CDMA vs Next/3G mobile coverage Townsville Area

[luigi]

see post below

[luigi]

Yeah - spot on Kerry.

This looks suspiciously like "Damn the quality & cost, we will force you to change because we said so & what's more, WE HAVE THE POWER."

[Chine]

When us "engineers" do surveys to provide coverage there are severe restrictions.

What normally happens, is that we decide to put a tower at spot X at Y metres high. Then the residents in the local area crack the poos, start a demonstration, chain themselves to tractors and say we don't want cancer coz of the radiation. Fact is, you get 300 times more radiation from sitting 4m away from your TV set in the lounge. So, companies end up going to the top of a small building and you get crap coverage due to height limitations.

Anyway.. Lets say there is a tower at 25m high. You've got Telstra, Optus, Vodafone all trying to get their spots on the tower... Telstras GSM/CDMA antennas are normally at the top, so no room, then you've got the rest of the operaters going doing the pole. So, new Telstra 3G service comes along, and guess what, no more room on tower, so they end up going to the bottom of the tower at only say 15m high.. The lower the antenna, the smaller the footprint area of radio coverage.

See my point?

But what you may find, is that when the CDMA starts to be replaced, they'll swap out the CDMA antennas for 3G and you'll get better service..

Once again. Mobile coverage isn't aimed at boat operators. It's aimed at covering populated areas. And they've only got revenue in the back of their minds, not giving 100 boats a bit of coverage when they need it.

Hello Chuss,

It is my understanding that for the 3G network to achieve designed coverage, cells (towers) need to be 1~1.5km apart thus explaining the proliferation of low impact installations throughout built up areas. Is this correct?

If this is indeed the case then the 3G network will never achieve the ranges presently achieved by CDMA over water.


Rgds

Chine

[Chine]

Next time you are driving through a major city take note of the proliferation of 3G yagi panels adorning the roofs of shopping centres and commercial buildings. If you look closely enough, you will see colour coded panels on street signs, traffic lights and power poles. They have to be many and close together to handle the massive amount of data being streamed.

Rgds

Chine

[chuss]

Hello Chuss,

It is my understanding that for the 3G network to achieve designed coverage, cells (towers) need to be 1~1.5km apart thus explaining the proliferation of low impact installations throughout built up areas. Is this correct?

If this is indeed the case then the 3G network will never achieve the ranges presently achieved by CDMA over water.


Rgds

Chine

Even closer. In built up areas (CBD), we're talking 500m, even less.
It all depends on the height of the base and it's surrounding neighbour cells.

As for the hidden installations... You guys should take some notice of flag poles, stobie poles (3 have put them on top of them in SA!!), and other things.
There is even one put in a FAKE palm tree! (actually several of them)

Once again, coverage is only provided to areas where it's required... and it's only required if there's proof that people will make lots of calls from that area.

So... a trick.. All you boaties.. attempt to make plenty of calls on the sea and in a couple of years you might find them designed specific OCEAN coverage cells. Engineers look at stats daily..

Anyway.. enough talking, lets go catch fish.

[Shanoss]

Even closer. In built up areas (CBD), we're talking 500m, even less.
It all depends on the height of the base and it's surrounding neighbour cells.

As for the hidden installations... You guys should take some notice of flag poles, stobie poles (3 have put them on top of them in SA!!), and other things.
There is even one put in a FAKE palm tree! (actually several of them)

Once again, coverage is only provided to areas where it's required... and it's only required if there's proof that people will make lots of calls from that area.

So... a trick.. All you boaties.. attempt to make plenty of calls on the sea and in a couple of years you might find them designed specific OCEAN coverage cells. Engineers look at stats daily..

Anyway.. enough talking, lets go catch fish.

A perfect end to this discussion.

[Chine]

A perfect end to this discussion.

Not quite Shanoss me hearty,

It begs the question as to why the regulators (who are supposedly competent and up to the job) did not dedicate the urban areas to 3G coverage (for photos, video, internet etc etc etc etc ) whilst maintaining an established and functional CDMA network (with vastly superior coverage) in all regions for those rational human beings who want to actually use it as a "telephone" in whatever circumstance............be it normal or emergency usage.

Parallel the two systems in urban areas so that the CDMA handset can be used anywhere and when the yuppies move out of town (rarely), they carry a second handset or buys a tri-compatible handset.

3G= Greed, Gluttony & Glitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How does that grab you????

Chine

[whichway]

Hi

I am not a telecommunications engineer, and don't work in the industry, but I can use google a bit.

There is a big difference apparently between NextG (Telstra) and 3G (somebody else).

