 |
 | 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 / General / GSM / September 2004GSM signal strength
AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength than CDMA. Is that true? depends on if your closer to a gsm site or a cdma site. I think there ad was to show that AT&T has more coverage then the CDMA companies. > AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength > than CDMA. Is that true? >AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength >than CDMA. Is that true? I haven't seen that but I suspct that they didn't. CDMA, unlike the other technologies will work with a whole lot less signal strength. So although it might appear that signal strength is an issue, the comparison is not really a valid one. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net I've actually had better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and no signal. I live in a rural mountain area so it's hit and miss some times. >>AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength >>than CDMA. Is that true? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >I've actually had better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and no >signal. Duh!!!! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net Yeah that came out wrong. Duh!! It should have said "I've actually had better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and low signal" >>I've actually had better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and no >>signal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John S. > e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net >Yeah that came out wrong. Duh!! It should have said "I've actually had >better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and low signal" Of course -- with GSM, unlike CDMA, you get a dedicated channel.  SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular > I've actually had better luck with gsm and low signal then cdma and no > signal. I live in a rural mountain area so it's hit and miss some times. CDMA loses signal strength as traffic increases on the cell site, so comparing one to the other is difficult. At 3 am, CDMA sites may work better at a given distance than GSM ones. At 3 pm, the GSM site may be superior in signal strength and range due to traffic overload on the CDMA site (the GSM site, if overloaded, will simply reject calls). Which is better? That depends. Jim >AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength >than CDMA. Is that true? It will almost always be true, but it is also completely irrelevant. GSM requires much higher link margins. The Shannon Theorem shows that the relationship between bandwidth and channel capacity is realted to signal to noise ratio. The data rate for GSM is about 14.4 k bits per second in a 200Khz channel, 1/8th of the time. The signaling rate for CDMA is about the same, but in a 1 Mhz+ wide channel, so it the signal strength can be much lower. CDMA can sustain the same data rate at far lower signal levels. |
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.