On 2009-10-03, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> poldy wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the China Mobile iPhone use CDMA?
>
> No. China Unicom runs both a GSM and a CDMA network. They launched the
> CDMA network to make better use of the limited spectrum. China Mobile,
> AFAIK, is GSM only.
I'm pretty sure that it is China Unicom, not China Mobile, which is
going to be selling the iPhone. This is not as wonderful as it could
be since China Mobile has about a 75% market share versus Unicom's
21%, but Unicom's 3G is standard UMTS while China Mobile's 3G is an
incompatible, made-in-China variant (uncovered by any Qualcomm patents,
though).
> Many Asian countries have both CDMA and GSM networks, India and China
> are the biggies, but many densely populated small countries also have
> launched CDMA networks, like Taiwan and Israel. South Korea has CDMA but
> not GSM.
Note that the missing 4% of China market share above is CDMA.
> As an aside, one PagePlus user says that his CDMA prepaid phone roamed
> in China on China Unicom, even though officially PagePlus doesn't do
> international roaming (it works somewhat in Canada, also unofficially).
Probably not Unicom if that was recently (like within the past 18
months or so). Unicom split off the CDMA network and sold it
to one of the landline companies, China Telecom.
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:10:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac94739$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>>> Sure, for a price.
>>
>> Where's that SuperGSM you told us was coming, eh?
>
>It's coming soon!
It's long been here in the USA, assuming Elmo is actually referring to
Extended Range GSM, as I and others have verified.
>For cell phones, what typically happens is the vendor of the major
>components for each sub-system submits their section of design to the
>phone manufacturer or the contract manufacturer (who often is doing the
>whole design) and all the sub-sections are merged together.
Perhaps some marginal manufacturers, but not for majors like Motorola,
Nokia, and Sony Ericsson, who do their designs in house.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
> >> Where's that SuperGSM you told us was coming, eh?
> >
> >It's coming soon!
>
> It's long been here in the USA, assuming Elmo is actually referring to
> Extended Range GSM, as I and others have verified.
Who would these "others" be? (Other than your mystery hearsay AT&T
technician who confirmed it when you said you asked him?)
I find it hard to believe a US carrier has deployed it since it cuts voice
capacity in half, and prevents GPRS data from working.
Even in extensive travels of the flat, remote, desert southwest or in rural
Kansas (like open water, an ideal terrain for extended range GSM) I can't
remember the last time I had GSM service on AT&T or T-Mobile without my
phones' GPRS (or EDGE) data icons lit as well.
Seemingly supporting the "standard" 35km limit, a look at AT&T's coverage
maps of remote areas with service (arguably the areas most likely to use ER-
GSM), like the Everglades, you'll find the circles or semi-circles at the
edge of coverage have a roughly 35km radius (or less) if you compare the
areas side by side with scaled maps (e.g. Google Earth).
> Seemingly supporting the "standard" 35km limit, a look at AT&T's coverage
> maps of remote areas with service (arguably the areas most likely to use ER-
> GSM), like the Everglades, you'll find the circles or semi-circles at the
> edge of coverage have a roughly 35km radius (or less) if you compare the
> areas side by side with scaled maps (e.g. Google Earth).
Maybe they're figuring that moving W-CDMA to 850 MHz is a better use of
their money than deploying extended range GSM. They can get past the 35
km limit, improve coverage on all 3G phones verus 1900 MHz, and give
customers another reason to upgrade to 3G. Infrastructure equipment
vendors have been advocating that North American carriers move W-CDMA to
850/900 as a work-around to the limited GSM range, and it appears that
AT&T is moving in that direction.
There's no evidence that extended-range GSM has been deployed in the
U.S. at all. There are not that many places where it would make sense,
basically it's useful only in flat areas or over water. I know that on
some of the Great Lakes it would be somewhat useful (a lot of coverage
was lost when AMPS was turned off), but AT&T has said that they don't
use it. The Everglades would be another good place. For most rural areas
where the carriers were not already AT&T affiliates, the smaller
carriers moved to CDMA because of the greater range. Rural carriers
cover 73% of the U.S. (of course Alaska really skews this!).
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:07:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in
<%zdzm.37849$Bl2.31431@newsfe14.iad>:
>At 07 Oct 2009 06:46:13 -0700 John Navas wrote:
>> It's long been here in the USA, assuming Elmo is actually referring to
>> Extended Range GSM, as I and others have verified.
>
>Who would these "others" be? (Other than your mystery hearsay AT&T
>technician who confirmed it when you said you asked him?)
I have no doubt you'll say that anything I say is hearsay (or worse), so
I'm not going to bother with more details.
>I find it hard to believe a US carrier has deployed it since it cuts voice
>capacity in half, and prevents GPRS data from working.
