TV spot, they don't need rollover minutes, they need rollover moments. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273 "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur > Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed > that T-Mobile has very strong signal strength in Dallas. It would appear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > RDT Cingular GSM coverage in DFW is VERY VERY good -- maybe even slightly better than their TDMA coverage which was already significantly better than ATTWS's. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >> Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed >> that T-Mobile has very strong signal strength in Dallas. It would appear [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >better than their TDMA coverage which was already significantly better >than ATTWS's. That is very interesting and great news. Cingular used to have great JD Power ratings in Dallas, but I noticed they've been slipping and wondered why. Good to know their signal isn't the reason. I took the plunge with Cingular, but they still haven't ported my old number from ATT. It has been a nightmare. I've waited 2 weeks now and still nothing. RDT Signature"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." --- Sir Winston Churchill >Cingular GSM coverage in DFW is VERY VERY good -- maybe even slightly >better than their TDMA coverage which was already significantly better >than ATTWS's. Jud, In the metropolitan area of Dallas, I can't see a lot of difference in the TDMA coverage of Cingular and AT&T WS. I have not tested or compared the differences between the GSM offerings of the two companies immediatly in the DFW area. Out here on the outskirts of town where I live (way out) AT&T's GSM has about 2 bars on my Siemens M56 where there is no Cingular GSM on the same phone. So, my conclusion based solely on this would be that AT&TWS GSM coverage is better. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Cingular GSM coverage in DFW is VERY VERY good -- maybe even slightly > >better than their TDMA coverage which was already significantly better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > differences between the GSM offerings of the two companies immediatly in the > DFW area. Then you've been lucky. My roommate's company mandates ATTWS nationwide. You can't walk thru their office without hearing someone bitching about dropped calls, static, echos, calls going straight to voicemail, system busy messages, etc. I can't even remember when the last time I had a dropped call on Cingular in DFW. They use various TDMA phones so it's not a phone problem. Another close friend switched from Cingular to ATTWS about a year ago, mainly to get a "family-plan" promotion, and all I've heard since then is "wish I hadn't done that"-- same complaints--dropped calls, poor call quality, system busy etc. And I know of numerous others. To give ATT credit, it's a lot better than it was when it was MetroCell (sp?). It will be interesting to see if GSM fixes their problems. It should help the overloading but if it's tower related.... > Out here on the outskirts of town where I live (way out) AT&T's GSM has about 2 > bars on my Siemens M56 where there is no Cingular GSM on the same phone. So, my > conclusion based solely on this would be that AT&TWS GSM coverage is better. Just how "way out" are you? :-) I'm seeing strong Cingular GSM all the way to Texoma to the north, well past Glen Rose to the south, past Weatherford to the west and Terrell to the east--plus basically unlimited distance on Interstates in all directions. If ATTWS GSM is better then I'm impressed. > -- > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >My roommate's company mandates ATTWS >nationwide. You can't walk thru their office without hearing someone >bitching about dropped calls, static, echos, calls going straight to >voicemail, system busy messages, etc. I have had AT&T Wireless since they started service here in the DFW metromess. When they were Metrocel, they had growing pains and still had good service. When McCaw bought them, the service continued to improve and got even better. When AT&T bought them improvements continued and still no problems. I use AT&T Wireless all over the country and have had no problems at all. I have had the same phone number with them since 1988 and wouldn't think of switching carriers. Of course I know how the technology works and my expectations are not the same as if it were a wired land line phone. And yours should be either. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >And yours should be either. oops, this should have read - And yours shouldn'd be either. