PDA

View Full Version : CDMA vs Next/3G mobile coverage Townsville Area



eugah
29-03-2007, 01:06 PM
Can anyone tell me how far out to sea Telstra Next/3G coverage goes. I currently have a CDMA & know it works at Maggie shoals. I know i have until February to swap over but want to do so as soon as the new coverage works out wide.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Adrian

blaze
29-03-2007, 01:40 PM
what we are finding locally the next g phones have not got the same coverage as the old cdma, they keep telling us it will be better but we are yet to see it. I am holding off as long as I can. Maybe a good thing for the city but its crap in the more remote areas
cheers
blaze

seabug
29-03-2007, 02:21 PM
Next/3G is hopeless in Tasmania.:( :( :(

We stayed at the Treasure Island cabin park in Lawn/ton last night and there was no coverage. And that is only a couple of km's from the cente of town.

Also there is no coverage down south around Southport.>:( >:(

Regards
seabug

Kerry
29-03-2007, 02:23 PM
At present compared to CDMA, Next-G is currently totally hopeless. The other thing that defeats marine type setups is there are no Next-G kits available so as to make use external antenna's.

Have had to even recently install CDMA in remote dial-up situations as Next-G falls a long way short, CDMA is still the only system that can reach the more out of the way places, even where Next-G systems are running.

Regards, Kerry.

Kerry
29-03-2007, 02:26 PM
And what's more if one looks at Telstra's Next-G coverage maps it gives the impression it's a good thing, should be a law against misrepresentation.

blaze
29-03-2007, 02:34 PM
I couldnt agree more Kerry, The lousy reps trying to promote it down here have convinced a bloody lot of people to change over and some of them have had to get there old cdma's going again as they are that hopeless. Its a pet hate of mine ATM
cheers
blaze

griz066
29-03-2007, 05:12 PM
Next G absolute crap compared to CDMA I was one who thought I would embrace the new technology, boy was I had.
The phone they told me was the best was the blue samgsung.............piece of SH!T it is.
My suggestion would be hang onto the CDMA as long as you can and hope the next g gets better.
Don't hold your breath though.

subzero
29-03-2007, 07:31 PM
I may be wrong, and probably am.... but either someone told me, or I read somewhere that CDMA is going to be phased out as it has not proved all that successfull. Like I say, I might be wrong, but if I was looking at buying a new phone I would definately be checking how long the networks are going to be operating. I am pretty sure that their must be a phone bloke in here somewhere that can correct me or confirm this.
Cheers Lloyd

bay_firey
29-03-2007, 07:39 PM
You are correct - CDMA IS being shut down early 2008.

luigi
29-03-2007, 08:39 PM
Looks like the bloody government's not content to leave us with lousy roads - they intend to shut us up with an inferior phone system too.::) >:(

Hey, but we're only country bumkins with few votes so who cares?

Tassie JR
29-03-2007, 09:16 PM
Next/3G is hopeless in Tasmania.:( :( :(

We stayed at the Treasure Island cabin park in Lawn/ton last night and there was no coverage. And that is only a couple of km's from the cente of town.

Also there is no coverage down south around Southport.>:( >:(

Regards
seabug

i agree seabug it is really hopeless in tassie went down there in january for holiday and a normal telstra phone was getting more coverage then the next/3g mobile and the cdma was getting coverage almost every where so i think the cdma is the best phone for coverage.

tassie JR

Owen
29-03-2007, 09:48 PM
I imagine 3G is just like the Optus coverage I had before :'(
Fine as long as you don't go outside of a major metropolitan area.
Ou company just upgraded many of our Reps phones to the lates Imate Jas-Jams and Telstra 3G network.
We can now send & receive emails whilst on the road, browse the internet, write word documents and excel files etc etc etc.

Pity if you want to make a phone call though >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(


The piece of crap hangs up at least 5 times a day (if you can get it to connect in the first place). And I'm talking in the middle of bloody Gladstone.
It ain't Brisvegas, but it's not exactly Ayres Rock either.
It locks up constantly (requiring a re-boot).
You can't actually dial a number while you're mobile as you can't use the stylus, so you have to use voice recognition dialling.

You know that thing when you try to get the right department at a government agency???
Get ready to live with it 24/7 :bomb:

And haven't they got the range on the bluetooth hands free sorted out!!!
If you're anywhere within a 50m radius of your car, the bloody phone will ring, but you can't answer it because the car kit takes over.

OK, OK.
Most of this isn't about 3G.
But IMHO, 3G is about as well conceived as the piece of crap it's being delivered in.

After a few more beers, I might tell you what I really think ;)

chuss
30-03-2007, 02:59 AM
I'm going to explain a few things.
I'm an ex Nortel Engineer (we did the CDMA design for Telstra)

CDMA operates in the 800Mhz band. 3G (UMTS) operates in the 2.5-3.2 ghz band (depending which country).