The deployments I know of are over water, where capacity is ample, and
voice range is presumably more important than data.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:26:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4acdbdf3$0$1644$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Seemingly supporting the "standard" 35km limit, a look at AT&T's coverage
>> maps of remote areas with service (arguably the areas most likely to use ER-
>> GSM), like the Everglades, you'll find the circles or semi-circles at the
>> edge of coverage have a roughly 35km radius (or less) if you compare the
>> areas side by side with scaled maps (e.g. Google Earth).
>
>Maybe they're figuring that moving W-CDMA to 850 MHz is a better use of
>their money than deploying extended range GSM. They can get past the 35
>km limit, improve coverage on all 3G phones verus 1900 MHz, and give
>customers another reason to upgrade to 3G. Infrastructure equipment
>vendors have been advocating that North American carriers move W-CDMA to
>850/900 as a work-around to the limited GSM range, and it appears that
>AT&T is moving in that direction.
Proof? Oh wait ... I'm forgot ... you never have any proof.
The issue is capacity. Range is not an issue.
>There's no evidence that extended-range GSM has been deployed in the
>U.S. at all. ...
Simply wrong. What a shock. Not.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
> Seemingly supporting the "standard" 35km limit, a look at AT&T's coverage
> maps of remote areas with service (arguably the areas most likely to use ER-
> GSM), like the Everglades, you'll find the circles or semi-circles at the
> edge of coverage have a roughly 35km radius (or less) if you compare the
> areas side by side with scaled maps (e.g. Google Earth).
If you look at the recent AT&T press releases regarding the deployment
of 3G on 850 MHz, they allude to the benefit of greater coverage with 3G
on W-CDMA versus their existing GSM 850 Mhz (of course without saying
anything explicitly negative about their existing service).
Boaters like Verizon because over flat water you get much greater range
with CDMA than with GSM, but with with W-CDMA at 850 MHz the advantage
of Verizon over AT&T is much less (one advantage that remains is that
you don't need a 3G phone on Verizon to get the longer range). In areas
like South Florida, boaters have been in a lose-lose situation--AT&T is
on both the A&B sides of 800 Mhz, and unable to provide coverage out on
the ocean due to the 35km limit of GSM, while Verizon is at 1900 MHz and
subject to all the issues of 1900 MHz. Marine radios and satellite
phones are used a lot more. In areas with 800 MHz CDMA, casual boaters
are more likely to forgo a marine radio, though this is probably not
such a great idea. The friend's sailboats I've been on out of San
Francsico Bay all have marine radios, and of course all of them are also
on Verizon for cellular. It's extremely rare to find a boater that sails
out of San Francisco Bay that is on AT&T for wireless.
I expect that the reason AT&T decided not to deploy extended range GSM
is because they figured there was no need for it given their plans to
convert more and more of their 850 MHz spectrum to W-CDMA which provides
even greater range than extended range GSM.
Of course everyone is still waiting for some proof of extended range GSM
in the U.S., but given our favorite troll's record of never providing
any citations or references for anything that he makes up, I think
they'll be waiting for a long time.
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:02:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ace1add$0$1617$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Boaters like Verizon because over flat water you get much greater range
>with CDMA than with GSM, but with with W-CDMA at 850 MHz the advantage
>of Verizon over AT&T is much less (one advantage that remains is that
>you don't need a 3G phone on Verizon to get the longer range).
Simply not true. Here in Northern California, AT&T has better coverage
and range over water than Verizon.
>In areas
>like South Florida, boaters have been in a lose-lose situation--AT&T is
>on both the A&B sides of 800 Mhz, and unable to provide coverage out on
>the ocean due to the 35km limit of GSM, while Verizon is at 1900 MHz and
>subject to all the issues of 1900 MHz.
Tell us again about your fake radio tower used to get that range.
>Marine radios and satellite
>phones are used a lot more. In areas with 800 MHz CDMA, casual boaters
>are more likely to forgo a marine radio, though this is probably not
>such a great idea.
Marine radios are actually more popular than ever, in part because of
lower cost, in part because of DSC, in part because they're often
strongly recommended or even mandated.
>The friend's sailboats I've been on out of San
>Francsico Bay all have marine radios, and of course all of them are also
>on Verizon for cellular. It's extremely rare to find a boater that sails
>out of San Francisco Bay that is on AT&T for wireless.
Simply not true.
>I expect that the reason AT&T decided not to deploy extended range GSM
AT&T has deployed Extended Range GSM.
>Of course everyone is still waiting for some proof of extended range GSM
>in the U.S., ...
Everyone? No, only a few trolls like you. Sadly, your ignorance of
mobile radio is matched by your ignorance of boating.
--
Best regards,
John Navas, publisher of Navas' Sailing & Racing in
the San Francisco Bay Area <http://sail.navas.us/>
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:6b1sc51g7qhv0v4fk4nnb7l30q2gga6jai@4ax.com...