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net "Jud Hardcastle" <Jud_Hardcastle@ureach.removethis.com> wrote in message > Just how "way out" are you? :-) I'm seeing strong Cingular GSM all the > way to Texoma to the north, well past Glen Rose to the south, past > Weatherford to the west and Terrell to the east--plus basically > unlimited distance on Interstates in all directions. If ATTWS GSM is > better then I'm impressed. I can PROMISE you you won't see AT&T GSM along 80, especially East of Terrell. My bloody phones lose service 1-2 miles north of I20. That's what I went to Cingular. Exactly my point Mike ( in a previous post answering the original poster). Use what works best for your individual need. B. > "Jud Hardcastle" <Jud_Hardcastle@ureach.removethis.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's what I went to Cingular. > Just how "way out" are you? :-) I'm seeing strong Cingular GSM all the > way to Texoma to the north, well past Glen Rose to the south, past > Weatherford to the west and Terrell to the east--plus basically > unlimited distance on Interstates in all directions. If ATTWS GSM is > better then I'm impressed. Unless john has moved lately, he's near Gun Barrel City. mdh >> Just how "way out" are you? :-) > Unless john has moved lately, he's near Gun Barrel City. Going South and East along Hwy 175 South, the signal pretty much runs out about Kaufman (south and a bit West of Terrel). I am sure that the I-Roads are covered pretty much. And yes, I am "near" GBC. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Something else you need to remember John, Gun Barrel City is not DFW. Its not the highest priority nor is it the best revenue generator to any phone company. You should be thankful you get what you have at the moment. I think you will see C's coverage get better out that way in the coming months. B. > >> Just how "way out" are you? :-) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Hey Doc!!! How are you??? Haven't heard from you in awhile now! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > Unless john has moved lately, he's near Gun Barrel City. Cool Texas town name! Is there a "Ejection Port" on the coast, or how about "Firing Pin Village" >> Unless john has moved lately, he's near Gun Barrel City. > > Cool Texas town name! Is there a "Ejection Port" on the coast, or how about > "Firing Pin Village" No, but we have a Waxahachie where a kid finally learned how to spell it by seventh grade. Then his parent moved to Nacogdoches. We have a Mars and Venus, but no Uranus. Can you imagine saying you're from your anus? I'm not from Uncertain (Texas) so I'm sure there isn't one. After all, I'm not a Ding Dong (Texas). I wonder if Intercourse, Utah and Virgin, Alabama are sister cities? I live in Nevada (Texas). >I live in Nevada (Texas). And of course, people in Paris (Texas) are embarrased by the recent inactions of their name sakes. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > No, but we have a Waxahachie where a kid finally learned how to > spell it by seventh grade. Then his parent moved to Nacogdoches. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I live in Nevada (Texas). Heck, if you live there I can't believe you forgot to mention Climax, Texas. One can visit Italy, Rome, Paris, Edinburgh, Dublin, Albany, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and others without ever leaving Texas. :-) mdh Actually its Rhome, but we get the drift. B. > > No, but we have a Waxahachie where a kid finally learned how to > > spell it by seventh grade. Then his parent moved to Nacogdoches. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > mdh > Actually its Rhome, but we get the drift. Holy Molly! I just drove though Rhome this afternoon on way from Decatur to DFW airport. I remember 114 as a two lane black top road in the country. >> Unless john has moved lately, he's near Gun Barrel City. > >Cool Texas town name! Is there a "Ejection Port" on the coast, or how about >"Firing Pin Village" No but we are just to the North of "Cut and Shoot, TX" -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Thats a pretty bold and blanket statement. Just because one company has two bars over another company in one particular location doesnt mean that ones coverage is better. It just means its better in that spot. For all you know C could have coverage on the other side of their network that FAR extends over ATT, but by your defination of coverage, they would stink. Lets use our heads when we make such statements.You may want to actually look at the trade rags assesments for best overall coverage when making statements, but its best to go with what works for your particular needs. If C doesnt reach your house, use something else that does. B. > >Cingular GSM coverage in DFW is VERY VERY good -- maybe even slightly > >better than their TDMA coverage which was already significantly better [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net RDT wrote: > Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed > that T-Mobile has very strong signal strength