Tom's Guide > Forum > Mobility Technologies > GSM > GSM signal strength

GSM signal strength

Forum Mobility Technologies : GSM - GSM signal strength

TomsGuide.com: Over 800,000 questions and answers to address all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
Anonymous   08-29-2004 at 10:15:53 AM

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

 

AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength
than CDMA. Is that true?

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Ryan   08-29-2004 at 06:40:31 PM
- 0 +

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

 

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.

Anun wrote:
> AT&T put an advertising on TV to show that GSM has stronger signal strength
> than CDMA. Is that true?
>
>

Reply to Ryan
Anonymous   08-29-2004 at 07:41:34 PM
- 0 +

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

 

>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

Reply to Anonymous
Ryan   08-29-2004 at 09:53:18 PM
- 0 +

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

 

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.

John S. wrote:
>>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

Reply to Ryan
Anonymous   08-30-2004 at 02:53:19 AM
- 0 +

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

 

>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

Reply to Anonymous
Anonymous   08-29-2004 at 08:52:01 PM
- 0 +

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

 

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:15:53 GMT, "Anun" <anun@sun.com> wrote:

>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 Anonymous
Anonymous   08-30-2004 at 03:00:51 PM
- 0 +

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

 

"Ryan" <mudesno@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZmYc.207313$bp1.98856@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> 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

Reply to Anonymous
Ryan   09-02-2004 at 03:16:56 AM
- 0 +

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

 

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"

John S. wrote:

>>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

Reply to Ryan
Anonymous   09-02-2004 at 09:24:37 PM
- 0 +

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

 

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <c%qZc.3661$2s.1874@twister.nyroc.rr.com> on Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:16:56 GMT,
Ryan <mudesno@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to Anonymous
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Guide > Forum > Mobility Technologies > GSM > GSM signal strength
Go to:

There are 7 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.407 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Google ads