[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: P3D information


Interesting information. Thanks.

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:22:34AM -0500, Jon Ogden wrote:
> As someone who works in the cellular industry, I can say with confidence
> that the passing of analog for digital was not what it was cracked up to be.
> Digital at best gives you approximately a 3:1 capacity improvement over

IMHO the best thing about digital was the sound quality improvement (too many
noisy analogue calls) and the integrated services like SMS and caller ID.
(SMS: Short Messaging Service on GSM.)

> CDMA in particular is horrible from my experience.  I had always thought
> have heard.  The voice quality is nearly as good as analog.  It beats CDMA
> hands down.

This sounds like a function of the codec and the bit rate, rather than
CDMA in particular. Original GSM quality was quite good, but phones in
the last 2-3 years have had an "Enhanced Full Rate" feature which produces
significantly better audio.

With suitably spaced base stations and a decent bit rate, CDMA should
be no different to GSM, as far as I can see. I don't work in this area
though, rather just an end user.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org