in Dallas. It would appear > AT&T Wireless' TDMA net at 850 is pretty close in signal strength to > T-Mobile. But Cingular's GSM signal strength has been a big mystery to > me. Good question for Dallas coverage. I'm switching back to Cingular with a month to month plan with a Nokia 3360 phone. Since the Nationwide and Superhome plans will have me roaming in much of the area I'm in, I'll go with the Statewide plan as it allows home area usage all across Texas. There isn't any GSM out there, so I don't need a GAIT phone; but if TDMA service is being degraded as its being phased out, will I begin to see problems in the upgraded GSM/TDMA areas over the next two years? Should I ever roam into a Cingular GSM only area, like California, would I be actualy roaming on AT&T's (or whomever's) TDMA service? What about text paging? The area I'm in is out of range of my Weblink Wireless two-way pager, so I might drop it and rely on Cingular text messaging. The Text Messaging 250 plan would allow me 125 two way mesages. How reliable is it? Sprint was hit and miss trying to log on and the phone interface was horrible. > RDT wrote: > > Any thoughts on how well Cingular 850 GSM covers Dallas? I noticed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > area I'm in, I'll go with the Statewide plan as it allows home > area usage all across Texas. Nokia 3360? That's a TDMA/analog phone. They may not allow you sign you up for the statewide plan since it clearly states that it requires a multi-network GAIT phone. The statewide plan was apparently introduced specifically to encourage users to switch to GAIT and hence use GSM in Cingular areas. > There isn't any GSM out there, so I don't need a GAIT phone; but if > TDMA service is being degraded as its being phased out, will I begin > to see problems in the upgraded GSM/TDMA areas over the next two years? Not sure what you mean by there isn't "any" GSM out there--all of Cingular in Texas is now GSM and TDMA with all new subscribers being "encouraged" to go GSM-only or GAIT. The TDMA plans are not longer on the website although I suspect they're still available for anyone who insists. It will take years before Cingular could even consider degrading TDMA-- there must be at least a couple of million if not more TDMA handsets in use in Texas. Once they do reach a point where GSM is the majority they might be able to "tune" a site to more GSM and less TDMA. Most other carriers in Texas have not even started GSM conversion yet. T-Mobile is in some larger towns. Over the next two years some other carriers are bound to convert to GSM but they're also likely to keep TDMA. > Should I ever roam into a Cingular GSM only area, like California, > would I be actualy roaming on AT&T's (or whomever's) TDMA service? Yes, a roaming TDMA/analog phone will roam on other TDMA carriers if there is no Cingular TDMA. Unless that carrier is banned in the IRDB but I believe others have said ATTWS is used okay in Calif. A Cingular GAIT phone will look for Cingular digital first, with your HOME system type preferred, before looking at other carriers. So in California it would use Cingular GSM if available before ATTWS TDMA. > What about text paging? The area I'm in is out of range of my Weblink > Wireless two-way pager, so I might drop it and rely on Cingular text > messaging. The Text Messaging 250 plan would allow me 125 two way > mesages. How reliable is it? Sprint was hit and miss trying to log on > and the phone interface was horrible. There is no "logging on" to SMS on GSM or TDMA. Cingular in DFW is 2- way SMS both on GSM and TDMA. The first time you turn the phone on it takes "awhile" to start receiving messages--like a half hour or so. Sometimes a phone call or an outgoing message helps to "wake" it up. From then on it's very fast--basically instant. AFAIK, I have never completely missed a message. When roaming off Cingular: GSM carriers--2 way SMS. TDMA carriers-- apparently depends on the carrier--it's usually 1 way only but I have seen rare 2 way (usually ATT). SignatureJud Dallas TX USA >>Good question for Dallas coverage. I'm switching back to Cingular >>with a month to month plan with a Nokia 3360 phone. Since the >>Nationwide and Superhome plans will have me roaming in much of the >>area I'm in, I'll go with the Statewide plan as it allows home >>area usage all across Texas. > Nokia 3360? That's a TDMA/analog phone. . I'd prefer the Nokia 5165 TDMA phone over the 3360 TDMA phone as it has slightly better reception. I can take both phones to the bottom of a creek bed six miles from the closest tower and the 5165 can still hold a call to 611, but the 3360 may not. > They may not allow you sign you up for the statewide plan since it > clearly states that it requires a multi-network GAIT phone Although the map for the Dallas Statewide area states it requires a Multi-network (GAIT) handset, some