What does this mean? Lets say there is 1 mobile CDMA phone tower at spot X. If you had a CDMA handset, you may be able to make calls up to 20km away..(in a perfect enviroment). If the same tower at spot X was a 3G tower, you may only be able to make a phone call 5km away from it..

The higher the bandwidth range, the lower the signal strength (comparing CDMA to 3G).

There is also a restriction called TIMING ADVANCE. This is a number configured on the network which restricts phones making calls from a certain distance from a particular cell on a tower.

Water is a funny thing. Radio waves do weird things over water, these signals can cause interference across harbours and gulfs with other mobile phone users. SO, what us engineers do, is change this value of timing advance so that the signal over the water is kept to a minimal distance.

Mobile phone networks aren't engineered to provide coverage out at sea. Maybe harbours and small rivers/gulfs. But not offshore (ie 2km out to sea).

Get UHF/VHF and if you really want to, go for the serious Marine TRXs. They may cost you a bit in purchasing/licensing, but these are designed for the purpose.
There is also satellite phones available on the iridium telstra network, again cost may be an issue.

Any questions, message me.

Kerry
30-03-2007, 09:25 AM
Chuss,

So then what is the whole point of it then? Make a call out to say 20k but now only 5k, bit of a backward step regardless of the phone radio debate as the radio debate is quite another and different issue.

It would appear most phone networks are no longer being engineered for land coverage either :) and if you engineers thing that is somehow a good thing then somebody needs to step back and take a long gard look at the actual situation, not some drumed up artifical coverage that in no way reflects the real world.

Big claim is this 95% coverage, BS, 95% of the population yeah but only 5% of the foot print does not equate to a satisfactory phone system. Unless of course it's nothing more than an attempt at draining the most $$'s out of the users?

Some private companies are actually funding installations simply to get coverage and what's more paying Telstra for the privlidge and then Telstra turning around and making $$'s from it.

CDMA right at this time, right now is the only network that can reach many places but of course new activations of CDMA have been shelved and the big sell is on to push people to Next-G, sooner than latter. Try and get an explanation from phone operators why CDMA has no problems with reception yet Next-G is crap, nil, ziltch, none at all and what are they going to do about it, all one gets is stonewalled, in fact they don't have any answers, which begs the question why Not?


Regards, Kerry.

eugah
30-03-2007, 09:43 AM
Thanks guys that has well & truely answered my questions. I'll stick with the CDMA until it gets cut off. I think all fishermen should boycott Telstra until they do something about providing us with suitable coverage.


Adrian

davez104
30-03-2007, 10:26 AM
I can understand the service not being quite up to scratch while Telstra is still getting everything up to speed. We live away from the big regional centres, so we will allways come second, I can live with that too. But, out here, it's all about the phone service you can or can't get when your away from town, and telstra is changing to a system that has less range??? WTF???? Is there any upside to this system for us users that don't live in the city and just want to make a phone call? Thats why I bought a mobile in the first place, if I'm in town, I'll use a b!oody payphone. Telstra drives me nuts, if any other provider could match thier mobile coverage, thats where my money would go, they've allready lost my home phone and internet.

Dave.

FNQCairns
30-03-2007, 10:40 AM
Forgive me if I have this wrong but didn't we go through this? from analogue to digital 10 years or so ago, if telstra doesn't de-fraud (with regulatory protection)punters into believing they get a benifit how would they get it of the ground.

Considering they are just a company now so are in it for themself and no-one else.

cheers fnq

davez104
30-03-2007, 10:44 AM
Maybe so, but if the product/service is worthwhile, you don't need to defraud anyone.

Dave.

FNQCairns
30-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Yeah dave they might do what they did years ago and force people onto a lower quality system for coverage then keep the new old (now current digital)as a premium service.

I know that if was allowed to keep the analogue I would be happier with my mobile service today, they keep degrading the core reason the masses own the phone in the first place but consider the bling enough justification, it doesn't do it for me.

cheers fnq

davez104
30-03-2007, 11:15 AM
Me neither, my new phone can access the web, send emails, play music, I can watch video, play games and heaps of other stuff, but if I cant make a call, it'll end up in the bin. Only upgraded to NextG because the old CDMA copped a little bit too much salt on a trip out of yeppoon and started doing wierd things. The service is nowhere near as good as CDMA, thought it might improve with time, but now I am thinking it was just one big backward step. CDMA was just starting to get all of the "bling" features of digital, with the great range too, nice time to axe it.

Dave.

Stumpthumpa
30-03-2007, 12:37 PM
My wife has CDMA, I have 3G. It is a constant disappointment and annoyance to travel around and see how crap the 3G coverage is, compared to CDMA.

