John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>>> That's also part of the advantage of CDMA, because the
>>> range from a cell is greater than the range from a GSM cell.

>> Is this a function of the modulation schemes, or is it because
>> CDMA is on 800 and GSM carriers are on 1900 PCS?

> Neither. Steven tries to claim that 800 MHz propagates
> better than 1900 MHz, but that simply isn't true in general.

Wrong, as always, particularly outside the built up areas.

> All he's really got to go on is the timing limit
> of standard GSM, 35 km (or about 22 miles).

Wrong again, there is a clear difference between
those bands propagation and building penetration wise.

> That's actually not a significant issue in practice, because real world
> range is typically limited by low handset power and line of sight issues,

Pigs arse it is, particularly outside built up areas where the base spacing
that GSM needs isnt as economic as with cdma, particularly with car kits.

> and that limit can be overcome with extended range (multi time slot) GSM.

Wrong again, it just doubles it, doesnt eliminate it and there are other
real downsides with that approach that sees it not used much at all.

>> Sprint is on 1900 CDMA, here, and its range sucks just as bad
>> as all the other 1900 Mhz carriers...about 2 miles unless there
>> are heavy TREES, Southern Pines, nature's RF sponge.

> The issue for Sprint in this area (and perhaps your area) is number of
> towers, not frequency. CDMA2000 has some issues, particularly with
> an insufficient number of towers, notably cell breathing and pilot pollution.

>> GSM works quite well in Europe in some god-awful terrain. But, that may be
>> because Europe isn't afraid to buy a little FILL IN REPEATER for the dead zones.

> It's because GSM works as well or better than CDMA2000.

Wrong again. GSM has a digital cliff that cdma doesnt.