Radio Shack/Cingular affiliate stores offer the Statewide plans with TDMA phones. Maybe because its not a Cingular company store. >>There isn't any GSM out there, so I don't need a GAIT phone; but if >>TDMA service is being degraded as its being phased out, will I begin >>to see problems in the upgraded GSM/TDMA areas over the next two years? > Not sure what you mean by there isn't "any" GSM out there--all of > Cingular in Texas is now GSM and TDMA with all new subscribers being > "encouraged" to go GSM-only or GAIT. When I commented that there wasn't any GSM out there, I was referring to that large areas in light yellow orange on their GSM map that shows "No Service Area". Now if Cingular is only licensed in the dark orange areas that show current GSM coverage, but not licensed in the light yellow orange areas, then you would be correct in saying Cingular is all GSM in Texas. The point is, if a customer buys a Cingular GSM only phone, there will be large areas where they won't be able to use it. > The TDMA plans are not longer on the website although I suspect they're > still available for anyone who insists. Some Radio Shack/Cingular affiliate stores offer the Statewide plans with TDMA phones. Maybe because they are not a Cingular company store. > It will take years before Cingular could even consider degrading TDMA-- > there must be at least a couple of million if not more TDMA handsets in > use in Texas. Once they do reach a point where GSM is the majority they > might be able to "tune" a site to more GSM and less TDMA. I would tend to agree with you. I was mainly referring to a post on the AT&T Wireless NG that mentioned degrading TDMA service as GSM rolls out. >>Should I ever roam into a Cingular GSM only area, like California, >>would I be actually roaming on AT&T's (or whomever's) TDMA service? > Yes, a roaming TDMA/analog phone will roam on other TDMA carriers if > there is no Cingular TDMA. I pretty much figured this would be the case. >>What about text paging? The area I'm in is out of range of my Weblink >>Wireless two-way pager, so I might drop it and rely on Cingular text >>messaging. The Text Messaging 250 plan would allow me 125 two way >>messages. How reliable is it? Sprint was hit and miss trying to log on >>and the phone interface was horrible. > There is no "logging on" to SMS on GSM or TDMA. Cingular in DFW is 2- > way SMS both on GSM and TDMA. The first time you turn the phone on it > takes "awhile" to start receiving messages--like a half hour or so. > Sometimes a phone call or an outgoing message helps to "wake" it up. > From then on it's very fast--basically instant. I've used Cingular's text messaging back and forth from my pager and it is indeed VERY fast! The phone's user interface is much better than Sprint's web based client for SMS. No waiting to log on, you simply menu down to Messages and select Send Message. > When roaming off Cingular: GSM carriers--2 way SMS. TDMA carriers-- > apparently depends on the carrier--it's usually 1 way only but I have > seen rare 2 way (usually ATT). I don't think thats going to be an issue with me as I've decided to keep my two-way pager. I know it will always work in any major city I travel to without worrying which carriers have text message agreements in place. As for pager coverage in the areas I work most in, I installed a 5 dBd gain colinear antenna on my car and drop my pager in a cradle and it works great - way past the published coverage maps. Let me snip from a post I made last month: Mark W. Oots wrote: > Any passive system does little or nothing and active > systems cost more than you want to spend (probably). My passive repeater work extremely well. 18 dBd gain double bowtie arrays on chimney feeding a 12 dBd colinear in hall closet with 30 feet of 3/8" Andrews Heliax. > >>Good question for Dallas coverage. I'm switching back to Cingular > >>with a month to month plan with a Nokia 3360 phone. Since the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > creek bed six miles from the closest tower and the 5165 can still hold a > call to 611, but the 3360 may not. I have both also and have opposite results. I think it depends on the individual phone rather than the brand when comparing those two. > > They may not allow you sign you up for the statewide plan since it > > clearly states that it requires a multi-network GAIT phone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offer the Statewide plans with TDMA phones. Maybe because its not a > Cingular company store. Very likely correct. > >>There isn't any GSM out there, so I don't need a GAIT phone; but if > >>TDMA service is being degraded as its being phased out, will I begin [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > current GSM coverage, but not licensed in the light yellow orange areas, > then you would be correct in saying Cingular is all GSM in Texas. Most carriers