how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
383 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 gbean
join:2004-04-02
Santa Rosa, CA | RE: your misinformation.... so many misinformed people here.
CDMA has always had a hugely larger capability of handling high volumes of network traffic compared to GSM.
They dont use the US/European standard GSM in Japan and Korea for that reason.
Currently, my BB 8830 with sprint is capable of web browsing and being on a call AT THE SAME TIME. It has been that way since it was introduced 2 years ago. Its not even a top notch phone anymore.... heck its not even EVDO Rev A, its Rev 0. (1.8MBPS data instead of about 4.)
What no talent ass clown got the idea that AT&T can provide over 7 MBPS OTA? NO WAY. Ever.
If and when the CDMA carriers get these apple devices, there will likely be no hiccups in their networks, as they are already FAAAR beyond the volume capacity of AT&T's decrepit old network.
Even 8 years ago in 2001, in NY during "that terror fiasco" the only networks that DIDNT go down were CDMA carriers!
And a nice thing: All Sprint plans include the use of any cdma carriers network in the US without roaming charges whatsoever.
So I can use my 8830 on VZW, alltel, us cellular, etc so I am always covered. | |
|  | | Re: your misinformation.... said by gbean:Even 8 years ago in 2001, in NY during "that terror fiasco" the only networks that DIDNT go down were CDMA carriers! I can personally vouch for that.
ATTWS? Maxed to capacity.
Nextel? Maxed to capacity.
Voicestream/T-Mo? Even when you could get coverage, maxed to capacity.
VZW? Connected a call within 10 seconds.
After September 11 it was clear that the only network capable of handling an exaflood of traffic is Verizon. And that was back when Verizon had many more subscribers than the other carriers did. | |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: your misinformation.... do you know what "frequency holdings" means?
Has NOTHING to do with CDMA. Has EVERYTHING to do with the amount of frequency available.
It really isn't rocket-science, folks. | |
| | | gbean
join:2004-04-02
Santa Rosa, CA | Re: your misinformation.... "Amount of frequency?"
Apparently you are confused.
CDMA uses code division (hence C.ode D.ivision M.ultiple A.ccess) along the same frequencies, known as "mulitplexing" in order to create more data pipelines in the same frequency spectrum.
the window of frequency range allotted to the carrier by the FCC or whatever sanctioning body in other countries has little if nothing to do with it.
AT&T Failed miserably when they decided to switch to GSM from their TDMA roots.
Call quality, clarity and reliability subsequently suffered, as well as the future-proof-ness of their data needs. | |
| | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: your misinformation.... said by gbean:"Amount of frequency?" Apparently you are confused. CDMA uses code division (hence C.ode D.ivision M.ultiple A.ccess) along the same frequencies, known as "mulitplexing" in order to create more data pipelines in the same frequency spectrum. the window of frequency range allotted to the carrier by the FCC or whatever sanctioning body in other countries has little if nothing to do with it. So you're saying the fact that ATT or TMO may hold 10mhz of spectrum in a given area while VZW holds 40mhz has no effect on handling higher call volume (ie capacity)?
You might want to submit your findings to some physics papers, because you just found something that defies it.
AT&T Failed miserably when they decided to switch to GSM from their TDMA roots.
Call quality, clarity and reliability subsequently suffered, as well as the future-proof-ness of their data needs. Call quality/clarity suffered because they chose to use a half-rate codec. Hop on over to the howardforums and you'll notice that users who have used T-Mobile AND ATT will still tell you that ATT's GSM sounds worse because they chose to primarily use a half-rate codec while TMO only uses their half-rate in heavily congested areas.
And as far as reliability, good luck getting a clear call on VZW or Sprint with 2 bars or less. Not sure about ATT, but for TMO I still get clear calls without voices that sound like robots. I know that with sprint, that certainly wasn't the case, and according to most users on howardforums, this seems to be an issue on VZW too.
Your fragments of knowledge may convince some here at DSLR, but if you want to stop spreading your unfounded theories on physics (ie spectrum holding have no effect on call-capacity) and network technology superiority (ie cdma "sounds" better, regardless of codec), you may want to check out HoFo.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | | gbean
join:2004-04-02
Santa Rosa, CA | Re: your misinformation.... Ok, then tell me how you think engineers can get almost 1000 separate data streams down the same strand of fiber optic cable...
