Re: What is the best phone for reception in rural areas?

Anon E. Muss wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:31:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Anon E. Muss wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:37:54 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@xxxxxx> wrote:

CDMA phones will offer you coverage in many areas that GSM will not.
GSM phones will offer you coverage in many areas CDMA will not.
Very, very few, if you're talking about the U.S.. It's extremely rare to find a place where there is GSM coverage but no CDMA coverage.

I exaggerated for effect above.

What I have found is that there are few places with CDMA coverage but
not GSM coverage, and visa versa.

What I've found, and what coverage maps will show, is that there are many areas where there is CDMA, but no GSM, and the lack of GSM is because there is no GSM network that covers that area, not merely because you're in a dead spot. OTOH, in the rare case that you find a place with GSM but no CDMA, it's because you're unlucky enough to be in a dead spot of an area that is otherwise covered by CDMA.

GSM is at a big disadvantage when it comes to rural areas, because a CDMA tower has a much greater range than a GSM tower. This is why they use CDMA in the Australian outback, despite the fact that they used GSM in urban areas. Telstra is actually trying to replace that CDMA network with 3G (W-CDMA) but has been running into problems. Amusingly, while other companies wanted to buy their CDMA network and continue operating, it, Telstra won't sell, because they want the 850 MHz spectrum to use for their GSM network because of the superior range of the lower frequency:

"In town last week meeting with politicians and statutory authorities on the issue, GSM Association communications director Mark Smith backed Telstra's view.

For Telstra to sell its CDMA assets off, he told ZDNet Australia via e-mail, "would mean Telstra would be unable to service rural Australia effectively, as it would have to give up the 850MHz spectrum -- which is so good for rural coverage -- or even split that spectrum."

It looks like there will be market for quad band phones for Australia (though the 1900 MHz isn't really needed).

I guess the real problem is that no one in Australia consulted with Navas, or they'd have known that the lower frequency was no better for rural coverage than the PCS band.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The i-mateT PDA2k EVDO opinions ?
    ... (this will probably change when more people begin using the network) ... No built in Wi-Fi as on the GSM ... CDMA penetration is not as good as GSM (Building Walls / Underground ... Car Parks etc) although CDMA coverage is better than GSM. ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.phone_edition)
  • Re: CDMA versus GSM
    ... if you have GSM I think you got the better deal. ... My quad band phone has worked everywhere with GSM ... coverage and I believe now with the UMTS in it it will work in Japan. ... It is a new CDMA only, ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: A Glaring Lack of the Obvious
    ... networks for CDMA and GSM. ... rather than *any coverage at all*. ... Also, at least until recently, many phones still supported analog (AMPS) ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Cheap phones suitable for poor coverage areas?
    ... GSM). ... coverage with fewer cells, even though every one of them would rather ... have been selling GSM, and not CDMA, handsets (CDMA handsets are ... a match for the coverage footprint of a CDMA cell, ...
    (uk.telecom.mobile)
  • Re: US, Retrieve Cell service getting worse, Analog service disappearing.
    ... FCC ruling says that all analog cell phone services can be shut off ... Verizon will do just that precisely on 2/18/2008! ... if it is better to switch to AT&T and others using the GSM network. ... Verizon digital is CDMA - it is the old digital standard, ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)