are not licensed over the entire state, so all of C's network is GSM by now. If they dont have service in an area, its because they cant. Id like to hear more about your passive system. I think most folks assume passive systems dont work because they really dont work, unless the antennas are directional. If you have a passive system using whips, its not going to make a lot of difference, but use something with good gain and it can make a lot of difference depending on the system and setup. B. JRW wrote: >>Now if Cingular is only licensed in the dark orange areas that show >>current GSM coverage, but not licensed in the light yellow orange areas, >>then you would be correct in saying Cingular is all GSM in Texas. Brian Oakley replied: > Most carriers are not licensed over the entire state, so all of C's network > is GSM by now. JRW agreed: Ok, that's what I thought you had in mind - Cingular would be 100% GSM, but that leave a lot up to a salesperson informing the potential user looking at the newest and greateest phone will be worthless in large areas. Providers are funny when it comes tossing around numbers. I believe it was Cingular that boasted 98% (or some impresive number) of their CMA (or some acronym that stood for the number of minutes in use in an area) would be GSM by mid-2003. Not 98% of the geographic licensed area, not 98% of their subscribers - just total minutes used. Well in Texas, that could very well be only five or six counties. > Id like to hear more about your passive system. I think most folks assume > passive systems dont work because they really dont work, unless the antennas > are directional. If you have a passive system using whips, its not going to > make a lot of difference, but use something with good gain and it can make a > lot of difference depending on the system and setup. That's right. Most passive antennas have more loss in the 1/4" coax and connectors than any antenna gain can make up for - but they might in a situation where you simply need to get out of a Faraday cage. Yeah, the percentage of minutes used does lend itself to use in urban areas rather than rural. B > JRW wrote: > >>Now if Cingular is only licensed in the dark orange areas that show [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > connectors than any antenna gain can make up for - but they might in a > situation where you simply need to get out of a Faraday cage. > It will take years before Cingular could even consider degrading TDMA-- > there must be at least a couple of million if not more TDMA handsets in > use in Texas. Once they do reach a point where GSM is the majority they > might be able to "tune" a site to more GSM and less TDMA. I'm not certain what criteria you use with 'degrading TDMA', but Cingular isn't adding radio channels for the gSM overlay, they're converting TDMA channels to GSM, reducing TDMA capacity at every site, although the remaining TDMA still works pretty well. > There is no "logging on" to SMS on GSM or TDMA. Cingular in DFW is 2- > way SMS both on GSM and TDMA. The first time you turn the phone on it > takes "awhile" to start receiving messages--like a half hour or so. > Sometimes a phone call or an outgoing message helps to "wake" it up. > From then on it's very fast--basically instant. AFAIK, I have never > completely missed a message. I don't think I've ever missed an SMS either. Often, when I get around to turning The Beast on, sn SMS sent earlier comes through, apparently having been stored until delivery was possible. Some folks have actually complained of me not receiving an SMS from them, as they check on the delivery status and are told 'not delivered yet'. This, of course, compels me to explain that having a cell phone turned on and in my pocket each and every minute of my day isn't something I consider all that important. Then their mouths gape open as I say "I eventually *got* their SMS when I and the phone were ready, so what's the problem?" Some people still complain even if you hang 'em with a new rope. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273 "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of what we know." -- Richard Wilbur > > It will take years before Cingular could even consider degrading TDMA-- > > there must be at least a couple of million if not more TDMA handsets in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > converting TDMA channels to GSM, reducing TDMA capacity at every site, > although the remaining TDMA still works pretty well. Yes, the engineers are always going over the traffic numbers to see how much activity each system is getting. As they see activity increase in the GSM, the will accordingly alocate more GSM channels and delet more TDMA radios. It will be a gradual (sp) change, hardly noticable. The phase out will be sooner than most folks think. B. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.