The following link:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20796297-8362,00.html

includes the following:

What sets this (NextG) network apart from its rivals is that it operates on a different frequency to other 3G networks (850MHz rather than 2100MHz), which allows the signal to reach wider areas using fewer base stations.
For this reason, the Next G network is more than 100 times larger than any 3G phone network in Australia and covers 98 per cent of the country, replacing the CDMA network in regional areas and giving residents access to more multimedia than ever.

I am not relying on just this story - try "next g frequency" in google and you can get heaps of similar hits so if this is wrong, then heaps of people must be wrong.

This is pretty simple - why would Telstra shut down a perfectly good CDMA system unless it needed that section of the spectrum for something else ie Next G.

So if Next G is using the same frequency as CDMA, then can someone give me a good reason why Next G would have any less coverage than CDMA. There may well be a reason, but nothing I have read so far seems to have answered this question.

A bit more science and a bit less supposition would be helpful.

However to add my own supposition rather than science to this thread (everybody else is having a go) I would suggest that it is the handsets. With regard to GSM, I have noticed that the PDA / phones running Windows Mobile 5 have a lot worse reception than the real GSM phones. (The only science is a sample size of 3 people I know with PDA phones (including me), all of whom have problems). Maybe there is something in the Next G signal processing that decreases the reliabilty compared to the CDMA. (That is the supposition bit).

Whichway

[Chine]

Hi

I am not a telecommunications engineer, and don't work in the industry, but I can use google a bit.

There is a big difference apparently between NextG (Telstra) and 3G (somebody else).

The following link:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20796297-8362,00.html

includes the following:

What sets this (NextG) network apart from its rivals is that it operates on a different frequency to other 3G networks (850MHz rather than 2100MHz), which allows the signal to reach wider areas using fewer base stations.
For this reason, the Next G network is more than 100 times larger than any 3G phone network in Australia and covers 98 per cent of the country, replacing the CDMA network in regional areas and giving residents access to more multimedia than ever.

I am not relying on just this story - try "next g frequency" in google and you can get heaps of similar hits so if this is wrong, then heaps of people must be wrong.

This is pretty simple - why would Telstra shut down a perfectly good CDMA system unless it needed that section of the spectrum for something else ie Next G.

So if Next G is using the same frequency as CDMA, then can someone give me a good reason why Next G would have any less coverage than CDMA. There may well be a reason, but nothing I have read so far seems to have answered this question.

A bit more science and a bit less supposition would be helpful.

However to add my own supposition rather than science to this thread (everybody else is having a go) I would suggest that it is the handsets. With regard to GSM, I have noticed that the PDA / phones running Windows Mobile 5 have a lot worse reception than the real GSM phones. (The only science is a sample size of 3 people I know with PDA phones (including me), all of whom have problems). Maybe there is something in the Next G signal processing that decreases the reliabilty compared to the CDMA. (That is the supposition bit).

Whichway

Whichway,

Interesting post. I just wonder why T...tra continue to install 2100MHz yagi panels on their (non co-located) new rollout infrastructure in urban areas?

Perhaps Chuss can shed some light.

Regards

Chine

[Kerry]

About the only good thing about NextG at the moment is the SIMS work fine in GSM and hopefully one day there will be some reception to actual make use of the NextG SIM as a NextG device.

[Chine]

It makes me wonder whether there is actually a plan in place.

One would have logically assumed that, with our demographics, a long range/low frequency infrastructure would have been a well balanced and appropriate solution to our mobile telco needs. Yet not more than two years ago, carriers were moving away from 2G/2.5G/850MHz solutions towards 3G/2100MHz to cater to high end, high revenue data streaming.

This entailed a massive new infrastructure rollout with associated cost blowouts, debates in parliament about regional coverage and various confrontations with resident groups when the carriers decided to override council planning strictures and erect backyard infrastructure under the guise of "low impact facilities". Even had it's own act of parliament!

Now, one carrier is reverting back to "nextG/850" and no doubt utilising existing infrastructure with higher transmission levels.

Am I missing something?????

Chine

[Kerry]

....Am I missing something?????....

No ............

[whichway]

HI

Again, I am perfectly happy to admit that I have not followed this issue closely, but wasn't the 2100 gHz spectrum auctioned off to the highest bidder (for a lot of money), not Telstra. Obviously Telstra knew that they had the 800 MHz for their G network if they shut down the CDMA which was not a big income earner.

It was a commercial decision for Telstra, and if a few CDMA users have to buy new Next G handsets, well, welcome to the world of a fully privatised Telstra.

That's how I see it, and I still would like to know the range of the 800 Mhz in the Next G compared to CDMA range.

Whichway

[Dezzer]

Check out the present charges for downloads on the new system and you see why it is being pushed so hard by T. Guess they figure more money will be made by getting it out now before adequate coverage is achieved rather than staying with CDMA until then. As always it comes down to bucks made and share prices.