>>> It's long been here in the USA, assuming Elmo is actually referring to
>>> Extended Range GSM, as I and others have verified.
>>
>>Who would these "others" be? (Other than your mystery hearsay AT&T
>>technician who confirmed it when you said you asked him?)
>
> I have no doubt you'll say that anything I say is hearsay (or worse), so
> I'm not going to bother with more details.
Besides, why start now? The only time you provided any citation to Extended
Range GSM deployment in the US, you provided a "circular reference": a
Google Groups link to your original claim on the Cingular group that you had
used it.
>>I find it hard to believe a US carrier has deployed it since it cuts voice
>>capacity in half, and prevents GPRS data from working.
>
> The deployments I know of are over water, where capacity is ample, and
> voice range is presumably more important than data.
Unless the actual tower is located offshore on a buoy somewhere, I'm not
sure I'd consider "capacity ample" since, presumably, the populated seaport
town underfoot is sharing the same cellsite.
> Unless the actual tower is located offshore on a buoy somewhere, I'm not
> sure I'd consider "capacity ample" since, presumably, the populated
> seaport town underfoot is sharing the same cellsite.
This is true in some areas of southern California and southern Florida
where the seaport towns are actually large cities. There are other areas
where the towns are fairly small, especially on much of the Northern
California coast.
I don't blame AT&T for not bothering with extended range GSM because
there's very little upside for them in terms of revenue. It really is
only helpful out on the plains and over water. I don't know about other
areas of the country other than south Florida and Northern California,
but nearly all boaters in Northern California went the CDMA/AMPS route
because the range is much greater (except of course our favorite troll).
Even without AMPS these boaters would be very unlikely to switch from
CDMA to GSM even if extended range were made available because there's
no upside for on the water, and in Northern California Verizon has
always had far better overall coverage than any other carrier (according
to every independent study ever conducted, but not according to our
favorite troll). Well I shouldn't say "ever." Back in the days when it
was AT&T Wireless with TDMA/AMPS versus Verizon with CDMA AMPS, AT&T had
coverage similar to Verizon's, but it all went downhill when they went
to GSM only. I was a long time Cellular One/AT&T Wireless customer until
it all fell apart for them.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:39:30 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in
<uerzm.38066$Bl2.18696@newsfe14.iad>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:6b1sc51g7qhv0v4fk4nnb7l30q2gga6jai@4ax.com.. .
>> I have no doubt you'll say that anything I say is hearsay (or worse), so
>> I'm not going to bother with more details.
>
>Besides, why start now? The only time you provided any citation to Extended
>Range GSM deployment in the US, you provided a "circular reference": a
>Google Groups link to your original claim on the Cingular group that you had
>used it.
I provided objective proof down to latitude and longitude. That you
don't like it doesn't make it any less proof, and is no excuse for ad
hominem.
>> The deployments I know of are over water, where capacity is ample, and
>> voice range is presumably more important than data.
>
>Unless the actual tower is located offshore on a buoy somewhere, I'm not
>sure I'd consider "capacity ample" since, presumably, the populated seaport
>town underfoot is sharing the same cellsite.
That's not how it works. Learn about sector antennas.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:edpsc51vn3j1dhfhlse0g0p12knshfjfj7@4ax.com...
>
>>> I have no doubt you'll say that anything I say is hearsay (or worse), so
>>> I'm not going to bother with more details.
>>
>>Besides, why start now? The only time you provided any citation to
>>Extended
>>Range GSM deployment in the US, you provided a "circular reference": a
>>Google Groups link to your original claim on the Cingular group that you
>>had
>>used it.
>
> I provided objective proof down to latitude and longitude. That you
> don't like it doesn't make it any less proof, and is no excuse for ad
> hominem.
No newspaper would print a story without confirmation. I seem to recall one
time in these NGs that you demanded a link to a carrier's website from a
poster (not me) as evidence to support his or her claim. AT&T (and Cingular
before them) can't put a new coffee maker in the employee breakroom without
releasing a press release bragging about it, but neither AT&T/Cingular nor
whichever vendor would have supplied their Extended Range GSM solution
(Motorola, Ericsson, etc.) seems to have ever bragged about deploying a
technology to triple the range of their ordinary cell sites here in the US.
However, all parties involved have bragged about similar deployments in
Australia, Africa, etc., but the "nation's largest wireless network" (at the
time), or their vendor, never considered deployment here a newsworthy
development, and instead stealthily deployed a new technology without
telling anyone.
Boggles the mind...
>>> The deployments I know of are over water, where capacity is ample, and
>>> voice range is presumably more important than data.
