GSM vs TDMA ?

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
for an understanding of the basic technology.

Thanks,

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Jimmy wrote:
>
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,

Only an engineer would understand the highly technical difference in
protocols. The real answer is that the two are not compatible. So, if
you have an FM-only radio, and you want to listen to an AM station,
you're out of luck. Same for GSM versus TDMA. They both do the same
thing, but they do it differently.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:26:47 GMT, Jimmy <NoOneYet@Nowhere.Net> wrote:

>Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
>technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
>light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
>about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
>for an understanding of the basic technology.

When in doubt google it!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>Only an engineer would understand the highly technical difference in
>protocols.

Basically true.

>They both do the same
>thing, but they do it differently.

Even more confusing is that they are both a variation of TDMA (Time Division
Multiple Access).

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

What does GSM mean in a cell phone?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question537.htm

Cellular Access Technologies: TDMA
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone13.htm

How Cell Phones Work
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm


--
Aloke
----
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

"Jimmy" <NoOneYet@Nowhere.Net> wrote in message
news:g21mc0tp9egh4bnuhcp7qjkq67i4ms4bgl@4ax.com...
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Good replies Jimmy.

The other side of the coin, traditionally TDMA was 800mhz, and GSM was
1900mhz. In practice, 800mhz has been better for building penetration. So
ATTWS Digital at 800 mhz had a following that wanted the better service. Me
too. Verizon uses 800 mhz CDMA and Sprint uses 1900mhz cdma, and the result
was similar.

4 years ago, I dropped the hi bands (Sprint, Cingular) and put all accounts
on TDMA or CDMA low band (ATTWS digital and Verizon). Now days ATTSW TDMA
is losing allocation and service is declining.

I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.



"Jimmy" <NoOneYet@Nowhere.Net> wrote in message
news:g21mc0tp9egh4bnuhcp7qjkq67i4ms4bgl@4ax.com...
> Can someone give me the "25 words or less" description of these
> technologies and how they differ ? OR maybe a pointer to a
> light technical comparison? You can leave out the part
> about "Cingular is going GSM". I know that, I'm just looking
> for an understanding of the basic technology.
>
> Thanks,
>

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:26:12 -0700, "Alesandra"
<rubyebbyrdNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The other side of the coin, traditionally TDMA was 800mhz, and GSM was
>1900mhz. In practice, 800mhz has been better for building penetration. So
>ATTWS Digital at 800 mhz had a following that wanted the better service. Me
>too. Verizon uses 800 mhz CDMA and Sprint uses 1900mhz cdma, and the result
>was similar.

But ATTWS doesn't own "cellular" 800 Mhz in all markets. In some
markets they are relegated to use "PCS" 1900 only. Just as at present
cingular is limited to 1900 PCS only in CA/NV/NC & SC.

>I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
>degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
>you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.

While it is generally true that 800 Mhz "cellular" penetrates
buildings better what's more important and what can absolutely negate
this advantage of 800 Mhz is where the nearest base station is
located. A strong 1900 PCS signal will trump a weak 800 cellular
signal. Even though AT&T Wireless has both 1900 PCS and 800 cellular
where I am the service is inferior to T-Mobile's 1900 PCS service
where I am located. It all depends on several variables including
what obstructions are between the base station as well as how far the
base station is from where you receive signal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Jimmy]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:55:41 GMT, "Aloke Prasad"
<aprasad123@columbus.rr.invalid> wrote:

>What does GSM mean in a cell phone?
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question537.htm
>
>Cellular Access Technologies: TDMA
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone13.htm
>
>How Cell Phones Work
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm


Thanks. Very informative.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Alesandra wrote:
>
> I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My EE
> degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies if
> you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various locations.
>

I'll back you up here. One of the common misunderstanding that I see
developing in the market is the idea that "higher frequencies are
better" when the exact opposite is true. Just today I saw an
advertisement for a "New 5.2gig" cordless phone. The general rule is
that the higher the frequency the more attenuation you get going through
walls and other objects. I think the reason 1900 networks outperform 850
is that they compensate for the attenuation by having closer towers.
Another thing to keep in mind is the RF exposure. I know people debate
the hole cancer from cell phone thing, but consider this. The resonance
frequency of water is in the K-band or 24ghz and the closer you get that
frequency the more it effects flesh. Now 1900mhz and 24ghz(24000mhz)
might seem like a they are quite far from eachother, but consider that
the common household microwave heats food using 2.6ghz 2600mhz. 2600 and
1900 aren't all that far apart. Now I'm not saying that there are proven
health risks, I'm just showing you the facts. I hopes this help and I'm
sticking to my 850mhz phone for now.

73's de wo5m

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:25:00 GMT, Randy McLean <usenetjunk@wo5m.net>
wrote:

>Now 1900mhz and 24ghz(24000mhz)
>might seem like a they are quite far from eachother

Yes, of course 1900 Mhz and 24000 Mhz *are* quite far from each other!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Randy McLean" <usenetjunk@wo5m.net> wrote in message
news:40CD0C74.6020507@wo5m.net...
> Alesandra wrote:
> >
> > I will be flamed in that hi band in theory is better than low band. My
EE
> > degree may not be from a school the flamers like, but that argument dies
if
> > you travel with multiple phones and you see what works at various
locations.
> >
>
> I'll back you up here. One of the common misunderstanding that I see
> developing in the market is the idea that "higher frequencies are
> better" when the exact opposite is true. Just today I saw an
> advertisement for a "New 5.2gig" (ACTUALLY 5.8GHZ, A SHARED AMATUER
BAND)
cordless phone. The general rule is
> that the higher the frequency the more attenuation you get going through
> walls and other objects. I think the reason 1900 networks outperform 850
(REALLY 869-894Mhz SUBTRACT 45 Mhz FOR THE HANDSET TX)

> is that they compensate for the attenuation by having closer towers.
> Another thing to keep in mind is the RF exposure. I know people debate
> the hole (WHOLE) cancer from cell phone thing, but consider this. The
resonance
> frequency of water is in the K-band or 24ghz and the closer you get that
> frequency the more it effects flesh. (JUST NOT TRUE) Now 1900mhz and
24ghz(24000mhz)
> might seem like a they are quite far from eachother, (TWO ENTIRELY
DIFFERANT WORLDS) but consider that
> the common household microwave heats food using 2.6ghz 2600mhz. (ACTUALLY
2.450Ghz PLUS OR MINUS 100MHZ TO ALLOW FOR DRIFT WITH A MAGNATRON)
2600 and
> 1900 aren't all that far apart. Now I'm not saying that there are proven
> health risks, I'm just showing you the facts (AS YOU SEE THEM). I hopes
this help and I'm
> sticking to my 850mhz (ACTUALLY 835/880MHZ) phone for now.
>
> 73's de wo5m

Now the MAJOR fact you totally missed out on mr. "EE" and Ham radio
operator, if you really did your homework you would have discovered the
first microwave ranges from Litton were on 900Mhz!! It's a fact that "Flesh"
heats best at 900Mhz. If you look up the emission "ISM" in the FCC database
you will see that current microwave ovens operate RIGHT THERE 2.450Ghz.
If your going to boast...be right.