I personally know an electrical engineer from cisco who helped develop the technology.
You are refusing to think outside the box.
You can transmit two signals on the same frequency with separate "codes" attached to specify to two different phones which signal they should be translating. Much like IP addresses, which ironically all CDMA phones have...
Its the beauty of the digital age.
It is very similar in theory to how your cable company gets Internet, Phone service and HUNDREDS of channels of video to your house through ONE copper wire.
GOOGLE: "Confined Spectrum Multiplexing"
I made multiple calls today from rural areas on a VZW phone and a Sprint Blackberry with ONE BAR OR LESS.
That is less dependent on the network and more so on the quality of the phone and its antenna design.
I am very familiar with howard forums, but you are failing to see the forest among the trees.
I don't need a forum to quantify the knowledge I have taken the time to discuss with some of the people who helped develop the technology.
Cerent, Cisco, Qualcomm and Nokia all employ close friends of mine. | |
| | | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: your misinformation.... said by gbean:Ok, then tell me how you think engineers can get almost 1000 separate data streams down the same strand of fiber optic cable... I personally know an electrical engineer from cisco who helped develop the technology. You are refusing to think outside the box. You can transmit two signals on the same frequency with separate "codes" attached to specify to two different phones which signal they should be translating. Much like IP addresses, which ironically all CDMA phones have... Its the beauty of the digital age. It is very similar in theory to how your cable company gets Internet, Phone service and HUNDREDS of channels of video to your house through ONE copper wire. GOOGLE: "Confined Spectrum Multiplexing" I made multiple calls today from rural areas on a VZW phone and a Sprint Blackberry with ONE BAR OR LESS. That is less dependent on the network and more so on the quality of the phone and its antenna design. I am very familiar with howard forums, but you are failing to see the forest among the trees. I don't need a forum to quantify the knowledge I have taken the time to discuss with some of the people who helped develop the technology. Cerent, Cisco, Qualcomm and Nokia all employ close friends of mine. dude, I know how how multiplexing works. You need to read up on wireless networks and spectrum.
You can't fit an unlimited amount of data in 1.75mhz of spectrum. If that were the case, T-Mobile, ATT, Sprint, and Verizon wouldn't be spending money on 20-30mhz of AWS and 700mhz spectrum for $billions on top of their existing 850 and 1900mhz spectrum holdings. If all they needed to do was switch to a CDMA access method and stuff all of their data needs into the minimum channel width they'd do it and save themselves a TON of money. In fact, there'd never be a need for LTE if what you're saying is all they need. Not to mention, they're obviously wasting their time on FDMA.
Oh, and coax also uses different frequencies.
For example: »Cox Making Progress On 1 GHz Upgrades
Cable companies use various frequencies to transmit their data. By upgrading their infrastructure to support a wider swath of spectrum, they can increase capacity. That's PRECISELY why wireless networks purchase spectrum from the government: Because the more spectrum they have, the higher their capacity.
Seriously tho, if you found a way for wireless networks to fit an unlimited number of people onto their networks without using up all of their spectrum (using CDMA, right?), then you need to let the higher-ups at these wireless companies know about this. They've been wasting $billions on spectrum that they in fact don't need! And to think, the FCC is actually wasting their time trying to find more spectrum to free up for growing wireless data needs, when all they need to use is 15 year old CDMA technology!
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | Re: RE: your misinformation.... quote:
so many misinformed people here.
CDMA has always had a hugely larger capability of handling high volumes of network traffic compared to GSM.
Starting with you....
You do know GSM-3g (AKA UMTS/HSPDA) is based off CDMA and uses a CDMA interface, right?
quote:
Even 8 years ago in 2001, in NY during "that terror fiasco" the only networks that DIDNT go down were CDMA carriers!
Uh, no. Was there, did that, and had the T-shirt. It was a PITA getting through on Verizon Wireless on 9/11 and for a couple days later. I was on VZW then and was calling family and friends back in N. NJ quite regularly. There were numerous "call failed" messages from my phone at the time. | |
|
| |
|