>>
>>Unless the actual tower is located offshore on a buoy somewhere, I'm not
>>sure I'd consider "capacity ample" since, presumably, the populated
>>seaport
>>town underfoot is sharing the same cellsite.
>
> That's not how it works. Learn about sector antennas.
Fair point, if every Extended Range GSM-enabled site was on the edge of the
beach or on cliffs along the shore. For the sites that were unfortunate
enough to be further inland, like most of them, you'd lose a fair amount of
capacity on the shoreline side.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:23:36 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in
<s9xzm.26747$tG1.11359@newsfe22.iad>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:edpsc51vn3j1dhfhlse0g0p12knshfjfj7@4ax.com.. .
>> I provided objective proof down to latitude and longitude. That you
>> don't like it doesn't make it any less proof, and is no excuse for ad
>> hominem.
>[SNIP]
>Boggles the mind...
I rest my case.
>> That's not how it works. Learn about sector antennas.
>
>Fair point, if every Extended Range GSM-enabled site was on the edge of the
>beach or on cliffs along the shore. For the sites that were unfortunate
>enough to be further inland, like most of them, you'd lose a fair amount of
>capacity on the shoreline side.
They're often deployed where they have clear line of sight over water.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <ckgtc59vlqnp4lo8j98p8tjifhatbalj66@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> [SNIP]
>>> Boggles the mind...
>> I rest my case.
>
> I noticed that you snipped the part that explains why you're lying.
I suggest that you all follow my lead and kill-file him. He thrives on
the attention. The lies get him the attention, and then it's a never
ending cycle. He's a pathological liar who simply enjoys trolling.
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:16:27 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4acf537a$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <ckgtc59vlqnp4lo8j98p8tjifhatbalj66@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> Boggles the mind...
>>> I rest my case.
>>
>> I noticed that you snipped the part that explains why you're lying.
>
>I suggest that you all follow my lead and kill-file him. He thrives on
>the attention. The lies get him the attention, and then it's a never
>ending cycle. He's a pathological liar who simply enjoys trolling.
You're pathetic, Steven.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
GPRS class A, multislot class 32, maximum speed 107/64.2 kbps (DL/UL) EDGE
class A, multislot class 32, maximum speed 296/177.6 kbps (DL/UL) WCDMA
900/1700/2100. Maximum speed PS 384/384 kbps (DL/UL) HSPA 900/1700/2100.
Maximum speed PS 10/2 Mbps (DL/UL) WLAN IEEE 802.11b/g"
I suspect the American N900 will be shifted to our bands, here.
This is not a CDMA phone. Nokia may make a version of the N900 radio, but
this is a GSM/UMTS phone. WCDMA is essentially a synonym for UMTS; what
the GSM world calls "3G".
WCDMA is not the same as the CDMA used by Verizon. Verizon's 3G CDMA is
EV-DO.
In 2G, CDMA was far superior to GSM in voice quality and other ways.
That is why the GSM world abandoned TDMA (which is what 2G GSM uses) in
favor of CDMA for 3G. They just did 3G CDMA differently, and
incompatibly, from the 3G CDMA used by the CDMA world.
The two 3G standards (UMTS and EV-DO) are roughly comparable in
performance as far as most users are concerned. In particular, UMTS fixes
the poor quality audio that plagues GSM.
In 4G, it all gets unified with LTE, except for Sprint which is going it
alone with Wimax.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
At 17 Oct 2009 01:53:42 +0000 Larry wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4ac7fa6a$0$1640
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> > Many phones have CDMA
> > and GSM versions.
> >
>
> Some will even work on both!
>
> http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/specifications/
>
> "Operating frequency
>
> * Quad-band GSM EDGE 850/900/1800/1900
> * WCDMA 900/1700/2100 MHz
>
> Data network
>
> GPRS class A, multislot class 32, maximum speed 107/64.2 kbps (DL/UL)
EDGE
> class A, multislot class 32, maximum speed 296/177.6 kbps (DL/UL) WCDMA
> 900/1700/2100. Maximum speed PS 384/384 kbps (DL/UL) HSPA 900/1700/2100.
> Maximum speed PS 10/2 Mbps (DL/UL) WLAN IEEE 802.11b/g"
>
> I suspect the American N900 will be shifted to our bands, here.
>
Um, as I've tried to point out to you before, WCDMA means GSM 3G, not EVDO.
The N900 is a GSM phone with NO CDMA capability. I suspect there will not
be a separate "North American" version; this device is probably destined
for T-Mobile on "both sides of the pond;" the 900/2100 WCDMA (GSM 3G) will
support 3G on T-Mo's European divisions, and 1700 will support 3G on T-Mo
USA.
Rumor has it that T-Mo USA will be selling this by year-end. The device,
with the specs you quoted above, has already been submitted to the FCC for
approval.
Re: Sorry Navas.... 
Linear Mode
