Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / GSM / June 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CDMA or GSM?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jake - 24 Jun 2008 00:20 GMT
What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe about GSM or
CDMA? which would you reccomend?
John Henderson - 24 Jun 2008 06:49 GMT
> What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe
> about GSM or CDMA? which would you reccomend?

2G GSM uses a form of "time division" (TDMA) to keep concurrent
calls from interfering with each other.

3G GSM (or "UMTS") uses a form of "code division" (CDMA) to
achieve the same end.  UMTS is often referred to as W-CDMA to
distinguish it from the older CDMA systems.

CDMA systems are not distance-limited by timing constraints.
Normal 2G GSM cells have an absolute maximum range of 35 km
(regardless of signal strength).  Because of the density of
cells in populated areas, this limit does not usually become
significant.  But it can seriously affect ordinary GSM coverage
in sparsely-populated rural areas.

The best system will often come down to a matter of which system
has coverage in the region where you want to operate.

3G GSM (by whatever name: UMTS, W-CDMA) is the way of the
future.  This is where the explosion in handset availability
and features will occur.

John
Bert Hyman - 24 Jun 2008 13:52 GMT
> What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe about GSM
> or CDMA? which would you reccomend?

I like the fact that I'm free to use any unlocked phone with the SIM
for my account without any intervention by my carrier [assuming that
the phone operates on the bands my carrier uses].

Signature

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

SMS - 24 Jun 2008 17:03 GMT
> What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe about GSM or
> CDMA? which would you reccomend?

In the U.S., if you're traveling to rural areas then go CDMA as you'll
get much better rural coverage than GSM because the maximum GSM distance
is limited to 35km.

Actually there's more to it than just GSM versus CDMA, you also have to
look at 800 MHz versus 1900 MHz. The best choice, in terms of the best
coverage, would be a carrier that is both 800 MHz and CDMA. This is why
Verizon and Alltel are consistently ranked as the best carriers in every
metropolitan area in the U.S..
Andreas Wenzel - 24 Jun 2008 19:45 GMT
SMS schrieb:
>> What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe about GSM or
>> CDMA? which would you reccomend?
>
> In the U.S., if you're traveling to rural areas then go CDMA as you'll
> get much better rural coverage than GSM because the maximum GSM distance
> is limited to 35km.[...]

This is often heard but has not been true for quite a while now.
Extended range GSM cells are available from many infrastructure vendors,
offering cell ranges of approx. 120km. The trick is to tell the mobile a
timing advance value that corresponds to the distance betweenn mobile
and base station modulo 35km, and then to expect to receive the signal
from the mobile by one or two timeslots late.

Full description here (but difficult to read):
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6633559.html

Andreas
John Henderson - 24 Jun 2008 21:05 GMT
> This is often heard but has not been true for quite a while
> now. Extended range GSM cells are available from many
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Full description here (but difficult to read):
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6633559.html

Yes, but it is increasingly true that GSM is limited to 35 km.
The installed base of ER (Extended Range) GSM cells was always
very, very small (and non-existant in most countries).  They
can handle only half the number of calls of standard cells
because half the available timeslots are sacrificed to the job
of extending Timing Advance on the other half.

More importantly, the only manufacturer of ER cells (Ericsson)
has not made any GPRS-compatible versions.  With GPRS expected
as an important part of GSM coverage, ER cells are being
converted to standard cells rather than vice versa.

John
Andreas Wenzel - 24 Jun 2008 21:26 GMT
John Henderson schrieb:
> [...]
> Yes, but it is increasingly true that GSM is limited to 35 km.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> because half the available timeslots are sacrificed to the job
> of extending Timing Advance on the other half.

The patent in the link claims to describe a method that works without
sacrificing half of the timeslots.

> More importantly, the only manufacturer of ER cells (Ericsson)
> has not made any GPRS-compatible versions.  With GPRS expected
> as an important part of GSM coverage, ER cells are being
> converted to standard cells rather than vice versa.

At least Motorola sells extended range BTSs as well. Do you have any
documentation that explays as to why GPRS and extended range should not
go together?

Andreas
John Henderson - 24 Jun 2008 21:57 GMT
> John Henderson schrieb:
>> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> The patent in the link claims to describe a method that works
> without sacrificing half of the timeslots.

If that's the case, then this is a new development.  That
wording is too obscure for me to put a firm interpretation onto
it without giving it a great deal of time and thought.  Thanks
for the reference.

>> More importantly, the only manufacturer of ER cells
>> (Ericsson)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> have any documentation that explays as to why GPRS and
> extended range should not go together?

I had not heard of Motorola's entry into this market.  Do you
have any references?

I understand the combination of GPRS and ER to be just "too
hard" (given the potential market), rather than impossible.  If
GPRS ER develoment has been done recently, then it may be too
little, too late (with UMTS being pushed).  Certainly the
number of ER cells in rural Australia was shrinking the last
time I was able to get any information (Vodafone used to
publish a list of cells which were not GPRS-compatible).

I quite like the guaranteed call quality from a TDMA-based
system like 2G GSM.  CDMA-based systems can cram more data into
the available spectrum, but at the expense of call quality when
the system loads up heavily (especially for distant calls /
weaker signals).

John
John Henderson - 28 Jun 2008 10:47 GMT
I wrote:

> I had not heard of Motorola's entry into this market.  Do you
> have any references?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> time I was able to get any information (Vodafone used to
> publish a list of cells which were not GPRS-compatible).

I see that Motorola were planning to sell Extended Range cells,
/with/ /GPRS/ from last year:

http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/6/6679_MotDoc.pdf

John
SMS - 24 Jun 2008 22:54 GMT
> SMS schrieb:
>>> What is the real  difference other than roaming in Europe about GSM or
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and base station modulo 35km, and then to expect to receive the signal
> from the mobile by one or two timeslots late.

They're available, but haven't been deployed in the U.S..
 
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.