Even more annoying for my wife when she was recently looking at a new phone and every store staff person was telling her how great 3G coverage is - this is an out and out lie.

We had an experience a few months ago when a couple towing a caravan where broken down out the back of Tenterfield. Guess what, their 3G was useless, lucky we stopped and had a CDMA phone with us. I wonder what happens if someone really comes undone relying on the "excellent" 3G coverage promoted by resellers?

chuss
30-03-2007, 06:59 PM
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.

bobbyfischer
30-03-2007, 07:12 PM
Telstra NextG = UMTS 850 MHz = Existing CDMA frequency

Telstra 3G = UMTS 2.1GHz

NextG problem is handsets/chipsets as few other countries use this system/frequency.

External CDMA antenna could be used for a NextG phone if the coupling connection was the same.

Timber
30-03-2007, 08:44 PM
3762Hi Guys, I have a contact high up on the Telstra food chain and sent him a copy of your posts. Here is his response.

Happy for you to provide responses if you have the time.

1. Maggie Shoals are 26km north of Magnetic Island which puts them about 50km from our best base which would be Mt Stuart. To reliably work this distance, one of the new Next G phones coming out in April together with a patch lead and antenna will be required.

2.Coverage at the Treasure Island Caravan Park is provided by the South Launceston mobile base station and should be ok. The user needs to have their phone checked. Southport has good and bad coverage areas. Again, one of the later handsets that allow connection of a patch lead and small antenna will provide a significant improvement in coverage range.

The attached news article on the Abrolhos coverage is very positive.]

sum

Kerry
30-03-2007, 09:11 PM
Telstra NextG = UMTS 850 MHz = Existing CDMA frequency

Telstra 3G = UMTS 2.1GHz

NextG problem is handsets/chipsets as few other countries use this system/frequency.

External CDMA antenna could be used for a NextG phone if the coupling connection was the same.

Good to see some real facts for a change :D those engineer types can be a real worry at times, might have to drag out the enginner jokes :-X

Tony_N
31-03-2007, 06:24 AM
[QUOTE=Timber;597591] To reliably work this distance, one of the new Next G phones coming out in April together with a patch lead and antenna will be required.QUOTE]


I'd like to find out more about the NextG handsets due in April. Anybody have any details? Could somebody tell me what a patch lead is?

I'm hanging on to my Nokia CDMA handset for dear life.
Tony

chuss
31-03-2007, 06:47 PM
There is no way you'll reliably make a call from 50km out over the water.

Who is this Telstra guy? Salesman?

Call setup will take ages.

Even if it's a macrocell pumping out 10 watts, the best i've seen in a rural area (nothing obstructing the path) is 35km. This was using a Nortel boomer cell over 800mhz.





3762Hi Guys, I have a contact high up on the Telstra food chain and sent him a copy of your posts. Here is his response.

Happy for you to provide responses if you have the time.

1. Maggie Shoals are 26km north of Magnetic Island which puts them about 50km from our best base which would be Mt Stuart. To reliably work this distance, one of the new Next G phones coming out in April together with a patch lead and antenna will be required.

2.Coverage at the Treasure Island Caravan Park is provided by the South Launceston mobile base station and should be ok. The user needs to have their phone checked. Southport has good and bad coverage areas. Again, one of the later handsets that allow connection of a patch lead and small antenna will provide a significant improvement in coverage range.

The attached news article on the Abrolhos coverage is very positive.]

sum

Gilli
31-03-2007, 07:04 PM
yeah a mate has next g thing but its just like normal fones ay, u got no coverage once u go past maggie island, well u get a lil bit further coverage but only like 10k's more.

Kerry
31-03-2007, 07:11 PM
35km is nothing more than what GSM is capable of, CDMA can exceed this by quite a bit yet Next-G can't get past the outskirts of town and a very small town at that!

Kerry
31-03-2007, 07:14 PM
And enough of the excuses as what users want is something comparable (or better) to what exists now, today yet all we hear is some pathetic excuse that things will get better! Well this is not the way to do business or bring on line a new system that falls way way short of what is curently available.

luigi
31-03-2007, 09:05 PM
see post below

luigi
31-03-2007, 09:09 PM
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.":evilgrin:

Chine
31-03-2007, 09:20 PM
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
31-03-2007, 09:34 PM
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
31-03-2007, 10:45 PM
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
31-03-2007, 11:23 PM
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
05-04-2007, 08:29 PM
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????8-)

Chine

whichway
06-04-2007, 02:12 PM
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 (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
06-04-2007, 04:23 PM
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 (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
06-04-2007, 04:33 PM
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
06-04-2007, 08:24 PM
It makes me wonder whether there is actually a plan in place. :-X

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
06-04-2007, 08:29 PM
....Am I missing something?????....

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

whichway
07-04-2007, 11:08 AM
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
07-04-2007, 11:33 AM
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.